Mitch Daniels: Whatever happened to his call for a "truce" in the culture wars? - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine, and this is the type person non-thinking people want for President?
Really?
- Thread starter copdsux
- Start date
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
And the Slate is actually a blog that non-thinking people read?
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
The only "non-thinking" people that I know that want Daniels in the race are the Republican establishment A.K.A Rinos. He's already said that he isn't running so it's a non-issue.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Glad he's not running. What I know of the guy (his handling of the turnpike), I don't care for.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Daniels isn't conservative enough at all..he is closer to the Rino then a Conservative Republican..BUT...the sale of the turnpike was great from a economic standpoint for the state....they got almost $4 billion for it, they became one of the lowest debt per capita states in the country and were able to buy out most of the turnpike bonds that were outstanding and under performing...yea the employees were all that happy, but such is life...
States selling assets are on a big up tick and will continue..Ohio will probably be the next to sell their turnpike...The Dan Ryan was soll yrs ago..cities are selling their sewage and water treatment plants...taxes and assessments aren't paying for these things, when privativation comes along, its a way to get a cash return on taxpayer investments...do it..get the state, local and fed government out of things that business can run ad more often then not, do a better job....
States selling assets are on a big up tick and will continue..Ohio will probably be the next to sell their turnpike...The Dan Ryan was soll yrs ago..cities are selling their sewage and water treatment plants...taxes and assessments aren't paying for these things, when privativation comes along, its a way to get a cash return on taxpayer investments...do it..get the state, local and fed government out of things that business can run ad more often then not, do a better job....
How can a State sell roads that do not entirely belong to them? There is federal money, OUR, money in those roads. Sell them to a company from another country? Not too smart in my book.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
I can tell you that the Ohio Turnpike has been debt free and paid for for more then a few yrs...they are a totally state det free corp. The Ohio Turnpike Comission is a "Business"...all bonds from the state and fed were paid off and all improvements are now privately funded or done with new bonds that can be sold....
While my wife worked for the Ohio Turnpike commission, they held a big party when the paid the thing off...
While my wife worked for the Ohio Turnpike commission, they held a big party when the paid the thing off...
No federal funds going into it at all? They are part of the Interstate system.
No federal "matching funds"? If sold will they pay back any funds that were put into that road?
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Any Fed funds and state funds that went into the construction back when it was built and over the yrs were totally paid back..
The talk that is being put out at this point is that the money will go to the cities that it runs through....I really don't see the fed getting any of it since those fed bonds and funds have been paid back...
The talk that is being put out at this point is that the money will go to the cities that it runs through....I really don't see the fed getting any of it since those fed bonds and funds have been paid back...
As long as they have repaid every cent and take NO more fuel tax money for their share of I80/90. I still don't like having defense assets in the hands of non-US companies.
Now you're showing your age.
I wonder how many people know the original reason for the inter-state highway system?
Just wondering.
the Interstate Defense Highway system is still is needed for the "original intent" for which it was built. It is a shame so few know the history of the system. Even the very first "interstate highway" was built, in part, for defense purposes. Jefferson was in on that one. Not much new under the sun.
Not my age, my education is showing. I was FAR too young to know what was going on when Dwight D. started that project.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Excuse me but YOU made it about him with this statement........
And it's STILL a non-issue for those of us that do not live in Indiana. I see that you live in Charlotte, NC so I guess that includes you!
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Abortion isn't and can never be legal. It's only been decriminalized. Murder can never be legal.
And Daniels is a horrendous statist. He backed the REAL ID Act, to the point that Indiana became an early adopter. He initially backed a bill that would have converted county sheriffs to appointees rather than elected officials. And he has yet to condemn, AFAIK, the state supreme court's rulings contravening the fourth amendment.
In short, he sucketh. We'd be freer under Greg334 than Daniels.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
ahhhh mitch daniels isn't running fro prseident...BUT....while our Constitution was set up to leave the powers not specficlly note to the Fed gov to the STATES... Abortion should be handled on the state level not the fed.....the fed has no power to regulate it or fund it,,,the fact that they doesn't make it right , legal or constitutional...
but as was pointed out, YOU made it about daniels ability to be president...we just added to it....
but as was pointed out, YOU made it about daniels ability to be president...we just added to it....
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
However, rights are guaranteed (no, not created) by the Bill of Rights to the federal constitution, including the right that no one may be deprived of their life without due process, which a baby murdered via prenatal infanticide is denied.
Now, if your state was denying various rights--take your pick as the whim strikes you--wouldn't you want the feds to at least send a letter to your governor telling him he'd better knock that crap off?
It's a lot like a man who abuses his wife and children. Back when we were better people, it might be overlooked for a while, but it wouldn't be unheard of for the minister and a few sizeable men of the community to pay a visit to that household and send a little message that Mary had better not acquire any more black eyes or busted lips, and the same goes for little Susie and and Johnny.
That's the equivalent of what would be happening if the feds stepped in to guarantee rights that a state was denying, like, say, the right to not have one's life denied without due process. Under true federalism, anything federal is the collective authority, will, and establishment of the several states. So under true federalism, having the feds guarantee rights (like the right of blacks in Alabama to be educated in the same schools as whites) is like Alabama's neighbors paying a call to stop abuse in the home. And it's the opposite of what happened when the feds decriminalized prenatal infanticide.
Now, if your state was denying various rights--take your pick as the whim strikes you--wouldn't you want the feds to at least send a letter to your governor telling him he'd better knock that crap off?
It's a lot like a man who abuses his wife and children. Back when we were better people, it might be overlooked for a while, but it wouldn't be unheard of for the minister and a few sizeable men of the community to pay a visit to that household and send a little message that Mary had better not acquire any more black eyes or busted lips, and the same goes for little Susie and and Johnny.
That's the equivalent of what would be happening if the feds stepped in to guarantee rights that a state was denying, like, say, the right to not have one's life denied without due process. Under true federalism, anything federal is the collective authority, will, and establishment of the several states. So under true federalism, having the feds guarantee rights (like the right of blacks in Alabama to be educated in the same schools as whites) is like Alabama's neighbors paying a call to stop abuse in the home. And it's the opposite of what happened when the feds decriminalized prenatal infanticide.
"However, rights are guaranteed (no, not created) by the Bill of Rights to the federal constitution"
The Bill of Rights does not and cannot not guarantee our Rights. Only the willingness of the People to protect and defend those rights can do that. The People HAVE to do this for themselves. Those rights must be defended against all threats, including threats from our own government. That threat is one of the most likely to destroy our rights.
The Bill of Rights does not and cannot not guarantee our Rights. Only the willingness of the People to protect and defend those rights can do that. The People HAVE to do this for themselves. Those rights must be defended against all threats, including threats from our own government. That threat is one of the most likely to destroy our rights.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
No i do not want the fed gov in states rights issues at all...none not one itty bitty bit...none at all..if the state i over stepping its bounds, as Layout said, the people deal with it, ill add oon the state level...it is much easier to get rid os a state elected rep in the state then a national elected rep...
I do not want the fed in anything that is not delegted to them in the Constitution....And yes, they are involved in places they never should be...and even though thet have passed laws to allow them to over step their bounds, it doesn't make it right , legal of Constitutional....Our country is being destroyed by those the faction that Michael Savage so rightfully titled one of his books after...."The Enemy Within..."
I do not want the fed in anything that is not delegted to them in the Constitution....And yes, they are involved in places they never should be...and even though thet have passed laws to allow them to over step their bounds, it doesn't make it right , legal of Constitutional....Our country is being destroyed by those the faction that Michael Savage so rightfully titled one of his books after...."The Enemy Within..."
All threats? What about threats from other citizens? Say, if you were to say something, or were about to, and someone else, another citizen or a group of citizens, disagreed with what you had have to say or were about to say, should they be allowed to prevent you from saying it?