Main diff between Europe and USA

Lowaicue said:
There seems to be an American obsession with the size of your government. The limits, I guess are just about infinite, i.e. from zero government to a government of 300 million citizens so it is unlikely that everyone will ever agree. But that is not really the point. The point is that the 'size' of the government has become a partisan matter and is used to create spurious argument for the simple sake of ridiculous point scoring.
A government should be of sufficient size to efficiently govern.
Click to expand...

There are generally three views of government. One of them believes that it should be involved in internal improvements and projects, certain programs, and so forth, but should not grow too large (sort of a Federalist-Whig approach). Another holds that it should only ever be getting bigger and more invasive (Democrats), and the modern Republican Party kind of doesn't have a real vision for government beyond platitudes. Many in the South claim it should pretty much do nothing except wage endless warfare. Mostly, you will find that many so-called proponents of "states rights" will support whatever kind of government that supports their interests and no one else's...
 
Threedee said:
There are generally three views of government. One of them believes that it should be involved in internal improvements and projects, certain programs, and so forth, but should not grow too large (sort of a Federalist-Whig approach). Another holds that it should only ever be getting bigger and more invasive (Democrats), and the modern Republican Party kind of doesn't have a real vision for government beyond platitudes. Many in the South claim it should pretty much do nothing except wage endless warfare. Mostly, you will find that many so-called proponents of "states rights" will support whatever kind of government that supports their interests and no one else's...[/QUOTE]

Hardly a model for a peaceful society!
Click to expand...
 
Lowaicue said:
Threedee said:
There are generally three views of government. One of them believes that it should be involved in internal improvements and projects, certain programs, and so forth, but should not grow too large (sort of a Federalist-Whig approach). Another holds that it should only ever be getting bigger and more invasive (Democrats), and the modern Republican Party kind of doesn't have a real vision for government beyond platitudes. Many in the South claim it should pretty much do nothing except wage endless warfare. Mostly, you will find that many so-called proponents of "states rights" will support whatever kind of government that supports their interests and no one else's...[/QUOTE]

Hardly a model for a peaceful society!
Click to expand...

Yes, that is why the South has caused so much political turmoil. They have always been hypocrites about state's rights. Its probably why I tend to advocate specific state's rights, but never call myself a state's righter...
Click to expand...
 
Threedee said:
....Many in the South claim it should pretty much do nothing except wage endless warfare. Mostly, you will find that many so-called proponents of "states rights" will support whatever kind of government that supports their interests and no one else's...
Click to expand...
I'm curious where you got these two theories.
 
Southern Man said:
So the north let's The South set their agenda for them. Is that your position?
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way. If there was a civil war between a socialist government in the North and a populist government in the South, I would fight for the Socialists because I hate you morons more than I do Socialism. I believe that sentiment to be a large part of why realignment occurred.

Also, the North receives huge numbers of immigrants that the Dems have always preyed on for votes. Far fewer people chose to immigrate to the wasteland of the South unless that are retirement age (which is retarded).
 
Southern Man said:
I'm curious where you got these two theories.
Click to expand...

Dred Scot, Fugitive Slave Laws, Bleeding Kansas and the Lecompton controversy, farm subsidies, disproportionate levels of pork and subsidies going to Southern states than Northern ones - all of these are cases of the South opposing states's rights and limited government. The Southern representatives in Philadephia also opposed equal representation in the Senate because they could muster more votes at the time, yet they quickly became a much more defensive region at the turn of the century when the demographics began to change...

Also, the South block voted for Wilson and FDR - the two strongest advocates of big government in history. All but 4 southern states voted for LBJ as well, and Carter also carried a majority of the South because he was viewed as a good ole boy.
 
Threedee said:
Let me put it this way. If there was a civil war between a socialist government in the North and a populist government in the South, I would fight for the Socialists because I hate you morons more than I do Socialism. I believe that sentiment to be a large part of why realignment occurred.

Also, the North receives huge numbers of immigrants that the Dems have always preyed on for votes. Far fewer people chose to immigrate to the wasteland of the South unless that are retirement age (which is retarded).
Click to expand...
I think your mind is fucked up due to drugs, shitty education, hate and bigotry. You just said that The South is GOP country, and we all know that Democrats are populists. And I don't think you could fight your way out of a wet paper bag.

The South has had much immigration in the past 40 years, from northern states as well as foreign lands. And not just retirees to Florida. How else do you explain the decrease in electoral votes in northern states and a corresponding increase in The South? :cof1:
 
Threedee said:
Dred Scot, Fugitive Slave Laws, Bleeding Kansas and the Lecompton controversy, farm subsidies, disproportionate levels of pork and subsidies going to Southern states than Northern ones - all of these are cases of the South opposing states's rights and limited government. The Southern representatives in Philadephia also opposed equal representation in the Senate because they could muster more votes at the time, yet they quickly became a much more defensive region at the turn of the century when the demographics began to change...

Also, the South block voted for Wilson and FDR - the two strongest advocates of big government in history. All but 4 southern states voted for LBJ as well, and Carter also carried a majority of the South because he was viewed as a good ole boy.
Click to expand...
Hello, hello in there? *knocks on 3D's hollow noggin, hears an echo* This is 2009 not 1849 or 1909.
 
Southern Man said:
I think your mind is fucked up due to drugs, shitty education, hate and bigotry. You just said that The South is GOP country, and we all know that Democrats are populists. And I don't think you could fight your way out of a wet paper bag.

The South has had much immigration in the past 40 years, from northern states as well as foreign lands. And not just retirees to Florida. How else do you explain the decrease in electoral votes in northern states and a corresponding increase in The South? :cof1:
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Every Northern state that was at 3 electoral votes has gained except for Wyoming. Idaho and Hawaii went to 4, Vermont and NH did likewise. CA is the only state that dropped, but NY picked those votes up.

Also, our education up here is better, not being the South. The Dems are a party that was founded by populists but it has obviously "evolved" into a leftist party.

FYI - simply being GOP does not make you worthwhile as a region. It simply means the GOP is less and less worthwhile as a party. It can choose to collapse if it wants and allow a new party to emerge, or it can grow a backbone...
 
Threedee said:
What do you mean? Every Northern state that was at 3 electoral votes has gained except for Wyoming. Idaho and Hawaii went to 4, Vermont and NH did likewise. CA is the only state that dropped, but NY picked those votes up.

Also, our education up here is better, not being the South. The Dems are a party that was founded by populists but it has obviously "evolved" into a leftist party.

FYI - simply being GOP does not make you worthwhile as a region. It simply means the GOP is less and less worthwhile as a party. It can choose to collapse if it wants and allow a new party to emerge, or it can grow a backbone...
Click to expand...
You must be living in a fucking closet with no door.
Between 1950 and 2000 The North’s percent of total US population has declined from 26.1% to 19.0%, and The South’s has risen from 31.2% to 35.5%.

www.census.gov/mso/www/rsf/app.ppt
 
Southern Man said:
You must be living in a fucking closet with no door.
Between 1950 and 2000 The North’s percent of total US population has declined from 26.1% to 19.0%, and The South’s has risen from 31.2% to 35.5%.

www.census.gov/mso/www/rsf/app.ppt
Click to expand...

As I suspected, the decrease is only in the Northeast. In the postwar era, the population of the West has grown astronomically and the midwest (a key portion of the old "North" also has shown increases. The South only picked up 2.5% of growth.

Also, the only states in the South that have grown largely are Florida (retirement country) and Texas (why would that be?).
 
Threedee said:
As I suspected, the decrease is only in the Northeast. In the postwar era, the population of the West has grown astronomically and the midwest (a key portion of the old "North" also has shown increases. The South only picked up 2.5% of growth.

Also, the only states in the South that have grown largely are Florida (retirement country) and Texas (why would that be?).
Click to expand...
Earlier you said the NY picked up electoral votes. Actually, they lost them and North Carolina picked up two.

You tell me your theory why TX has gained in population. Mine: respect for its taxpaying citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top