One conservative principle that is always misunderstood is state's rights. To me being conservative at the federal level means limiting the federal government to a few basic areas, like defense and roadbuilding, and getting them out of our individual lives. That doesn't mean that you are rejecting healthcare, welfare, etc. necessarily. It means that you accept that centralized control is not going to be representative enough of you and your community, and that these decisions need to be handled a little closer to home. The Massechusetts healthcare system is a perfect example of a state doing what the people want while the feds continue to do nothing. Maybe Wyoming doesn't want healthcare. Maybe Maryland wants all public hospitals. Whatever, as long as the state does what its citizens want it to do.

Fortunately, our constitution has traditionally supported this idea, and it has taken a lot of B.S. over the years to get people to forget this. That's why intellectual lightweights like Thompson and Guiliani are seen as conservative, while Ron Paul gets marginalized. Every state is urged to support this or that person, at the risk of losing what they value most. We have been pitted against each other and tricked into believing in a one-size-fits-all government, and in the meantime nothing actually gets done. Why do we even have this so-called national right-wing or left-wing? Most sensible people don't want to control someone 3,000 miles away, and most people don't want to invade other countries. If Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both feel the same way on federal issues and the war, why don't they work together? Who cares if they want to live in different looking communities? I am a socially liberal guy and my coworker is socially to the right of Pat Robertson, and every day we work together in harmony and laugh at each other's jokes, and it's not a problem. If he tries to take away my freedom, then it's a problem.

That's conservatism, also known as individual freedom. Individual freedom and responsibility, or at least individual state responsibility.

Bluesman Mark actually went on his little infantile rant responding to me trying to explain Ron Paul's views, it had nothing to do with Bush and/or Neocons. And noone cares that you are 'Not PC' or like to use offensive terms, the problem is that you don't pay attention to other people and what they say. That's not 'non-pc', that's just stupidity. And before you turn blue in the face again, I voted for Kerry in 2004 because I felt that defeating Bush was priority #1.

And while the 2000 election was questionably stolen, at least in Florida, how can you claim that they stole 2004? Maybe they won because people like you, instead of trying to persuade people, just spewed bile and insults in an infantile attempt to make yourself feel better. I actually try to convince people of things, what a concept! Read my original posts, I didn't call anybody names, I just stated my case. With your shitty attitude you and yours will lose, lose, lose, over and over again, always blaming others and never looking in the mirror at the true cause.

Good luck with that Bluesman!

Bluesman:

"Ok bozos, where do the states get the funds to run these now cut out federal programs? By RAISING your state taxes you freaking MORONS!!!!! Or by running up a huge deficit & brankrupting the state's treasury."

Maybe in some states, but every state would be able to have control over this and debate the pros and cons, and the dollars would be easier to see. And then you said the magic word, BANKRUPT, which goes to the heart of the federal problem, which is that we print money by creating federal debt, which you and I have to pay interest on, $460 billion last year. So the federal government doesn't have to worry about financial reality, they just push the debt onto you and your kids, grandkids, etc, and economists cheer them on due to the 'economic growth'. This is why Cheney said deficits don't matter, because he knows that on the federal level they can get away with this crap. States do have to balance their budgets eventually.

"As to privatization, well the "stellar" examples of many things that have been turned over to private business hands speaks for themselves."

I never said privatization, I said decentralization, having the states handle these things. Didn't Massechusetts recently get a decent healthcare plan? Do you really think the federal government is going to do any better anytime soon?

"Every few years your elected morons fuck things up worse than a football bat & we liberals, moderates & progressives have to clean up the huge pile of shit you leave behind."

Please, many Democrats voted for 1. increasing the debt time and again and 2.the Iraq war, so the time for that whine has come and gone. Part of the problem is that political participation is HARD, and representative government requires turning off the tv every once in a while and getting involved in the process. So neocons and liberals wait for mommy congress and daddy president to solve all of their problems and then are baffled when things go wrong. Government is run by people, people who have their own agendas, and the further away they are the less they care about you and your problems.

chris swart:

"The fed system supplies a redistribution of taxes from wealthier states to the less wealthy, and offer an efficiancy of scale not possible if we had 50 states doing things fifty different ways."

This may be true for some things like defense and interstate highways, but not everything. And if they were just moving money around, fine, but it all comes down to control. Ive worked in state government before, and every federal dollar comes with conditions that have to be met, that may or may not apply to the what's going on in a particular state.