I would like to inform you that just because I live in a small town, which by the way has many buildings, does not make me a hick. It is arrogant, pompous people such as yourself that have an ignorant attitude about life. I am sure that most of us in my "small hick town" have more education than you and are obviously more informed. What a loser!

How do you figure it's administered at the state level? Are you talking about the Flight Standards District Office? Those are Federal, not state.

I don't see where states have any adminstration involving the FAA. Link please?

Since you'll probably do your usual thing and wait until the last minute to respond, I'll add a couple of other thoughts as a pre-response.

In case you still haven't read that article on the 10th amendment, here is another except from that column:

“The Framers created a limited government, thus ensuring that individuals would have the opportunity to become all that their talents and persistence would allow. The left has put aside the original Constitution in favor of a "living document" that they believe allows them to do whatever they want and demand more tax dollars with which to do it. “

I can readily understand why you are ignoring this, you are either trying to fool yourself or fool the rest of use on whether you're an advocate Unlimited government for some reason.

You have already said you perfectly okay with the government having an Unlimited claim on everyone 's Time, property and labor, so it's not much of a stretch to believe that you go along with the idea of unlimited government.

As typical, your response to this question (after throwing out a few childish and petty insults) would be the regurgitation about the founding fathers and the three branches of government.

And again, that is answered by that column – which apparently your are refusing to even consider.

Would that shake up your world view too much?

I love it. fear of information (think statism). But you post an op-ed by cal thomas?

c'mon man!

Let's see, according to Cal's op-ed "...The Court's jurisprudence makes clear that the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." "

really? well so much for the FAA. To name but one of many regulatory bodies that is enacted and administered at the state level as compelled by the federal govt.

but it can't be constitutional! they dont even mention airplanes in the constitution.

and please, when you reply with "that's the best you can do?", just skip ahead to the part where you offer some reasonable alternative that deals with implementation of your ideology, not just this tired notion of what you think is or isnt constitutional.

rejeff
ask yourself the same question about Iraq and afghanistan.

and then ask yourself if anyone asked how we'd pay for it.

at least that last one's being asked here.

I'd answer yes to both.
By snarkybird

That makes no sense either way. Wars are not generational costs. WWII and Social Security started approximately same time. I think we're through paying for WWII. We're in the hole with SS.

Iraq & Afghanistan, well the argument definitely could be made that it's becoming more and more a case of "why are we there?".

sum of you are countin' dem chicken 'for there hatched......

DON'T DO THAT!!!

IT'S POLITICS!!!!!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/03/can-the-10th-amendment-save-us/
It clearly dispels the myth you keep on repeating that the Statist Democrats are going to let a little ol' thing like the “Constitution” stand in their way of Unlimited government.

Try this on for size:
“Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government excess? Can that founding document, which is supposed to restrain the power and reach of a centralized federal government, slow down the juggernaut of czars, health insurance overhaul and anything else this administration and Congress wish to do that is not in the Constitution? “


Clearly dispels the myth you keep on foisting on all of us in response to any argument that the Statist Democrats will be retained by the constitution in their plans for Unlimited government.

As to you other posting – You really expect me to trust what 'Think Statism' says.

is the dem healthcare bill really so important to you that you would risk bankrupting the country to get it?

"I truly believe that 2010 may be the last chance we have to save our Republic from the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Rangel, Waxman, Hoyer and the rest of the statist crowd."

Vote Republican? Yeah, that will slow our death down some, unless, you're suggesting someone like Ron Paul.

Has anybody ever noticed that every big city in America votes liberal and all the hick towns vote conservative? Makes you wonder when conservatives get their support from people in trailers and in towns w/o buildings.

You know what they say – you can always use More ammo – even if you can't shoot it all, it's good for barter.

Remember November 18 National Ammo Day, so get out there and do your part.

>>>>NY - the conservative candidate lost. I do think this, as many here have said, should be troubling for moderate republicans. But, where's the win for the GOP in this take? It essentially tells candidates to move further to the right, and lose. Or don't ...and lose. This is kinda what I've been saying...it does create a problem for GOP incumbents.<<<<

(1) You also made a comment about incumbents are in trouble. I agree with that, all polls show that people are hating both parties right now.

(2) I disagree with your assessment on NY-23. Many on the left are trying to paint this as a divide between mode Repubes and conservatives. This is not troubling. The GOP ran a lib (not even a RINO) in this race. Despite her dropping out at the last second, Hoffman still nearly won! That is huge. Question for you: If GOP got behind Hoffman months ago, do you actually think that Hoffman would have lost yesterday? So, this is not "telling candidates to move to the right", it is rather telling the GOP establishment to pick the right candidates to support in the first place. If they would have done that, there is no question Hoffman wins.

(3) Speaking of party divides, how come no mention of the divide in the Democrat party. You have so-called blue dogs vs. the radical left. The radical left is frothing like a rabid dog that BO hasn't delivered on the promises. If HC reform doesn't pass, they will go out of their mind. At the same time, you have blue dogs crapping their pants now, wondering what to do after seeing the election last night.

The more troubling divide is in the Dem Party. The Libs want results from Hussein, meanwhile the blue dogs are having trouble supporting the things the libs want!! I saw Carville on CNN last night say that if HC doesn't pass, the Dems will get "slaughtered". BTW, the "fair and balanced CNN" had 7 libs and 1 somewhat conservative (Carville's wife- Matlin) on their panel last night!

You have that moron from Daily Kos, Markos ItakeituptheAsses, whatever his name is, saying the reason for the election losses was because "The Democrats are moving too much to the center."!!!! He thinks Obozo is not lib enough!! That is what you're party is deaing with.

"NY - the conservative candidate lost. I do think this, as many here have said, should be troubling for moderate republicans. But, where's the win for the GOP in this take? It essentially tells candidates to move further to the right, and lose. Or don't ...and lose. This is kinda what I've been saying...it does create a problem for GOP incumbents."

The NY candidate running as a Conservative only lost by what 5%? So he came very close to winning - WITHOUT GOP help! That's the amazing part! If Dede had been a decent Repub she would have thrown her support to Hoffman, not the Dem. And if the Repub Party had been paying attention they would have snatched up Hoffman from the beginning. That is the lesson for all Republican politicians, just saying you are conservative is not going to get you the election, you have to PROVE it. Hoffman did and he nearly pulled it off. That should also scare Democrats. If the party can get it's act together and back the conservative, the Dems are toast.

"I truly believe that 2010 may be the last chance we have to save our Republic from the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Rangel, Waxman, Hoyer and the rest of the statist crowd."
That's a little alarmist don't you think? Being a Libertarian you should also realize that the Republican party is a statist party as well, they typically just grow the govt a little slower, not in such leaps and bounds and the Dems do. This union as it is now will continue to degenerate over the years because this election is no different than the ones before it. It's still the same philosophies, the same people and the same voters that probably haven't educated themselves because they've been too busy working and then vegging out in front of the TV after work.
I'm sure there are voters that have educated themself and continue to do so, but the greater majority in my opinion are probably the same old voter they were last year, and the year before, and the year before, gullible and lazy.

Thats the only thing keeping NY afloat.
Kimber (Yonkers) and Fusion (Binghampton) Arms are backlogged until the start of the 2nd quarter of 2010 You want that pretty 1911 you need to order now!

"Ace's theory is that more moochers are voting their pocketbooks for the handouts of dems. So, how did republicans running on fiscal issues win? It's crazy!"

The answer is simple; the moochers would have had to get off their lazy a$$e$ and go vote. The stakes weren't high enough this year so they ate their government cheese instead of voting.

SOME
"People are waking up to the fact that our apathy in the past towards who is in office has resulted in an abused constitution, higher taxes and a level of political corruption unseen before."

I just hope it's enough, but I'm afraid not. There are just too many American Idol worshipers out there too lazy to actually pay attention to what really matters. And then there's the media who most of these dolts believe hook, line and sinker.

"We should end up with a better republic for it."

I so hope you're right, but it took them 233 years to get us from where we started to where we are.

Our only hope is to get the federal government out of out education system. And then it will take many, many generations.

They were asked if this was about Obama, majority said no. His approval in states where GOP candidates won is still high.

What I see, based on the results from last night, is the public is still looking for change - period. Incumbents of both parties should be wary.

NJ - so glad to see corzine lose. he was a douche.

VA - so, was I the only one who has been so surprised that dems were winning there at all? I was stunned when Obama took VA last year.

NY - the conservative candidate lost. I do think this, as many here have said, should be troubling for moderate republicans. But, where's the win for the GOP in this take? It essentially tells candidates to move further to the right, and lose. Or don't ...and lose. This is kinda what I've been saying...it does create a problem for GOP incumbents.

Overall I think the right people won last night.

But, of course, that can't be right? Ace's theory is that more moochers are voting their pocketbooks for the handouts of dems. So, how did republicans running on fiscal issues win? It's crazy!

overall good night for the GOP though. if they play it right they could use this as momentum for 2010.

but it sucks for healthcare...really worried this will scare off some conservative dems from voting for it. And one thing is for sure - they may face opposition if they vote for it. But god help them if it doesn't pass. The base will skewer them.

Well, for one thing, we wouldn't have thousands and thousands of American troops sitting in the dirt right now wondering why their Commander-In-Chief is ignoring them, as they fight a war THAT HE HIMSELF DECLARED TO BE NECESSARY. But....big deal, right? Who cares?

Snarkybird is right. Last night demonstrates just how stupid Americans are. We were on the verge of having a Soviet Communist state with Obama's election, then voters ruined it. I wish Snarkybird would run for President, because they would demonstrate how Karl Marx was so close to what we need in this country. Everyone should be forced to give over thier hard earned money and freedoms so that the government can distribute them as needed. SNARKYBIRD FOR PRESIDENT

And I also got a "Rahm 2016" t-shirt!

I cannot imagine what Neal had to say after Bush's first year in office. I mean, at least NY Skyscrapers and the pentagon are doing well during Obama's first year.

Amen to that.

If we make it to 2010.

Yeah, he's pretty much been a disaster, and by design, obviously. Y'all think his agenda is just ACCIDENTALLY detrimental to America? Anyways, if he'd just gone a little slower, made it so his face is not on the TV every 5 seconds, people might not have caught on; his marxist takeover might have gone a bit smoother. And the WORST part is, all he has to do is kiss ass in Ohio and Florida next time (when does the 2012 campaign start...next Wednesday, probably) and the world is stuck with this jerk from now till Jan of 2016. By then, though, it won't matter. We'll all be carrying our new currency via wheel barrow, to stand in line and pray there's still some toilet paper left on the shelves. Nice going, all you Hussein-voting dolts. PT Barnum was right.

What's with the little one in a circle that's within Nebraska on that map?

It's been a year and I'm still very disappointed that my state of Florida still voted socialist last year.