absurd world

[Guest yume]

--I just read that President Bush said there wasn't a civil war in Iraq, but they are dealing with "pure evil." LOL. Pure evil that we brought over to them Mr. Bush? Maybe we should hire Bilbo Baggins and his magical ring to end the "pure evil" over there.

--A Volvo commercial about a new security feature. A heartbeat monitor on your key fob to tell you if someone is hiding in your car waiting for you. WTF???????? Start making cars that run on air, not stupid crap no one needs.

--There is an effort by a whole host of government and non-government groups to create a "North American Union" similar to the EU, with it's own supreme court that could overrule our own. To merge the governments and resources of Canada, Mexico, and the US. It's been going on for years, and is probably one of the most important news stories of the century, but the media isn't covering it. Well except for CNN which covered it tonight. Both political parties are in favor of it, but there are about 14 states that are speaking out against it.

--Oh, and Vermont wants to succeed from the country (and support itself selling maple syrup I suppose?)

Absurd.

[Guest pod]

Hate to say it, but I'm in favor of a loose confederation of states, rather than a strong central government like we have now. Basically, the United States would exist by a virtue of a series of treaties, ensuring at least a base level of freedom, i.e. Utah couldn't ban black people from moving in, as much as they might want to. A treaty would also address issues like defense, travel, and immigration. We'd still be Americans, but the state and local governments would have much more power.

It would make life easier around here. If you didn't like the laws, a "better" state would be a few hundred miles away, or even less. Think about it, they could legalize prostitution in Florida, if that's what the people wanted, and there'd be no overriding federal law.

Or like in California where they can prescribe medical marijuana, but the Feds don't care for it. Under my system, they could do it if they wanted to, and the people who didn't approve could deal with it, or move.

[Guest bronzie]

Or like in California where they can prescribe medical marijuana, but the Feds don't care for it. Under my system, they could do it if they wanted to, and the people who didn't approve could deal with it, or move.

word.

[Guest pod]

Last time states' rights was a big question, we went to war over it. People think one of the causes of the Civil War was slavery. Well, it was, but the root of that was essentially states' rights.

[Guest yume]

I agree with you. The absurd part of my statement was that this organization towards a north american union has been going on for a while, and no one is really covering it. I guess I kind of assumed something like this might happen, but I didn't realize its well underway.

No wonder Bush isn't building a wall at the Mexico border. National guard troops are easily moved when no longer wanted. Walls are a bit harder. (Not building a wall is one thing I do commend him on, even though I love to hate the guy.)

[V. Barbarino]

Pod, you are a wacko with that kind of thinking. Economically it couldn't even work, you would have states that are high jacking the system. Check out the interstate commerce act. This was done way back in the late 1800's because they knew what would and could happen if states independently set their trade rules. You couldn't even use one form of money.

A strong central government is what makes America, America. Talk to the dam Canucks above us, they live in 3 Canada's.

[Guest pod]

I'm not suggesting a total dissolution of the US. Like I said, there's certain things, like the economy, defense, etc, that are best handled at the federal level. You're right, you can't micromanage trade, it'd be a disaster.

What I'm suggesting is that there's a lot of affairs that should be handled on the local level, that aren't anymore. Social issues shouldn't be a federal issue, they should be a local issue. People in Florida are certainly not the same as people in Illinois, or New York, or Oregon.

A lot of states, back in 1985, did not want a 21+ drinking age, but the federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if the states didn't play along. And then there's the medical marijuana issue (wait, aren't you a pot fan?), and then there's shit like prostitution, gun control, etc. All of which should be handled at a more local level to reflect what the local population wants. And it'd be that much easier for people to move if they didn't like the way things turned out, instead of whining to the Feds everytime something doesn't go their way. Why should ultra-liberal California, with it's huge influence in the House, have sway on a law that affects conservative Illinois? I know the Senate exists to check that, but it really doesn't work that way anymore.

[V. Barbarino]

Pod, lets face it, the 21+ law should be the law of the land, so they got that one right. The medical pot stuff out in California, I'm highly against, kids were smoking the shit in schools and the school could do nothing since it was for "medical" reasons. Pot shouldn't be "legal" however it should be decriminalized. As for gun laws, each state makes their own, while the Fed law trumps those, you have to be prosecuted federally to face those laws. Prostitution laws are up to the individual county it's not a federal law.

[Guest pod]

OK, didn't you drink as early as say, 15?

The drinking law is still technically up to the states. The only thing that keeps it "federal" is the highway funds issue...i.e. if you don't make it 21, Washington withholds maintenance funds on the Interstates in your state. So, Florida could make their drinking age 18, but they'd be on their own fixing I-95, I-4, etc.

Basically, what I'm objecting to is the fact that the federal government passes laws that don't apply to everyone nationwide. A person living in Miami isn't the same as a person living in Peoria. Different priorities, different values, different morals. There's too many laws on the books that take the easy way out and apply policy to the lowest common denominator.

And don't get me started on the IRS, FCC, and so forth.

[V. Barbarino]

As for the IRS, i'm for the flat tax and the FCC actually has been going after big cable the last few years with the cable card laws, so bravo to them, anything to piss off big cable is fine by me.

Comcast, cut my line last week, didn't show up twice, then credited me a full months of service then denied it and charged me a half of month...

[Guest pod]

The FCC should only be in the business of consumer protection as related to telecommunications, and also the assignment and management of the radio spectrum here in the US. What makes me pissy is when they step into content regulation.

And yes, flat tax is the way to go. What say you, Mr. Economist, would be a reasonable flat tax rate?

[Guest yume]

Why do you think drinking age should be 21?

I always heard that countries with a lower legal age had less problems.

[Guest JMT]

the legal driving age should be 18.

[V. Barbarino]

While the flat tax is not perfect, I think it's a great idea. Even Rudy has come around to it. Under Forbes system, you are taxed at 17% after a certain income level and certain conditions such as kids and a wife.

I read somewhere it costs tax payers something like 20 billion a year just to collect taxes! That's nuts! I also like Forbes idea, you can choose what system you want to use, so if the flat tax is better for you, go for it. It also puts everyone on an even playing field.

It will never happen until a more modern country tries it 1st, the countries that use it now are not huge economies.

[Guest Seb]

I'm not suggesting a total dissolution of the US. Like I said, there's certain things, like the economy, defense, etc, that are best handled at the federal level. You're right, you can't micromanage trade, it'd be a disaster.

What I'm suggesting is that there's a lot of affairs that should be handled on the local level, that aren't anymore. Social issues shouldn't be a federal issue, they should be a local issue. People in Florida are certainly not the same as people in Illinois, or New York, or Oregon.

A lot of states, back in 1985, did not want a 21+ drinking age, but the federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if the states didn't play along. And then there's the medical marijuana issue (wait, aren't you a pot fan?), and then there's shit like prostitution, gun control, etc. All of which should be handled at a more local level to reflect what the local population wants. And it'd be that much easier for people to move if they didn't like the way things turned out, instead of whining to the Feds everytime something doesn't go their way. Why should ultra-liberal California, with it's huge influence in the House, have sway on a law that affects conservative Illinois? I know the Senate exists to check that, but it really doesn't work that way anymore.

I think I agree with this, social issues seem to be regional in nature so why not appease the region. I think its a good idea to have the option to move to another state if you don't like it. Not really sure where the problem would be with this.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

I'm not suggesting a total dissolution of the US. Like I said, there's certain things, like the economy, defense, etc, that are best handled at the federal level. You're right, you can't micromanage trade, it'd be a disaster.

What I'm suggesting is that there's a lot of affairs that should be handled on the local level, that aren't anymore. Social issues shouldn't be a federal issue, they should be a local issue. People in Florida are certainly not the same as people in Illinois, or New York, or Oregon.

A lot of states, back in 1985, did not want a 21+ drinking age, but the federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if the states didn't play along. And then there's the medical marijuana issue (wait, aren't you a pot fan?), and then there's shit like prostitution, gun control, etc. All of which should be handled at a more local level to reflect what the local population wants. And it'd be that much easier for people to move if they didn't like the way things turned out, instead of whining to the Feds everytime something doesn't go their way. Why should ultra-liberal California, with it's huge influence in the House, have sway on a law that affects conservative Illinois? I know the Senate exists to check that, but it really doesn't work that way anymore.

I think I agree with this, social issues seem to be regional in nature so why not appease the region. I think its a good idea to have the option to move to another state if you don't like it. Not really sure where the problem would be with this.

Listen man... Your attempts to make Quebec it's own country failed badly!

[Guest slamminshaun]

Why should ultra-liberal California, with it's huge influence in the House, have sway on a law that affects conservative Illinois? I know the Senate exists to check that, but it really doesn't work that way anymore.

Even worse...Why should the ultra-liberal, ultra-large 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco be able to set precedence for lawyers to use in places like Illinois? All they do is legislate from the bench. It creates an unnecessary workload on the Supreme Court when they're constantly having to overturn all their stupid rulings.