What a dumb statement. You obviously hate this country. Feel free to exit to the extreme right.
The "Democratic States of America" would be the first one to immediately sink into ruin. The all-Republican and the all-Libertarian countries would last quite a bit longer.
Libertarianism isn't "extreme right". It may be briefly described as supporting "socially liberally and fiscally conservative" policies.
The "Democratic States of America" would be the first one to immediately sink into ruin. The all-Republican and the all-Libertarian countries would last quite a bit longer.
Libertarianism isn't "extreme right". It may be briefly described as supporting "socially liberally and fiscally conservative" policies.
Obviously I was commenting on your statement, not all Libertarian points of view. Are you the spokesperson now for all Libertarians? Please tell me how exactly the split up of the country would work (who gets what and why?). Also, you forgot the Independents, etc. I doubt that Libertarians make up a third of the country or even a third of the Republican Party. Splitting up the country into separate countries based on ideology is of course a mainstream point of view¡
Obviously I was commenting on your statement, not all Libertarian points of view. Are you the spokesperson now for all Libertarians? Please tell me how exactly the split up of the country would work (who gets what and why?). Also, you forgot the Independents, etc. I doubt that Libertarians make up a third of the country or even a third of the Republican Party. Splitting up the country into separate countries based on ideology is of course a mainstream point of view¡ :rolleyes:
But could you imagine the parties finally realizing what the other party bring to the table? Libs will realize they can't keep tax/spending money. Cons would realize taxes provides for roads, public transportation, etc.
But could you imagine the parties finally realizing what the other party bring to the table? Libs will realize they can't keep tax/spending money. Cons would realize taxes provides for roads, public transportation, etc.
Why could I imagine that? We already have those divisions. They may not be forced geographical divisions but they exist politically. The country would be divided into three separate countries, why would that resolve anything. The country would cease to exist. Cons, as you call them, already know that taxes go to infrastructure. If they don't then they shouldn't be in office or quite frankly they aren't qualified to paint the shit house door on a tuna boat. They never had an issue with putting tax dollars towards infrastructure. It was never an issue between parties until recently. Again, please explain the process of how you would execute the idea in that foolish statement. It's funny how the "constitutional" guy now wants governments to tell people where to live.
Why could I imagine that? We already have those divisions. They may not be forced geographical divisions but they exist politically. The country would be divided into three separate countries, why would that resolve anything. The country would cease to exist. Cons, as you call them, already know that taxes go to infrastructure. If they don't then they shouldn't be in office or quite frankly they aren't qualified to paint the shit house door on a tuna boat. They never had an issue with putting tax dollars towards infrastructure. It was never an issue between parties until recently. Again, please explain the process of how you would execute the idea in that foolish statement. It's funny how the "constitutional" guy now wants governments to tell people where to live.
Who's telling who where to live. I didn't bring this up. I was postulating a hypothetical situation.
The current situation is gridlock. They should learn to work together.
Who's telling who where to live. I didn't bring this up. I was postulating a hypothetical situation.
The current situation is gridlock. They should learn to work together.
This conversation was based on Spams comment. I thought that was what you referring to when you made your comment. What was your hypothesis? Was it the same as Spams (to split the country up into ideological zones)? Please clarify.
This conversation was based on Spams comment. I thought that was what you referring to when you made your comment. What was your hypothesis? Was it the same as Spams (to split the country up into ideological zones)? Please clarify.
It was from Spam's note but I wasn't advocating it but hypothesizing if it were to be voluntarily.
Here's the truth: The whole flag controversy was done for three reasons:
1) It happened in South Carolina, one of the only states who thinks flying a flag of a rebellion is a good idea.
2) One of the victims was a leader in the push to remove that symbol.
3) The real way to honor those victims would be to help keep guns out of the hands of Opie the Racist up there, but unfortunately, the Constitution says he can have those guns and we only get to deal with the consequences. So since fighting the gun fight would be WAY too much political capital and probably not winnable anyway, most on the left focused on that flag. And guess what? Seems like it worked.
Want to control sick farks from getting access to guns? Get a Democratic Congress in there with a Democratic President who can apply common sense control over weapons - background checks, waiting periods, closing loopholes and harsher sentences for those who use firearms irresponsibly. But America won't do that right now. Let's see in 2020 when we have a Presidential race with a hopefully democratic incumbent and the chance to redistrict ourselves out of the Republican's gerrymandered mess.
As for Apple, I was right. They pulled everything, reissued what was not offensive. They'll probably continue until everything is back.
Then it’s just stupidity. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
But goddamn. So many people dying is not the "price of freedom".
Because all the states who disarmed and then committed genocide on their citizens were so much better.
Originally Posted by spheric
That's a subject of considerable debate
Zero debate.
"well-regulated", as required by the Constitution.
A well-balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
Quiz time! Who has the right to food?
A) A well-balanced breakfast
the people
You'll just keep killing each other, and we'll look on in wonder and be amazed at how one can be tough on terrorism and call that status quo "freedom".
Okay, stupidity on your part, too. Please don’t inject yourself into topics of which you haven’t the slightest comprehension.
Originally Posted by s.metcalf
OT but why doesn't the US just split up and be done with it? You're like a bickering old unhappily married couple.
Because no one actually wants to split. We all know how beneficial the Union is when its laws are actually enforced. If the 10th amendment wasn’t being trampled upon, the Union would be on the verge of growing still. No one’s seceding. That’s infantile and solves nothing.
Tell me more about all these states that disarmed their population and then committed genocide on them.
It also gives me pause that you must honestly believe that your government would be capable of doing such a thing. You must really hate your country if you live your life constantly terrified of a government-committed genocide among your citizens.
I cannot even begin to imagine.
In the meantime, your citizens are killing almost 100,000 of their own every three years.
Tell me more about all these states that disarmed their population and then committed genocide on them.
It also gives me pause that you must honestly believe that your government would be capable of doing such a thing. You must really hate your country if you live your life constantly terrified of a government-committed genocide among your citizens.
I cannot even begin to imagine.
In the meantime, your citizens are killing almost 100,000 of their own every three years.
Latest stat is About 14000 in 2012 (4.7 per 100k). While still a lot, not 100k. And how many of those murders were killed by a legally obtained firearm?
As an occaisional visitor to the U.S. I can't help but feel banning the confederate flag is a pyrrhic victory. Serious America would grow a set, disarm the population, disarm the culture of gun-worship and tell the NRA to shut up and have a long, hard look at itself.
Latest stat is About 14000 in 2012 (4.7 per 100k). While still a lot, not 100k. And how many of those murders were killed by a legally obtained firearm?
Tell me more about all these states that disarmed their population and then committed genocide on them.
Sure thing. This is, of course, in no way exhaustive.
You were saying, marxist?
You must really hate your country if you live your life constantly terrified of a government-committed genocide among your citizens.
Whoop de frick. What’s your point? You act as though that isn’t a valid belief. We have proof of it across several countries (unrelated to guns), so why would anyone be so stupid as to think it wouldn’t happen due to guns?
I cannot even begin to imagine.
That’d be because you’ve deluded yourself into thinking modern governments are operating in their peoples’ best interests.
In the meantime, your citizens are killing almost 100,000 of their own every three years.
Whoop de frick. What’s your point? You don’t have one. You don’t even slightly have one.
You want to take my guns, come and get them. You’ll wind up with only the bullets.
Which of those states had actually disarmed their citizens?
I also love that I'm apparently "mentally disabled" for assuming that you live in real fear of your U.S. government to be capable of the atrocities of Pol Poth and Rwanda (the latter of which most certainly did not disarm their own citizens), because that is, quite literally, what you are claiming.
In addition, I eagerly await the narrowing of your listing by removal of the nations that didn't actually disarm their citizens.
I'm just hearing "Rah rah come take my guns you fuckin' Commie", and the accusation that pointing out that hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives since the second world war makes me a "marxist" is just tremendously funny-sad.
Last I checked, the German constitution (Grundgesetz) is modelled closely upon the American one, but somehow we manage to get by with a fraction of the dead citizens per 100,000 that you do.
You don't think that there might be some effective…optimization possible?
Of course you don't.
Instead, you threaten to shoot me. A risk most of the civilized world thankfully doesn't have to live with.
Comments
I'd approve if the country was split in three; one third Democrat, one third Republican, one third Libertarian.
What a dumb statement. You obviously hate this country. Feel free to exit to the extreme right.
What a dumb statement. You obviously hate this country. Feel free to exit to the extreme right.
The "Democratic States of America" would be the first one to immediately sink into ruin. The all-Republican and the all-Libertarian countries would last quite a bit longer.
Libertarianism isn't "extreme right". It may be briefly described as supporting "socially liberally and fiscally conservative" policies.
The "Democratic States of America" would be the first one to immediately sink into ruin. The all-Republican and the all-Libertarian countries would last quite a bit longer.
Libertarianism isn't "extreme right". It may be briefly described as supporting "socially liberally and fiscally conservative" policies.
Obviously I was commenting on your statement, not all Libertarian points of view. Are you the spokesperson now for all Libertarians? Please tell me how exactly the split up of the country would work (who gets what and why?). Also, you forgot the Independents, etc. I doubt that Libertarians make up a third of the country or even a third of the Republican Party. Splitting up the country into separate countries based on ideology is of course a mainstream point of view¡
But could you imagine the parties finally realizing what the other party bring to the table? Libs will realize they can't keep tax/spending money. Cons would realize taxes provides for roads, public transportation, etc.
But could you imagine the parties finally realizing what the other party bring to the table? Libs will realize they can't keep tax/spending money. Cons would realize taxes provides for roads, public transportation, etc.
Why could I imagine that? We already have those divisions. They may not be forced geographical divisions but they exist politically. The country would be divided into three separate countries, why would that resolve anything. The country would cease to exist. Cons, as you call them, already know that taxes go to infrastructure. If they don't then they shouldn't be in office or quite frankly they aren't qualified to paint the shit house door on a tuna boat. They never had an issue with putting tax dollars towards infrastructure. It was never an issue between parties until recently. Again, please explain the process of how you would execute the idea in that foolish statement. It's funny how the "constitutional" guy now wants governments to tell people where to live.
Who's telling who where to live. I didn't bring this up. I was postulating a hypothetical situation.
The current situation is gridlock. They should learn to work together.
Who's telling who where to live. I didn't bring this up. I was postulating a hypothetical situation.
The current situation is gridlock. They should learn to work together.
This conversation was based on Spams comment. I thought that was what you referring to when you made your comment. What was your hypothesis? Was it the same as Spams (to split the country up into ideological zones)? Please clarify.
It was from Spam's note but I wasn't advocating it but hypothesizing if it were to be voluntarily.
It was from Spam's note but I wasn't advocating it but hypothesizing if it were to be voluntarily.
So how do you make this experiment happen?
1) It happened in South Carolina, one of the only states who thinks flying a flag of a rebellion is a good idea.
2) One of the victims was a leader in the push to remove that symbol.
3) The real way to honor those victims would be to help keep guns out of the hands of Opie the Racist up there, but unfortunately, the Constitution says he can have those guns and we only get to deal with the consequences. So since fighting the gun fight would be WAY too much political capital and probably not winnable anyway, most on the left focused on that flag. And guess what? Seems like it worked.
Want to control sick farks from getting access to guns? Get a Democratic Congress in there with a Democratic President who can apply common sense control over weapons - background checks, waiting periods, closing loopholes and harsher sentences for those who use firearms irresponsibly. But America won't do that right now. Let's see in 2020 when we have a Presidential race with a hopefully democratic incumbent and the chance to redistrict ourselves out of the Republican's gerrymandered mess.
As for Apple, I was right. They pulled everything, reissued what was not offensive. They'll probably continue until everything is back.
I don't think it can happen.
Then it’s just stupidity. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Because all the states who disarmed and then committed genocide on their citizens were so much better.
Zero debate.
A well-balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
Quiz time! Who has the right to food?
A) A well-balanced breakfast
Okay, stupidity on your part, too. Please don’t inject yourself into topics of which you haven’t the slightest comprehension.
Because no one actually wants to split. We all know how beneficial the Union is when its laws are actually enforced. If the 10th amendment wasn’t being trampled upon, the Union would be on the verge of growing still. No one’s seceding. That’s infantile and solves nothing.
Tell me more about all these states that disarmed their population and then committed genocide on them.
It also gives me pause that you must honestly believe that your government would be capable of doing such a thing. You must really hate your country if you live your life constantly terrified of a government-committed genocide among your citizens.
I cannot even begin to imagine.
In the meantime, your citizens are killing almost 100,000 of their own every three years.
Latest stat is About 14000 in 2012 (4.7 per 100k). While still a lot, not 100k. And how many of those murders were killed by a legally obtained firearm?
As an occaisional visitor to the U.S. I can't help but feel banning the confederate flag is a pyrrhic victory. Serious America would grow a set, disarm the population, disarm the culture of gun-worship and tell the NRA to shut up and have a long, hard look at itself.
We should also keep visitor’s out..
Latest stat is About 14000 in 2012 (4.7 per 100k). While still a lot, not 100k. And how many of those murders were killed by a legally obtained firearm?
2013: 33,636
2012: 33,563
2011: 32,351
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874
That's 100,000 every three years.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
Edit: Sorry, that's including suicides. Thanks, jungmark!
That includes suicides..
You're right.
I retract that post.
So it's roughly 100,000 every ten years.
Sure thing. This is, of course, in no way exhaustive.
You were saying, marxist?
Whoop de frick. What’s your point? You act as though that isn’t a valid belief. We have proof of it across several countries (unrelated to guns), so why would anyone be so stupid as to think it wouldn’t happen due to guns?
That’d be because you’ve deluded yourself into thinking modern governments are operating in their peoples’ best interests.
Whoop de frick. What’s your point? You don’t have one. You don’t even slightly have one.
You want to take my guns, come and get them. You’ll wind up with only the bullets.
Which of those states had actually disarmed their citizens?
I also love that I'm apparently "mentally disabled" for assuming that you live in real fear of your U.S. government to be capable of the atrocities of Pol Poth and Rwanda (the latter of which most certainly did not disarm their own citizens), because that is, quite literally, what you are claiming.
In addition, I eagerly await the narrowing of your listing by removal of the nations that didn't actually disarm their citizens.
I'm just hearing "Rah rah come take my guns you fuckin' Commie", and the accusation that pointing out that hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives since the second world war makes me a "marxist" is just tremendously funny-sad.
Last I checked, the German constitution (Grundgesetz) is modelled closely upon the American one, but somehow we manage to get by with a fraction of the dead citizens per 100,000 that you do.
You don't think that there might be some effective…optimization possible?
Of course you don't.
Instead, you threaten to shoot me. A risk most of the civilized world thankfully doesn't have to live with.
America #1 **** Yeah