Replies

Some things do need to be federalized. I'm in favor of adhering to the constitution. I'm against using federal matching funds to intefere in things that should be explicitly state rights. But there are things that need to be federalized that are not presently in the scope outlined for the federal government. And that does call for Constitutional amendments.

So you're for adhering to the Constitution except where you disagree with it in its present state?

And matching funds? Has this even been mentioned during the 2008 campaign?

I utterly disagree on your "need" for things to be federalized. Feel free to call for Constitutional amendments on anything you think you "need."

The fact that me & my buddy Fred think there are more effective means of achieving the same or similar political results doesn't make us bad people or not Christians.

"So you're for adhering to the Constitution except where you disagree with it in its present state?"

I'm for amending the constitution in accordance with the provision in the Constitution for amending it.

"And matching funds? Has this even been mentioned during the 2008 campaign?"

Matching funds is the primary way that the federal government excerts influence over issues that has not been delegated to them. Thus matching funds is at the heart of state rights. Has it been mentioned? Sadly not.

I utterly disagree on your "need" for things to be federalized. Feel free to call for Constitutional amendments on anything you think you "need."

Then I suppose that you dissagree with the founding fathers on the things that they already federalized?

The fact that me & my buddy Fred think there are more effective means of achieving the same or similar political results doesn't make us bad people or not Christians.

Dear Supersensitive Sideshow Bob, I didn't call you bad people or un-Christian. But a lot of conservatives, Dobson, and myself included, felt protecting marriage and abortion were key issues and Fred, a great guy, just wasn't on the same page.