Secular Nation V. Christian Nation

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

You are using extremely broad issues that generally could be applied to either Party. Why not just say:
Big Government vs. Small Government
Welfare State vs. Charity
Anything Goes vs. Maintain Order
Mandatory Taxes vs. Voluntary Taxes
Open Borders vs. Selective Entry
Military Cuts vs. Strong Defence

Oh God, here...educate yourself...

Big Government:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9307-2005Feb8.html

Blueprint Calls for Bigger, More Powerful Government
Some Conservatives Express Concern at Agenda

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 9, 2005; Page A01

President Bush's second-term agenda would expand not only the size of the federal government but also its influence over the lives of millions of Americans by imposing new national restrictions on high schools, court cases and marriages.

In a clear break from Republican campaigns of the 1990s to downsize government and devolve power to the states, Bush is fostering what amounts to an era of new federalism in which the national government shapes, not shrinks, programs and institutions to comport with various conservative ideals, according to Republicans inside and outside the White House.


Welfare State:

Although his budget director once said it is "not the federal government's role to subsidize, sometimes deeply subsidize, private interests," President Bush has proposed only piddling cuts. Under his leadership, the budget for corporate welfare has remained as high as ever - about $87 billion a year, according to the Cato Institute in Washington.


Anything Goes:

"Bush and his team have shown contempt for many of the bedrock elements of liberal democracy, including public access to information; a press that interrogates its leaders; a give-and-take between parties that represent different interests; a separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; the preference for reason over the use of force; and the support of legal safeguards to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power by the executive. They have routinely violated the bounds of acceptable political behavior in a democracy. ... [T]he anything-goes attitude comprises more than the sum total of these instances. It's a philosophy, a set of premises and prejudices, that scorns deliberation and dissent, exalts brute power, drips with disrespect for the spirit (if not the letter) of the law, stiff-arms compromise, and mocks the popular will."

"A recent editorial in the Army News said the message to American prison guards in Iraq was clear:

 

[Crispy Critter]

Returning to the topic regardless how much I would like to follow this debate, refute this!

The whole fledgling confederation went through hell when they finally decided no more taxation without representation. There was no central government to fund the war. The articles of Confederation allowed the 13 votes to declare war and make foreign loans for funding but no authority to tax or establish tariffs to repay debts and only functioned under unanimous consent. America fought a war against the homeland with a group of states with separate armies. While it was a home game for the American colonies, inasmuch as British had to supply an army from the other side of the Atlantic, Britain had 80 to 100,000 American loyalists to help them out here in the states.

My theory goes like this, after hostilities ended with England and before the constitution was ratified some real concerns arose. Among them were a secret peace agreement with GB that shorted France and Spain