Seriously? You're going to make me play this game?
"most of the political decisions that affect my life to be decided on the local or state level before it becomes a federal issue. That's exactly how the US was designed, but that's not the way it is being run now"
MOST... federal... the way it is being run now.
MOST means more than 50%.
And that's complete bunk: it is not the case that 50% of the political decisions made by the federal government that affect your life are unconstitutional.
> Seriously? You're going to make me play this game?
I'm not making you do anything. If I could, I'd make you read posts more carefully (including the attribution line) before responding to them, though.
> "most of the political decisions that affect my life to be decided on the local or state level before it becomes a federal issue. That's exactly how the US was designed, but that's not the way it is being run now"
That quote is neither from my post [1] that you responded to [2] with the claim that "You imply that HUGE SWATHS of what the Federal Government are unconstitutional", nor from any other post of mine, in this thread, nor, for that matter, from anywhere else, ever. It's from someone else entirely. [3]
And it doesn't say that most things that government is doing are unconstitutional (as you claim now), or even that "HUGE SWATHS" are not (as you claimed before), it says that if the government was strictly doing only what was Constitutional, then most issues would be decided at the local or state level, and that is not what is happening now. So, even if it wasn't for the fact that it was irrelevant to the post it was offered in response to, and misattributed to the wrong person, your characterization would still be wrong.
I'm not sure on what basis you infer that thing about HUGE SWATHS from what I said.
> and that's complete bunk.
While, contrary to your claim, I didn't say (or imply) that it was true, I also don't see the evidence that it is "complete bunk". Please present it.