Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (17733)	4/28/2000 10:27:00 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

reflects a defacto change in the constitution That change happened with the conclusion of the Civil War. The whole concept of a civil war is extra-constitutional, but that change has been in place for more than half the history of this nation. diversity is healthy, monoculture isn't. I agree that the states are great test grounds for new solutions. The real role for the central government is to add some consistency to rules and regulations. A large corporation can afford to figure out 50 archane state laws, while a smaller startup cannot. There's no doubt that in some cases the central government is too influential in areas that are not a national concern but most laws and regulations do have a national component. It's not good to have "bidding wars" between states. EVERYTHING rides on winning, The real nastiness in politics began when Pat Robertson began injecting his personal preferences and hatreds into the political scene. He is primarily responsible for bringing religion into modern politics, and as you know there it little room for compromise when religion is involved. If you study the liberal agenda, it is primarily based on central influence on interstate matters (air-water polution etc) and no government involvment in private matters (morals, religion, and health issues). special interests ... 50 states ... Overnight their power evaporates HaHaHA. That's either the funniest or most nieve statement I have read in a long time. It's so much easier for special interests to bribe their way through the states one by one than it is to tug and pull on the limited number of national figures. TP

To: DMaA who wrote (17733)	4/28/2000 11:20:00 AM
From: Frank Griffin	Respond to of 769670

DMA, you are absolutely right about home rule being better. I also note that states do tend to study, copy and follow other states when the other state has a good or better idea. So, things sometimes start on a smaller scale but if good, it can be enacted by other states or cities. The centralized government is not effective. They are too far removed from problems and there is too much featherbedding and waste by the time things "trickle" down from the centralized government. Frank