today in real news:

how to deal with terrorism:


:rofl:

go Rand go.

today in tounge lashing:

today in real news:

The fact that a WWE SUPERSTAR can become President really does tell me that anything is possible if you are willing to work to achieve it.

Without commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of the current President, I can't help but be reminded of the reaction of many ultra-conservatives who felt cheated by the outcome of the 2008 election, feared that the president was going to take singlehandedly away their guns / implement a fully socialized healthcare system / etc.

And how so many of them started into the conspiracy theories about why the former president wasn't a US Citizen and so on...

And how, after eight years, there were still some who just wouldn't let it go.

And yet, despite their worst fears, gun ownership is still legal, medicine is still a semi-public / semi-private industry.

And, of course, the two halves of congress still do their best to not have rational, fact-based discussion of important legislation, the US is still at war abroad, Guantanamo is still open, marijuana is still outlawed at a federal level, and the US still has the second-highest percentage of is population behind bars. (We slipped to #2, behind The Republic of Seychelles, a tiny island off the eastern coast of Africa with a unicameral government.)

And that's what annoys me about the fact that the two-party system is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche. It creates an "us vs. them" mentality, in which "the other side" is wrong and, if elected, dangerous. It causes gridlock in congress, and leads people (both citizens and legislators) to vote along party lines, rather than needing to be troubled to comprehend whatever thing is being voted on. If everyone else on "my side" is voting "yes," then I'd better vote "yes."

I'm a huge fan of the Constitution. I don't really believe that all Americans should be automatically be allowed to vote, but I'd settle for the following compromise as the 28'th Amendment:

PEREZ FOR PREZ - 2020 :giggle:

To be fair, gun ownership was protected only because people fought passionately against restrictions against a much better funded but dumber opposition.
We still lost in a few areas.
Also, despite the fact that so many people hated Obama, there were never riots and militant neo-fascists beating people up for having a different point if view.

.

I agree with the first part of what you wrote, but the last bit is almost entirely factually incorrect.

False. Despite a record number of guns and gun ownership (not as a percentage of the population) gun homicide has dropped steadily over the last decade.
This is also in spite of the sunset of the poorly executed "assault weapons" ban of the 90s.
False.
The data is very clear and is easily found on the FBI's website.
Also, the NRA is not the massive lobbying giant it is portrayed to be.
Anti-gun organisations outspent the NRA 14:1 last year.
Bloomberg outspent them 2:1 out of his own pocket.
Yep, kinda. Violent crime dropped at almost the exact same rate as the US over the exact same time frame. Sexual assault skyrocketed almost immediately after the ban.
While mass shootings did drop off (although not entirely), mass killing kept up, also at the same rate as the US. People just simply used different means.

To paraphrase the lauded 20th century philosopher Eric Cartman, "I'm, like, seriously, here."

"We" implies that there is a "they."

And that's kinda the whole point. There needs to be an "us." Eliminating the institutionalization of bicameral politics is the first step to getting there.

I agree.
I would like there to be some middle ground, but there is not unless it gets fought for tooth and nail these days.
When it comes to a few key issues such as gun control, abortion, or free speech, modern politicians will absolutely go for all or nothing in order to appease their moronic voter base.

.

I'm dismayed that civility has been lost.

I'm also mourning the loss of the idea of protecting each other's right to say things we disagree with.

That, right there, is the biggest single truth which makes me fear that after centuries of hyperbole, we may actually be on the verge of the death of western civilization this time.

And that thought is just hella-eggplant.

Certainly on the verge, potentially, of the end of our Republic. AmerExit if you will. Not in my lifetime but potentially in the lifetime of my grandchildren.

I've often thought of the ramifications of it becoming 50 countries. Some thoughts [copied from another forum];

1. It already is 50 small countries effectively. The differences between some states is greater than the difference between some countries.

2. There’d be a million border guards.

3. Country (formerly States) would have a lot more public officials.

4. National Standards would break down.

5. Individual currencies might rely on the Euro.

6. The military would be designed for defense only and there’d no longer be global projection of power.

7. There would be more creativity.

8. States would complain that Canada and Mexico were controlling everything.

9. Federal elections would become way shorter.

10. Fewer people in prison because States couldn’t afford to keep all those people behind bars and laws would become much more liberal in most states so fewer would have to be incarcerated.

11. Large airports would shrink and small ones would get bigger.

12. Taxes would go higher but take less time to fill out.

And... People would start talking about forming a Union.

Food for thought, who would control the nuclear arsenal??

I won't bother ranting on about left/right yada yada...

you wanna know how to kill the west?

spread news.



im not saying the right is always correct, but they are demonized like crazy. Children, and adults, have no idea why they hate Republicans. Just like blacks have no idea why they vote democratic. just like every business is evil. just like america should be built for the poor.

You make a lot of interesting points. And the specific point above can actually be answered pretty easily. Reference the dissolution of the USSR.

And note how a lot of Russians do seem to be longing for the old Soviet days...

In the case of the USSR, a significant amount of US tax dollars was/is spent of securing those weapons and the fissionable material in them. And, at the end of the day, there was a "motherland" called Russia. So, those weapons not on Russian soil became the property of whatever country they were in (why the US became so involved with $$$).

In the case of the dissolution of the USA, likely there would be no "motherland" per se.

Sort of like some of our citizens wishing for "the old days" when things were better.

Sidenote, heard an interesting term used the other day by a woman describing her political views: "Social Libertarian". I hadn't heard that before. She certainly didn't fit the definition as written.

Social Libertarian