I've long been a promotor of states really experimenting and trying out all kinds of stuff in order to help identify what's best - in all areas.please give some examples
But in pondering that today, I second guess myself. I'm fearful each state, if given enough rope to do so, will possibly hang itself.
And I can make examples from both extremes here as an argument against total state freedoms.
Do we really want Alabama to "Alabama" as much as it can? I'd argue no.
It also wouldn't be good for California to be as 'California' as it can.
I'd argue Texas shouldn't Texas to the extreme, but I think it already is.
I think people forget that Federal reach acts as a sort of social and economic gravity, pulling each state back towards the middle.
.
Another thought I had is to treat counties as we do states. Maybe to avoid a future civil war between urban and rural, just have counties' rights be the ultimate law of the land. That way, if you are unhappy with your county's politics, it's easier to move to a nearby county compared to moving entire states away. Or you could drive over for services you want, but aren't available in your county.
please give some examplesWell, you can look at history. Jim Crow laws. Laws banning interracial marriage. The like. The whole reason behind the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine was that the Constitution protects the rights of individuals, and that protection should also flow down to state and local government actions, not just Federal.
Well, you can look at history. Jim Crow laws. Laws banning interracial marriage. The like. The whole reason behind the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine was that the Constitution protects the rights of individuals, and that protection should also flow down to state and local government actions, not just Federal.not sure how going to county level would do anything but creat thousands of governing juristictions making it nearly impossible to have any unity on a Federal level
Or you can look at current stuff. Saying "no more gas cars after 2035" (CA), or banning lab-grown meat for no discernible reason (FL/AL).
I'm sure OAM can give some examples too.
Here's my "radical" thought:isnt that how its done now
- Protection of individual rights should be done on the most wide possible basis, Federal if possible.
- Government powers should be devolved to state and local governments as much as possible.
Simple.
Restrain the portion of government that can hurt you as much as possible so that CA or TX or AL can't get away with something just because the voters there say it's cool. Petty tyrants exist, from the HOA level to the city council level to the state legislature level to the House of Representatives. But the bigger the population gets, the harder it is for them to exert their petty grudges/beliefs.
But the portion of government that DOES stuff should be as local as possible so that it actually responds to the unique local conditions of the people it serves based on their unique local needs. Need for government services might be very different in Cheyenne WY than in Seattle WA, so why should they be determined in DC?
isnt that how its done nowProbably with individual rights.
Probably with individual rights.The Constitution is pretty clear that unless specified otherwise power should go to the states. If this isnt being followed SCOTUS is there to correct the situation.
Gov't powers on the other hand have been on a long march to being centralized for oh, just about 235 years now :57:
The Constitution is pretty clear that unless specified otherwise power should go to the states. If this isnt being followed SCOTUS is there to correct the situation.Sure. That's a nice idea. Here's a great book explaining how that idea was eroded (by SCOTUS) over the past two centuries: https://a.co/d/0h3mriAo
Sure. That's a nice idea. Here's a great book explaining how that idea was eroded (by SCOTUS) over the past two centuries: https://a.co/d/0h3mriAoThanks for your suggestion. Im for following the Constitution and anytime Congress and or the President over steps it needs to be corrected.
Maybe it comes from living in a few different ones (and living in a couple places with borders of sorts), but the older I get, the more I find the fixation on states to be sort of silly. Most contain so much diversity that they’re only loosely a unified idea of a place.At the founding of this country folks looked at a state like it was a country which is much different then today. However the need for states is to put government to the citizen level which this country does a decent job of for the most part.
I suppose that makes me more of a federalist. That and seeing enough state party machines to get the sense they somehow manage to be more egregious crooks than the feds.
Maybe it comes from living in a few different ones (and living in a couple places with borders of sorts), but the older I get, the more I find the fixation on states to be sort of silly. Most contain so much diversity that they’re only loosely a unified idea of a place.This is where my head is at.
I've long been a promotor of states really experimenting and trying out all kinds of stuff in order to help identify what's best - in all areas.Too late.
But in pondering that today, I second guess myself. I'm fearful each state, if given enough rope to do so, will possibly hang itself.
And I can make examples from both extremes here as an argument against total state freedoms.
Do we really want Alabama to "Alabama" as much as it can? I'd argue no.
It also wouldn't be good for California to be as 'California' as it can.
I'd argue Texas shouldn't Texas to the extreme, but I think it already is.
I think people forget that Federal reach acts as a sort of social and economic gravity, pulling each state back towards the middle.
.
Another thought I had is to treat counties as we do states. Maybe to avoid a future civil war between urban and rural, just have counties' rights be the ultimate law of the land. That way, if you are unhappy with your county's politics, it's easier to move to a nearby county compared to moving entire states away. Or you could drive over for services you want, but aren't available in your county.
Maybe it comes from living in a few different ones (and living in a couple places with borders of sorts), but the older I get, the more I find the fixation on states to be sort of silly. Most contain so much diversity that they’re only loosely a unified idea of a place.Do you mean that? Federalism is all about power to the states.
I suppose that makes me more of a federalist. That and seeing enough state party machines to get the sense they somehow manage to be more egregious crooks than the feds.
This is where my head is at.This is just not doable:
Maybe we should understand that like the musket vs the machine gun, fixating on states' rights made sense when a state had 40,000 people in it. But if it has 10 million.....yeah, that's a big difference.
Obviously, on the national level, when anything is passed, it pisses off 150 million people.
Okay, so at the state level, it's pissing off millions of people.
If we simply rolled it back to fixating on counties' rights, it's pissing off fewer and fewer people. No, avoiding pissing people off isn't the most important thing, but it's and improvement from the vague to the specific. Just as state-by-state is from the vague to the specific compared to national policy.
I also see no reason for either side of the aisle to disagree with this. If you're obsessed with the tradition of fixating on state-by-state rights, that's fine. But in terms of making life easier for the minority of any population (both sides), it'd be a plus.
For AZ, its 3rd-largest county has the same population as the entire state did 100 years ago. While we all laud the constitution a good document, we also have to vary things as time passes.
When our country was formed, the biggest state was Virginia. There were no trains yet. No state had more than half a million people.
Maybe we should take a look at the 10th amendment and update it for the times of a massive country by land, by population, and by modernity.
The idea of Federalism at the county or municipal level can and absolutely does exist. Laws vary, and probably more importantly, enforcement varies. I deliberately moved out of Austin and into my suburb city in part because I vastly prefer the way laws are written and enforced outside of the city. Austin proper has become an absolute nut house, and stupid voters keep on voting in mayors and council members that only make things worse.I know the feeling.
I voted with my feet, and you can too.
I know the feeling.Yup, moving state to state is another way to do it, and is a more classic example of the topic. But you can do the same just switching counties or municipalities.
Yup, moving state to state is another way to do it, and is a more classic example of the topic. But you can do the same just switching counties or municipalities.We could have moved anywhere outside of Chicago metro and been in a red county, with few exceptions. We lived in a very conservative suburb, but we still felt the pain.
We don't need broad national laws governing our every day existence. People aren't the same, don't think the same, and were never supposed to.
We could have moved anywhere outside of Chicago metro and been in a red county, with few exceptions. We lived in a very conservative suburb, but we still felt the pain.as the Twin Cities run Minnesooota
Chicago runs Illinois and that is never going to change.
as the Twin Cities run MinnesoootaAnd as... corn, I guess... runs Iowa. :)
and fewer folks get upset over policies if they're living amongst their ownI could do that in Illinois. They have concealed carry, but they made it very hard to do.
if ya want an abortion, just move to the right place
if ya want to smoke pot legally, just move
if ya want to carry a handgun around, move to Florida
Pot is illegal everywhere in the US, on paper anyway.except in Texas you get written a ticket instead of going to prison
The idea of Federalism at the county or municipal level can and absolutely does exist. Laws vary, and probably more importantly, enforcement varies. I deliberately moved out of Austin and into my suburb city in part because I vastly prefer the way laws are written and enforced outside of the city. Austin proper has become an absolute nut house, and stupid voters keep on voting in mayors and council members that only make things worse.I think the point OAM is making is that it becomes increasingly difficult to vote with your feet when tons of power decisions that affect you occur in state legislatures and an order of magnitude MORE happen in Congress.
I voted with my feet, and you can too.
I think the point OAM is making is that it becomes increasingly difficult to vote with your feet when tons of power decisions that affect you occur in state legislatures and an order of magnitude MORE happen in Congress.I'm agreeing with this, but I'm also saying there's a solution, the same solution you've suggested-- push the laws and decisions that most affect our daily lives down to the lowest possible level of government, remove as much of that power from the national government or even state government as possible.
I could feasibly live in LA, Orange, San Diego, Riverside counties, or even a small sliver of San Bernardino, and still work in the same job I work today--especially with WFH several days a week. Traffic might suck, but I could swing it. But I can't work where I do and escape Sacramento. And even if I got my company to make me a fully remote worker where I could escape Sacramento, I still can't escape DC.
I think the point OAM is making is that it becomes increasingly difficult to vote with your feet when tons of power decisions that affect you occur in state legislatures and an order of magnitude MORE happen in Congress.Sure you can. You can move to another country. I cant think of a state law in Texas that makes me want to escape. Now California is another matter. So many weird laws exist in California that yes I would consider moving from there.
I could feasibly live in LA, Orange, San Diego, Riverside counties, or even a small sliver of San Bernardino, and still work in the same job I work today--especially with WFH several days a week. Traffic might suck, but I could swing it. But I can't work where I do and escape Sacramento. And even if I got my company to make me a fully remote worker where I could escape Sacramento, I still can't escape DC.
How do you rank the state capitals?I love Austin great food great entertainment
Not based on politics, but just as places.
How do you rank the state capitals?The Wisconsin capitol is beautiful, as is Madison.
Not based on politics, but just as places.
Sure you can. You can move to another country. I cant think of a state law in Texas that makes me want to escape. Now California is another matter. So many weird laws exist in California that yes I would consider moving from there.Sure, this is fine. But when it doesn't work because the majority of people in your community disagree with you and vote in a different manner, then you have the option to move locations and vote with your feet.
But rather then trying to hide from a state law why not change the state governing body. Its called democracy
I love Austin great food great entertainmentBut don't move here.
Sure, this is fine. But when it doesn't work because the majority of people in your community disagree with you and vote in a different manner, then you have the option to move locations and vote with your feet.Not saying I would live there. I like strong police forces. Sometimes voters will rise up when theve had enough crap hurled at them. It has happened.
I'd love to be able to "fix" Austin but the idiotic voters in that city have proven they care more about virtue-signaling by building $11 million foot bridges and $100 million bike lanes and $1 billion dollar light rail trains that NOBODY ever uses, and they don't care at all for voting for lawmakers and policies that would take care of basic infrastructure and law enforcement. After 30 years of living with that lunacy, I realized I was never going to change them but it was super-easy to move to a better community.
I think the point OAM is making is that it becomes increasingly difficult to vote with your feet when tons of power decisions that affect you occur in state legislatures and an order of magnitude MORE happen in Congress.Yep, nobody could escape DC and still live in the US.
I could feasibly live in LA, Orange, San Diego, Riverside counties, or even a small sliver of San Bernardino, and still work in the same job I work today--especially with WFH several days a week. Traffic might suck, but I could swing it. But I can't work where I do and escape Sacramento. And even if I got my company to make me a fully remote worker where I could escape Sacramento, I still can't escape DC.
We could have moved to Indiana, I guess. Lots of people are doing that, from Illinois.Hope he's on Deep Water on Travis, lakes around here are getting close to their all-time lows. We need a couple hurricanes to squat over CenTex for a week or two.
But my wife wanted warm weather all the time, and we're not allowed to move to Austin, so here we are.
One of my buddies from the Marina up North bought a house ON Lake Travis. He didn't know he wasn't allowed to move there, so he did. And he's got serious $$$$$$.
Yeah, he's deep. He's got a 34 Cobalt and some Yamahas on his lifts.Cool, gimme his name and address and I'll go keep his boat dock company... err, I mean, meet a new friend. :)
Some folks want a "Convention of the States" to change things up. It sounds a bit risky to me.not even giving women the right to vote?
I can't think of a Constitutional Amendment that would pass today the way things are.
Sure you can. You can move to another country. I cant think of a state law in Texas that makes me want to escape. Now California is another matter. So many weird laws exist in California that yes I would consider moving from there.Well moving to another country is VERY, very hard. And with the caveat of keeping my same job, I'm not sure they'd offer to make me a remote worker in some other country. And to be honest, as much as I complain about our government, it's not like there's some perfect alternative out there that I'd want to live. If I were to ever try to live in another country, it would be about the culture and beauty of the place, and I'd probably have to hold my nose for the government I'd live under (as I do currently in California lol).
But rather then trying to hide from a state law why not change the state governing body. Its called democracy
Some folks want a "Convention of the States" to change things up. It sounds a bit risky to me.Maybe not but I also can't think of a Constitutional Amendment that would need to be passed. The important stuff is already covered, and anything more should be decided at lower levels of government, as we've been discussing here.
I can't think of a Constitutional Amendment that would pass today the way things are.
Yep, nobody could escape DC and still live in the US.
You're in a different spot than we were too. You live in Orange County, a bastion of its own.
We lived in Crook County, so that hung over us in Palatine.
Palatine, Arlington Heights, Rolling Meadows and Barrington wanted to secede from Crook County to form Lincoln County. Almost every other municipality opposed, and it was shot down.
So, we could not escape Crook. And now, look at what's happened to the collar counties, which used to be strongly conservative.
(https://i.imgur.com/mH5XoOI.jpeg)
This was 2020. As you can see, we had no choice but leave Illinois. McHenry was on the verge of flipping too.
A LOT of folks want term limits on Congress, and quite a few want the Equal Rights Amendment, and to repeal the Second Amendment, or modify it considerably. Some want to modify the income tax amendment one way or the other (16). And of course folks dislike the electoral college a lot.But they're all controversial with plenty of opposition. There's good reason why they wouldn't (and likely shouldn't) be passed.
I'm not of course saying anyone here wants any of those, but they are fairly to quite popular ideas.
Sure you can. You can move to another country. I cant think of a state law in Texas that makes me want to escape. Now California is another matter. So many weird laws exist in California that yes I would consider moving from there.It's all democracy, at the national, state, and local level. I'm jut advocating for the smaller bubble of it.
But rather then trying to hide from a state law why not change the state governing body. Its called democracy
It's all democracy, at the national, state, and local level. I'm jut advocating for the smaller bubble of it.If I understand your idea is what is done at the state level would be done at the county level instead.
I could make the case that stopping at the state level is lazy. No state of any real size/population is even 60/40 on big issues.
But individual communities/towns/counties can easily be more homogenous in its ideals and values.
Why should 80% of Austin have to be outraged every time the Texas legislature comes up with another bad idea?
County level will represent a population better than state level, just as state level is better than national level.
It simply changes things from "can't do it" to "can do it one town over" for many things.
I just don't see the downside.
It's all democracy, at the national, state, and local level. I'm jut advocating for the smaller bubble of it.
I could make the case that stopping at the state level is lazy. No state of any real size/population is even 60/40 on big issues.
But individual communities/towns/counties can easily be more homogenous in its ideals and values.
Why should 80% of Austin have to be outraged every time the Texas legislature comes up with another bad idea?
County level will represent a population better than state level, just as state level is better than national level.
It simply changes things from "can't do it" to "can do it one town over" for many things.
I just don't see the downside.
If I understand your idea is what is done at the state level would be done at the county level instead.The states would retain some responsibilities, but they'd mostly be an umbrella in name. No more need to be an umbrella of policy for the 45% who disagree.
There are oner 3,000 counties in the US which by just the size of this would make it very difficult to get anything done at the state level Why do you need to do anything at the state level anymore?
Would each county have representatives in Congress? No
How would the National Guard be called out if needed at two different places at the same time. Divide it up how you would now.
How are voting districts boundries decided. The same way they are now, but without the gerrymandering
Counties already do a large part of law enforcement as well as processing various things such as property taxes.
Lulz. Terrible example. Austin voters are the absolute worst. Complete morons. The only outrage they ever experience is when somebody tries to block them from emulating the absolute idiocy embodied by the dunce voters of San Francisco or Portland or Seattle. And even then it's just faux outrage because hipster doofuses are incapable of feeling real emotion.Was just picking a blue dot from a sea of red.
Beyond that though, I agree with you. Important matters that affect the day to day lives of citizens should be pushed down to the lowest possible level of governance.
Was just picking a blue dot from a sea of red.
Do you mean that? Federalism is all about power to the states.Try original Federalists believed in a strong national government. At least that was my impression from social studies many decades ago.
and fewer folks get upset over policies if they're living amongst their ownI live amongst my own: Americans.
The Wisconsin capitol is beautiful, as is Madison.Couldn’t for the town, or just the politics?
But I could not live there.
Try original Federalists believed in a strong national government. At least that was my impression from social studies many decades ago.No. Just the opposite.
Couldn’t for the town, or just the politics?It's just way too liberal for me/us.
Federalist Party, early U.S. national political party (https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-party) that advocated a strong central government and held power from 1789 to 1801, during the rise of the country’s political party system. The term federalist was first used in 1787 to describe the supporters of the newly written Constitution, who emphasized (https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/emphasized) the federal character of the proposed union. Between October 1787 and August 1788, Alexander Hamilton (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-Hamilton-United-States-statesman), John Jay (https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Jay), and James Madison (https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Madison) wrote a series of 85 essays that appeared in various New York (https://www.britannica.com/place/New-York-state) newspapers attributed to the pseudonym “Publius.” The Federalist papers (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Federalist-papers) (formally The Federalist), as the combined essays are called, were written to combat Anti-Federalism (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anti-Federalists) and to persuade the public of the necessity of the Constitution.The Federalist papers stressed the need for an adequate central government and argued that the republican form of government easily could be adapted to the large expanse of territory and widely divergent interests found in the United States (https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States). The essays were immediately recognized as the most powerful defense of the new Constitution.There are different views here. This was all about getting the Constitution ratified. A Constitution that gave power to the states. Some states wanted even more power, but at some point, we needed a unified country - not a collection of small states.
What would we be if we were to have five countries, split up into ones like I proposed with the football conferences?Strange idea. But then again, I'm sure the idea of a democratic republic seemed quite strange to the monarchies back in the day.
The American Union, similar to the EU?
A collection of countries using the same currency and military alliance?
Okay, good.Thanks for suggesting the impossible
I'm the idea man, so I did my part. I got the ball rolling. Now ya'll go out and make it happen.
What would we be if we were to have five countries, split up into ones like I proposed with the football conferences?I think it misses some of the points that CD made... The rural/urban divide exists in these places too.
The American Union, similar to the EU?
A collection of countries using the same currency and military alliance?
There are different views here. This was all about getting the Constitution ratified. A Constitution that gave power to the states. Some states wanted even more power, but at some point, we needed a unified country - not a collection of small states.Generally the Federalists were for a stronger central government and the anti-federalists were leery of the Constitution because they predicted it would eventually create a government that tramples on the states.
I think it misses some of the points that CD made... The rural/urban divide exists in these places too.I thought the buzz lately was to join Idaho.
There has been a small contingent of people in the north of California and the south of Oregon who want a "State of Jefferson". These are rural areas where they believe their needs are neither served by Sacramento nor Salem. So they want to secede from both states and have their own.
Your proposal would do little to solve their needs. OAM's would be better, because devolving power as much as possible to the county level would make them less beholden to people in Sacramento or Salem making policy that serves the large population centers of their states and forgetting about the needs / trampling on the rights of the less populous rural counties.
I thought the buzz lately was to join Idaho.Some want to join Idaho, and some want their own state, neither of which is at all practicable or likely.
The SE tried to become its own country but was squashed.
Could it happen again?
Generally the Federalists were for a stronger central government and the anti-federalists were leery of the Constitution because they predicted it would eventually create a government that tramples on the states.It's all about interpretation, isn't it?
But it does go farther than just getting the Constitution ratified. Alexander Hamilton was the "man behind the man" for both Washington and Adams. He was a TREMENDOUSLY powerful force in both administrations and was instrumental in expanding central government powers during both. Many consider Madison to be the architect of the Constitution, but Hamilton was the structural engineer. He built the foundation for the modern American state.
While we now use the term "federalism" to refer to our hybrid state/centralized system justifying the idea of states being given great leeway in what they do, I fall on the same side as @bayareabadger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1571) -- the term "Federalist" accurately describes people who were advocating for a strong central government. And that advocacy to continually strengthen the central government persisted far beyond ratification.
What would we be if we were to have five countries, split up into ones like I proposed with the football conferences?We'd be a National that let our loudest snowflakes get the best of us.
The American Union, similar to the EU?
A collection of countries using the same currency and military alliance?
It's all about interpretation, isn't it?It's all about terms. If we want to have a productive conversation, we have to have some level of agreement on what those terms mean. It's like whether a hot dog or a taco is a "sandwich". Ultimately the technical definition of sandwich or non-sandwich could include them (or not), but you'd look at someone funny if they offered you a sandwich and then served you a taco.
We'd be a National that let our loudest snowflakes get the best of us.It was a "what if" post. I certainly don't believe in giving up on our country, but many do. Too many, IMO.
Even if we disagree, we're all in this together and we're all capable of working together. Deciding to give up on that would be a disgrace.
My grandparents had almost no contact with government, they had electricity, the probably had very low property taxes if any, they voted of course, neither grandfather served in the military, their ages were "in between". They used the Post Office and had mail delivery. They burned their trash, or fed leftover food to their hogs. There was a Co-Op they used for farming stuff.I think in the modern context, this might be a little flipped. Because ultimately government often subsidizes some of the connections folks in rural areas get to the rest of the world. Roads, mail, modern shipping, electricity. The market often wouldn't bother with such things for folks out there.
It's all about terms. If we want to have a productive conversation, we have to have some level of agreement on what those terms mean. It's like whether a hot dog or a taco is a "sandwich". Ultimately the technical definition of sandwich or non-sandwich could include them (or not), but you'd look at someone funny if they offered you a sandwich and then served you a taco.And that's fair.
I understood bayareabadger's use of the term Federalist to mean one thing. You understood it to mean a different thing. Seems CD chimed in more on the side that BAB and I are on.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we call it. It's a label. I posted to perhaps make sure that we either agreed on what that label means, or at the very least that if we don't agree, we at least know what each other means with the use of a label to facilitate communication.
It's just way too liberal for me/us.Hmmm. I suppose I've never cared too much about that. Wasn't too long ago I was prepared to live out my days in a very red county in one of the redder states around. Different strokes and priorities, I suppose.
Thankfully all of my classes were on the "engineering side".
Hmmm. I suppose I've never cared too much about that. Wasn't too long ago I was prepared to live out my days in a very red county in one of the redder states around. Different strokes and priorities, I suppose.I was an older student - I didn't get to Madison until I was 25, carrying a good job, paying taxes, and pretty set in my conservative views. You could have called me a misfit. I would be even more so now.
I could not live in a place where policies so greatly differed from my own stances.Eh. Try being a libertarian. Pretty much everywhere in this country greatly differs from my stances, in differing ways.
(https://i.imgur.com/Wwxv8WY.png)
Moving one county over allows you to maintain seeing your friends, keeping the same job, etc.Just what additional duties under your plan would a county take over thats currently being done at the state level
Moving out of state is a whole big thing.
COUNTY RIGHTS > STATES' RIGHTS
Just what additional duties under your plan would a county take over thats currently being done at the state levelLawmaking
It's not a flaw for a document to fail to be timeless.Not correct
If we could dig up the same people that created the constitution and put them in the present day, I'm sure they'd do a better job, once they got their bearings. But if you could take someone from then and drop them into today, they'd be overwhelmed and couldn't wrap their head around it.
If they redid the constitution today, I think the 2nd amendment would be worded MUCH differently. Forming a militia and being wary of your government made sense when it was musket vs musket. When a trained soldier could be matched up against an 8 year old who could shoot a squirrel between the eyes from 50 yards.
But the founding fathers would look at our country's arsenal of space lasers, floating airport cities, and hell, 1 apache helicopter and they'd focus on bearing arms for home defense REAL quick.
Imagine New Mexico being the most populace state. Imagine Manhattan, KS being the largest city. They just couldn't have forecasted the radical growth and differences of today.
Why did we stop amending the constitution in the first place? Wasn't it Jefferson who said we should take a long look at things and make changes every 20 years? We haven't had an amendment in over 240 years! What has happened is that in not making any changes to it makes people consider it a perfect document. It isn't. No document is.
When you don't make changes, it becomes stagnant and does not evolve with the times. And that's how you get people claiming their semi-automatic guns that aren't for hunting nor home defense having the constitution on their side. It's silly.
Not correctThank you, I don't know why I wrote that.
Of the 27 amendments only 12 were passed at the start of this country with the others occuring during the 19th and 20th centuries
I would never have a gun for home defense that wasnt semi automaticYes, this makes sense. Despite most intruders having no gun, the ease of a semi automatic gun would be helpful.
Yes, this makes sense. Despite most intruders having no gun, the ease of a semi automatic gun would be helpful.Ive never had to face an intruder but if I did I would want them to know very quickly that I dont fight fair and I will be packing enough fire power to make them wish they had picked another house.
I just meant gun vs gun and a somewhat-level plane.
Not an AR-15 vs a tomahawk missile.
I'm personally prepared for an intruder sans gun. My home defense system is a hammer in my right hand and a knife in my left. And if I came home and caught someone in the act, I'm coming in and locking the door behind me.
I know I'm not any kind of badass, but I'd be highly motivated for violence and thieves are cowards. And I'd probably outweigh him by 100+ lbs.
Who would be the first county to bring back tarring and feathering?I always favored public hangings for all the people to see. This country has gone down hill after they stopped that
Hot disc
Aw yes. Pride of Waldo, Ohio.
Basically, a hot dog in disc form.
(https://614now.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/1455964_1427758584120311_1455061502_n-1-768x432.jpg)
I always favored public hangings for all the people to see. This country has gone down hill after they stopped thatIt appears the last one was in 1936. So it does not appear that particular form of bloodlust had a whole heck of a lot to do with our nation‘s prosperity and general success.
It appears the last one was in 1936. So it does not appear that particular form of bloodlust had a whole heck of a lot to do with our nation‘s prosperity and general success.Que the Whisky for my Men Beer for the Horses song
Seriously, what the heck is just so wrong with the country and system we’ve already got? Objectively, we have a very good, and still very young, country.Well, I guess you could say we've done okay. But we did have a massive civil war. It took 100 years after laws were passed for minorities to even begin to get equal treatment. It took 150 years to allow women to vote.
Just because all the laws you want passed hasn’t happened doesn’t make it a bad thing. This is how the country worked for the last 200+ years, and we’ve done ok.
Have you ever considered that some of your opinions, however implausible, may just be wrong?
The only problem I have and will continue to have is that our congress and leaders seem content to spend us into oblivion. Other than that, we’re doing ok.
What's the problem with an AR-15? It's just a rifle.Ignorant "Ghost Gun" Senator makes a fool of himself on camera. (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPMw9fqi96U)
It took 150 years to allow women to vote.Do you have any idea when France enfranchised women? Or other European countries?
Ignorant "Ghost Gun" Senator makes a fool of himself on camera. (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPMw9fqi96U)Ignorance is bliss.
It appears the last one was in 1936. So it does not appear that particular form of bloodlust had a whole heck of a lot to do with our nation‘s prosperity and general success.The Associated Press college football poll started in 1936, the brainchild of former sports editor Alan J. Gould.
Well, I guess you could say we've done okay. But we did have a massive civil war. It took 100 years after laws were passed for minorities to even begin to get equal treatment. It took 150 years to allow women to vote.FFS....we evolve. The whole world evolves.
Honestly, my idea for counties' rights to replace states' rights is to better avoid the polarized continuing situation we're in. I'll lump in 24-hour news networks with social media as setting us down this course of the radical voices becoming the loudest.
Like every conservative I know says they don't watch Fox News, but a whole helluva lot of people are, so where are they??
Imagine if we had a big war tomorrow and 20 year olds had to be drafted...imagine that cross-section of humanity doing anything resembling actual combat.
I just think that keeping politics local better serves everyone, and would turn the volume down from an 8 to a 4.
And I could be wrong. Duh.
Our governmental type was an experiment. I'd guess a lot of the FFs had serious doubts it could last, they wrote as much, some of them.You know I don't read books, in general. I made an exception. It's worth it.
The FFs feared pure democracy about as much as monarchy, and maybe more. Nothing like this had ever been attempted, not even in Greece back when. And it was unique in the world at the time. The European monarchies no doubt sneered at it, and were thankful it was "over here". They reacted rather strongly when France started a kind of republic of course. The French attempt obviously failed quickly, and badly.
They are on the Fifth Republic now (and not doing all that great either).
I think we're still in the experiment phase, and it's interesting we've lasted this long, but at some point, voters know they can elect politicians who will pay them off, and that happened a while ago, hence our burgeoning national debt.
Caramelized,teriyaki glazed spam, scallion scrambled Evetta Farms eggs, asadero cheese, cilantro, hoisin, sriracha and hashbrowns rolled up crunchwrap style. $2 cheladas today
Aw yes. Pride of Waldo, Ohio.
Basically, a hot dog in disc form.
(https://i.imgur.com/Wwxv8WY.png)Love that place.
What's the problem with an AR-15? It's just a rifle.Nothing, but it's easily altered to behave like a machine gun.
Nothing, but it's easily altered to behave like a machine gun.which would be breaking the law
Nothing, but it's easily altered to behave like a machine gun.Not any more so than any other semi-auto rifle. I don't know who you are getting your information from, but you should probably ignore them going forward.
FFS....we evolve. The whole world evolves.Yes, my idea is simply an evolution. And yes, I'm nitpicking some of your points. You seem awfully combative over this.
Civil war...caused by slavery that was imported here by the Europeans. uhhh, WE were Europeans back then, lol And half the country rejected it from the get go. Actually, more than half rejected it because only a few of the original 13 had slavery. slavery was legal in all 13 colonies - the south had far more because of their reliance on agriculture America whipped slavery....160 years ago ! Racism...taking a little longer but we're getting there...much slower.
Women have had the right to vote for over 100 years. Some states were earlier. I'm not even sure most even cared about it at the time. Can you imagine how much trouble it had to be to vote for the average rural American? you're argument was that it was too much trouble to vote.....ffs
Sure, Europe has a lot of the policies and things that you'd like to do here....only after a massive war that killed tens of millions of people and reduced some areas to rubble. We must have had some really fabulous leaders at the end of WWII because instead of putting in some bullshit reparation's like WWI we helped them rebuild. kind of...but we still have a massive military base in Germany and over 50,000 troops stationed in Japan, so there's that Massively successful. And we even wrote a lot of the new formed countries constitutions.
Not any more so than any other semi-auto rifle. I don't know who you are getting your information from, but you should probably ignore them going forward.I know, but you don't find it odd that that one model of gun is so prevalent in mass shootings?
Love that place.I looked them up out of curiosity. Cheap eats!
A couple of years ago, we took some friends there on our way to Columbus. They weren't sure about eating fried bologna, but once they had it, they now want to go back. We will drive down on occasion on a Fri or Sat evening just for the hell of it.
I looked them up out of curiosity. Cheap eats!Meat play-doh is cheap.
I know, but you don't find it odd that that one model of gun is so prevalent in mass shootings?The most common gun used in mass shootings are semi-auto pistols. The number of people killed annually by rifles (of which the AR-15 is included) is usually less than those killed by hammers and fists (around 400).
Hell, for all we know, these murderers aren't big gun guys and simply seek out the AR-15 because they've heard of it. It would be stupid to demonize a gun based on name recognition alone, but if it left a potential mass shooter grasping at straws, maybe give it a try?
The most common gun used in mass shootings are semi-auto pistols. The number of people killed annually by rifles (of which the AR-15 is included) is usually less than those killed by hammers and fists (around 400).i understand that, I'm not saying the gun is ACTUALLY any worse than other guns. It makes me throw up in my mouth to use this phrase, but I'm suggesting the perception has become the reality that they are bad/worse.
The problem with the AR-15 is that it is generally black and looks scary. Other than that, it has the exact same function, action and effectiveness of other semi-auto rifles. I would know, I own a few (hunting rifles, AR-15's, AR-10's and A2-12's).
The most common gun used in mass shootings are semi-auto pistols. The number of people killed annually by rifles (of which the AR-15 is included) is usually less than those killed by hammers and fists (around 400).I just have the one. Got it from Palmetto State Armory as a kit. Was $399 when I got it three years ago.
The problem with the AR-15 is that it is generally black and looks scary. Other than that, it has the exact same function, action and effectiveness of other semi-auto rifles. I would know, I own a few (hunting rifles, AR-15's, AR-10's and A2-12's).
Meat play-doh is cheap.You've not tasted the spiced bologna of the G&R Tavern. They have is specially made with their own recipe.
i understand that, I'm not saying the gun is ACTUALLY any worse than other guns. It makes me throw up in my mouth to use this phrase, but I'm suggesting the perception has become the reality that they are bad/worse.You may want to update that plan.
And did you just sign off on my hammer+knife home defense plan? :)
I just have the one. Got it from Palmetto State Armory as a kit. Was $399 when I got it three years ago.The PSA is a very good entry level AR. Some people try to give them a bad name, but they hold up very well compared to the more expensive brands.
(https://i.imgur.com/aW9sqI8.png)
You may want to update that plan.don't bring a knife to a gunfight
The PSA is a very good entry level AR. Some people try to give them a bad name, but they hold up very well compared to the more expensive brands.It cracked me up that they sent me the entire kit, except the actual firearm, which was this little metal thing. You know what I mean. It was a $40 firearm, and I had to pay my FFL $50 to pick it up.
I saw some deals on some complete uppers and lowers the other day. I'm thinking of picking some up and doing a couple more builds.
Yeah, that is the stripped lower. We have a few gun shops here were you can pick up an Anderson stripped lower for less than the transfer fee of something ordered on line. I've seen them as low as $19, but you can generally find them in the $30-40 range.I asked the gunsmith about it, and he didn't have anything that would work with the PSA kit I bought.
I asked the gunsmith about it, and he didn't have anything that would work with the PSA kit I bought.That's odd. Generally, AR-15 lowers are universally compadable. AR-10's on the other hand, have 2 different standards and you have to watch what you are getting into. But generally speaking, almost any AR-15 lower should mount up to any upper. But I have sure there are exceptions.
He did give me a credit when I paid him to actually do the build. I think he charged me $75 to do it.
don't bring a knife to a gunfightTo be fair, if someone entered my dwelling to rob me, they'd look around for 5 seconds and leave.
You may want to update that plan.IMHO the big problem for a LOT of people when it comes to a firearm as a home defense weapon is that they don't put in the time and effort to be proficient. I can barely find the time to go to the golf range; am I going to spend hours at the shooting range to become really good with one?
Anyone here shoot someone at any point?Depends... are you a cop?
Depends... are you a cop?No. But I meant in the justified acceptable way.
No. But I meant in the justified acceptable way.I have never fired a gun in a situation where I was being threatened and hope never to do so
Castle Doctrine can provide legal immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability for individuals who defend their home, shielding them from criminal charges and lawsuits from the intruder or their family. That said, Castle Doctrine doesn’t provide blanket authorization for using deadly force in every conceivable scenario involving a perceived risk. If the threat is outside your home and doesn’t pose a reasonable threat, your actions won’t be protected by the law.Yeah, uh, I just grabbed whatever was nearby (hammer).Defendants also can’t use the Castle Doctrine to justify excessive force – their method of self-defense and the level of force utilized must be considered appropriate in the given situation. While the threat doesn’t have to be holding a deadly weapon to pose a threat, residents should be careful to defend themselves with force proportionate to the perceived threat or else risk a homicide charge.You won’t be eligible for the protections afforded by Castle Doctrine law if the force you used was not considered reasonable, such as using excessive or lethal means to defend yourself when it wasn’t necessary. However, latitude may be given based on the context of the situation and the inability of a homeowner to know exactly what level of risk they face from an intruder.Moreover, if you employed a weapon that’s outlawed in Arizona, not only will you not be covered by Castle Doctrine law, you may face legal penalties and jail times for gun misconduct (https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03102.htm).Under Castle Doctrine, killing an intruder can be classified as a justifiable homicide (https://www.alariddefense.com/criminal-defense-phoenix/violent-crimes/murder-manslaughter) (which is not prosecutable) as long someone else in your situation would also genuinely and reasonably believe they were at risk of death, suffering devastating injuries or if a more serious felony would occur if no action was taken.
Yes, my idea is simply an evolution. And yes, I'm nitpicking some of your points. You seem awfully combative over this.Did not know slavery was allowed in places like NY etc. Even better, the people voluntarily gave it up. They got rid of it on their own, no war needed.
Aim small, miss small. No matter how badly a county is governed in my idea, it only adversely affects that county and not an entire state. So there's another plus. :)
Anyone here shoot someone at any point?Yes.
Anyone here shoot someone at any point?No and I hope never to have to.
Why are you trying to differentiate between European and American slave owners? What a bizarre point to attempt.He's merely noting where we "inherited" the tradition of slavery. When Georgia was founded, slavery was forbidden. That didn't last very long. The original settlers had pretty lofty ideals that were submerged to economics. Slavery of course had been common throughout history around the world.
Why are you trying to differentiate between European and American slave owners? What a bizarre point to attempt.As somebody pointed out, we (USA) did not invent slavery. We inherited it. And some chose to get rid of it willingly. You used slavery and women's voting rights as a reason to go with some alternate government structure.
You seem awfully combative over this.Not really. I am just always curious as to why some people think the system we have is so bad. I mean, really, is it really that bad here? Turn off the TV, ignore the CNN/Fox News bullshit, think about all the good things in your life. I think we have it really good.
Not really. I am just always curious as to why some people think the system we have is so bad. I mean, really, is it really that bad here? Turn off the TV, ignore the CNN/Fox News bullshit, think about all the good things in your life. I think we have it really good.Our system is the worst. You know, except for all the others :57:
Our system is the worst. You know, except for all the others :57:Our system is generally controlled by the big cities on the coasts, which have the population. And such cities like Chicago.
As somebody pointed out, we (USA) did not invent slavery. We inherited it. And some chose to get rid of it willingly. You used slavery and women's voting rights as a reason to go with some alternate government structure. NO I didn't, I used those as non-examples of your suggestion that our system has worked out well.1/4 to 1/3 of households had slaves in the north, leading up to the Civil War. Does inheriting slavery and continuing to do it a feather in someone's cap? I'm still mystified by this.
If you bring up things that happened over a century ago, why is it bizarre that I also make a point about things that happened well in the past?
I try, but fail at making my point clear. So I'll try to cut to the chase.
The current government system we have killed slavery over 150 years ago. We did not start it, we inherited it.
So, did it not work? And how would your system work better?
There would still be areas/counties that had slavery perhaps 20-30 years after 1865. Sources are scarce, but as far as I can tell the slavery system of the 1800's existed well up into the 20th century in some places.
Slavery is a confusing topic.Do you ever wonder WHY Africans sold their brethren? Or is that too deep?
Slaves were offered up to Europeans by their own people.
Should the Europeans have bought? Of course, we now say no. At the time the slaves were looked upon as not quite human, but capable of manual labor that wealthier Europeans didn't want to do. So, they bought.
I always come back to the fact that slaves were offered and sold by their own, and it became a business from which a few privileged Africans became very wealthy.
Not too many people think about this stuff. I do think about it because today "I'm" being blamed.
I point my finger to Africa and say "Look over there for reparations. They are the ones who sold your distant ancestors."
Not really. I am just always curious as to why some people think the system we have is so bad. I mean, really, is it really that bad here? Turn off the TV, ignore the CNN/Fox News bullshit, think about all the good things in your life. I think we have it really good.I don't think our system is "so bad." I'm just sharing an idea that would ostracize and/or anger fewer people. Just because something can be improved doesn't mean it's BAD.
I was riding with a friend of mine from Nicaragua, we drove past the voting/polling place. He turned to me and said, in broken English, "In Nicaragua, we no vote".
Do you ever wonder WHY Africans sold their brethren? Or is that too deep?Well, to start with, they usually were not their "brethern". And of course it was a traditional practice among nearly all human cultures for thousands of years.
1/4 to 1/3 of households had slaves in the north, leading up to the Civil War.From where did you get this statistic?
Well, to start with, they usually were not their "brethern". And of course it was a traditional practice among nearly all human cultures for thousands of years.I was thinking it had to do with people with guns vs people without guns.
One day, when all our people were gone out to their works as usual, and only I and my dear sister were left to mind the house, two men and a woman got over our walls and in a moment seized us both, and, without giving us time to cry out, or make resistance, they stopped our mouths, and ran off with us into the nearest wood. Here they tied our hands, and continued to carry us as far as they could, till night came on, when we reached a small house where the robbers halted for refreshment, and spent the night. We were then unbound, but were unable to take any food; and, being quite overpowered by fatigue and grief, our only relief was some sleep.It sometimes took several months to transport captives to the coast, and they often were sold and resold to several new owners along the way. Once they reached the coast, some captives were taken to slave forts or compounds, where they waited for a slave vessel to arrive. Many of these fortresses still stand on the coasts of Africa, at places like Ilmina and Goree Island, as ruined monuments to the cruel economy of years past.
If you buy humans instead of stealing/slaughtering them all, you sleep better at night.The entire practice was horrible, end to end. I just thought you might appreciate having your misapprehensions corrected, I see that apparently is incorrect, you prefer ignorance. I'm not surprised.
If you buy humans instead of stealing/slaughtering them all, you sleep better at night?
If you care to read the links I posted, you MIGHT come to understand the dynamics involved. Or not. It might get too complicated. Or boring.Direct quote from your link:
And I sleep pretty well at night, in the main.
native Americans kept slaves sometimes instead of murdering other tribesHell, you could leave race out of it. The trans-Atlantic slave trade to the new world/colonies was so sinful because of the sheer volume of it.
this wasn't just some story of evil white men from Europe that had guns
taking 12 slaves is OK???You should work at Fox News.
WTF?
Direct quote from your link:This is pretty obvious. But Africans still had slavery, just on a much smaller scale.
It is also fair to say that had there been no European demand for African slave labor in the New World, there would not have been any market for an African labor supply.
volume is sinful?In lieu of race, volume can dictate the level of badnessocity.
or just bigger number, bigger sin?
So if the Africans who sold slaves to Europeans/Amercians told "us" no and kept them all, we would have left with empty ships?This is the crux vs the "Africans are to blame for new world slavery" crowd.
Mkay.
There is a reason slave TRADE was outlawed in Europe and the US well before the US Civil War (1808 in the US). It became widely viewed as barbaric.Yes, the outcome of the Civil War was a good thing. Duh.
So, in the US, slavery was often viewed as "OK", but the Atlantic slave trade was not.
And had there been no Civil War, slavery would have persisted in the US for decades, I think, perhaps even to 1900.
moral of the story..... historyI'm sending Fox News your resume.
is slavery can't be blamed on any particular group, or race, or nation
I'm sending Fox News your resume.I have my retirement job, but if they wave enuff money......
As has been said previously, numerous times, a college football show by any 3 posters here would be pure entertainment, as it would devolve into the muck rather quickly. But I think we'd all be friendly by the end of each episode.I feel like we're friends even here.
Do you ever wonder WHY Africans sold their brethren? Or is that too deep?Probably because they were not their "brethren". They were captured prisoners from other tribes, as I understand it.
Probably because they were not their "brethren". They were captured prisoners from other tribes, as I understand it.Already addressed this. Poeple with guns vs people without guns.
Imagine that each African tribe was its own "county", acting mostly independently, with no over-arching national sense of unity. Then it'll make sense :57:
I have my retirement job, but if they wave enuff money......Like momma always told me, "Boy, you got a face for radio and a voice for print."
I do have a face for radio
thanks in advance
Already addressed this. Poeple with guns vs people without guns.You think the Africans who were the ones capturing prisoners and then selling them as slaves didn't have guns?
You think the Africans who were the ones capturing prisoners and then selling them as slaves didn't have guns?He's hung up on this, badly, as is shown on previous pages. I've seen ignorance, it's fine, but this level of arrogant stupidity and intransigence is remarkable, to me.
Probably because they were not their "brethren". They were captured prisoners from other tribes, as I understand it.My county would do well in the gun department. Probably even better if any of us could actually see well.
Imagine that each African tribe was its own "county", acting mostly independently, with no over-arching national sense of unity. Then it'll make sense :57:
heck, I'd sit down for a meal with all y'allBeen a while. 2015??
I've bought Wingnut and the Vine Street Bomber a few beverages in the past and would do it again.
They're both much more left leaning than I.
Vine Street Bomber is even a retired school teacher
Been a while. 2015??you would remember better than I
You think the Africans who were the ones capturing prisoners and then selling them as slaves didn't have guns?Wow, you guys are literalists, aren't ya?
Wow, you guys are literalists, aren't ya?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Passage
Let's see, these 400 guys on a ship all have guns and they're docking at a port with just say 400 people ashore, with the 20 guys with guns herding the 380 that are chained up.
You're right. Technically both sides had guns. You got me there.
FFS, people. I'm done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_PassageIndeed, in some cases they were mortal enemies and were happy to rid the land of those that would otherwise hunt and kill their own. Not sure why OAM is attempting to rewrite some well-established and understood history, here.
According to wiki, slave trade ships typically had about 30 crew. What are they going to do, leave 10 to protect the boat (their livelihood) and send the other 20 to just start raiding the African coast and rounding up hundreds of slaves themselves? No matter how many guns they have, that's not going to be a thing. Maybe at the nation-state level they could invade Africa and start capturing slaves, but the actual traders didn't have the manpower or firepower to do anything like that. They HAD to rely on the native Africans to supply the product.
(Again none of this is excusing any of it, nor is it "blaming" Africans for slavery--just pointing out that there were multiple parties involved. And also highlighting, per YOUR question, the fact that Africans sold other Africans into slavery because they weren't "brethren"--they had no allegiance or commonality of purpose to those they captured.)
Getting rid of gerrymandering is the quickest way to end all the horseshit partisanship we witness in DC every day but even that very doable step is a step too far to any number of entrenched interests on both sides.I don't think it's really doable, or even clearly definable. You have to rely on some court to define it and some commission to lay out the districts in the first place, at best.
Getting rid of gerrymandering is the quickest way to end all the horseshit partisanship we witness in DC every day but even that very doable step is a step too far to any number of entrenched interests on both sides.I mean, I’m not totally sure how one would do that. Other than some kind of random generator. Any map in theory advantages someone, unless you make it more general, which turns power over to parties, which people somewhat often don’t like (but not always, I suppose).
I don't think it's really doable, or even clearly definable. You have to rely on some court to define it and some commission to lay out the districts in the first place, at best.I guess we should just give up on honesty and objectivity then.
And it would have zero impact on the Senate or Presidency.
I once saw someone claim Trump only won because of gerrymandering in 2016.
I mean, I’m not totally sure how one would do that. Other than some kind of random generator. Any map in theory advantages someone, unless you make it more general, which turns power over to parties, which people somewhat often don’t like (but not always, I suppose).I agree that some advantage for someone would be inevitable but that is a completely different animal than the current system of politicians choosing their own constituencies. The current system gives is AOC and Marjorie Taylor Greene, batshit crazy writ large.
I agree that some advantage for someone would be inevitable but that is a completely different animal than the current system of politicians choosing their own constituencies. The current system gives is AOC and Marjorie Taylor Greene, batshit crazy writ large.I don’t think either of those people is helped that much by gerrymandering? They’re just candidates from really red or blue areas.
I don’t think either of those people is helped that much by gerrymandering? They’re just candidates from really red or blue areas.It is unlikely that MTG's district is anywhere near that red without gerrymandering.
The question is how you do it...What's the problem?
It is unlikely that MTG's district is anywhere near that red without gerrymandering.(https://i.imgur.com/5zYPnBf.png)
Florida isn't bad at all. Pretty square boxes in general. 20 is f'd up though. Not sure what's up with the one.You mean the little extra tentacles off 20?
I'm in the 19th (barely) and we have a black congressman. I really like him too.
He stretches from us all the way down to Naples.
(https://i.imgur.com/HBrr1cr.png)
You mean the little extra tentacles off 20?Yeah. That's a weird one to me.
It is unlikely that MTG's district is anywhere near that red without gerrymandering.
Atlanta Trump billboards mock New York felony (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/video/1476682)
There are five of them, paid for by the DNC for some reason.
The billboards will be installed along parts of I-85 near Plasters Avenue, along I-85 near Buford Highway and along I-75 near Lakewood Freeway —where Trump is likely to see them on his way from the airport to the city.
hopefully, the billboard sign company gets paidSure, I guess they're just doing their part to stimulate the economy.
Caramelized,teriyaki glazed spam, scallion scrambled Evetta Farms eggs, asadero cheese, cilantro, hoisin, sriracha and hashbrowns rolled up crunchwrap style. $2 cheladas todayanother one from Block 16........
[img width=500 height=311.992]https://i.imgur.com/G0H6GrY.jpeg[/img]
I'm guessin Guy Fieri could give it a thorough review after using the hunchThat caramelized pineapple mayo is on point!
That caramelized pineapple mayo is on point!I'm sure it tastes good. Like candy and fat.
I can't even envision what that would taste like.
In the south end of the Appalacian Mountains, south of Tennessee?It's NW Georgia. Surrounded by other red districts.
(https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Subregions_2009_Map-1200x1218.png)
Yeah. That's a weird one to me.I wonder if that's to make a more concentrated blue district? Grab some blue enclaves and clump them with a minority-heavy area SE of Lake Okeechobee.
I wonder if that's to make a more concentrated blue district? Grab some blue enclaves and clump them with a minority-heavy area SE of Lake Okeechobee.This is usually the incentive to draw weird districts, put all of one party in one+ district making the rest for the other party. Georgia's districts LOOK pretty normal, to me.
This is usually the incentive to draw weird districts, put all of one party in one+ district making the rest for the other party. Georgia's districts LOOK pretty normal, to me.I believe it's an earnest effort at fairness.
It's kinda funny to see several metro Atlanta counties classified as Appalachia. They did exclude Fulton, Cobb, and Dekalb, but then included Gwinett, which will soon be the largest population county in the state with over a million residents. I'd guess this map is old and never was updated, if it means anything.
It's NW Georgia. Surrounded by other red districts.The hills in SE Ohio we use to hunt back in the day (well,actually excersizing,observing wildlife and enjoying the great outdoors). We knew them as Appalachia they were part of the Allegheny Mountain Plateau,that were a shoot off or subdivision of Appalachians. All the same mountain range just called different things depending where you are. Kind of like a bowl of Chili
I wouldn't be surprised if Georgia does some hijinks, but I don't think it's there. SC does have some interesting stuff with it's one blue district. They flipped Charleston into it after that coastal district flipped for one cycle.
It's based on number of teeth per mouth.Go tell them that - then run,oh that's right you're over weight. Sooo go tell them that
Are the Smokey's considered Appalachian?If you refer to he Great Smoky Mountain National Park, then yes.
I've never been there. Why do you hate it? Because of Dollywood?
I loathe Pigeon Forge.
I've never been there. Why do you hate it? Because of Dollywood?Nothing but a tourist trap. If you like riding go carts, it is the place to be.
I've never been there. Why do you hate it? Because of Dollywood?Never been to Dollywood. Pigeon Forge is a traffic mess of tourist traps and cheap attractions. I remember it as it was ca. 1960 when we would pass through there, it was beautiful then, a total mess now, think Myrtle Beach but worse.
Nothing but a tourist trap. If you like riding go carts, it is the place to be.I assure you, coming from SE Texas, the heat ain’t shit. lol.
However, the Gallinburg Country Club golf course (which is actually in Pigeon Forge) is a pretty fun layout, if you can stand the heat.
I assure you, coming from SE Texas, the heat ain’t shit. lol.I spent a summer in San Antonio putting hot tar roofs on aircraft hangers at Randolf AFB in 1982. I know what heat is. ;)