What the berkeley happened to this country

Yeah, Bill, that's what I'm talking about. I'd say that letting it go regional (state control), so that people in the north, like what we would call "blue states" could murder their children all they want, if that's what they like to do, would be a compromise. It still isn't right, and as Americans, the children have a right to live, but if the local state feels it necessary to promote their death and call them, say, Americans second and New Jerseyians first and thus subject to being killed, well, the state has the power to destroy. However, if people in what we would call "red states" didn't want their children murdered, they they should be able to pass laws outlawing the murder of their children and other states and or the federal government has no business sticking their noses in that state's business. I still say it is wrong for people in "blue states" to murder their children, but we encourage the murder of foreign children now, along with a lot of foreign adults, so where to draw the line on that?

Dr. Hess wrote: I still say it is wrong for people in "blue states" to murder their children, but we encourage the murder of foreign children now, along with a lot of foreign adults, so where to draw the line on that?

QFT.

What? Who got murdered?

I have a feeling somebody has taken a argument to an illogical extreme.

Otto_Maddox wrote: What? Who got murdered? I have a feeling somebody has taken a argument to an illogical extreme.

Otto_Maddox wrote: What? Who got murdered? I have a feeling somebody has taken a argument to an illogical extreme.

Trust your feelings.

ReverendDexter wrote: Trust your feelings.

That's just "liberal-talk" right there, I tell ya.

HiTempguy wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: rebuilding of America, with us pulling back to our own borders, telling the world to figger it out for themselves, rebuilding our country while the rest of the planet melts down without our giving them everything, then the US comes and helps the rest of the world rebuild. It's possible.

Didn't something similar to this happen, like, 50 years ago...?

Yup. Sure did. Actually, it was more like 80 years ago, right before WWII; the general line of thought here in the US was 'leave Europe and Asia's problems to them'. It was only when we quit selling oil to the Japanese (look it up, anyone who doubts that one) that things started to come apart at the seams, leading to Pearl Harbor and WWII.

I agree with Hess on this one. I think we need to tell the rest of the world to figure it out for themselves, since obviously they don't like our meddlin'. But man do they like our foreign aid and etc.

Oh, and 'worst thread EVAR' would belong to either 1) the big SUV shootout starring 'worksgarage' or 2) the 'quit using the term 'tards' thread, both on the old board but available in the archives. If you wanna throw up, that is.

I think a lot of libertarians think that Roe V Wade was badly decided law (even if they approve of the outcome)...

There is an interesting case made by anti-abortion libertarians (the minority) : http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell30.html

Jensenman wrote: I agree with Hess on this one. I think we need to tell the rest of the world to figure it out for themselves, since obviously they don't like our meddlin'. But man do they like our foreign aid and etc.

I am right there on that one too - but that foreign aid money is buying us something or it wouldn't be there. We just aren't that benevolent as a country. We don't help everybody... just those who have something we want. We have to break free of our need for whatever that is before we can leave them to their own.

I don't think there should be zero foreign aid, because sometimes money applied does serve our interests, but it definetly would go a long way if it was more transparent a process. Which agency spends what money where, and how, etc... all of that gets obfuscated quickly

It torques me the way there are some ungrateful bastards out there who complain because they say we haven't given enough. I forget exactly who it was, but there was some goober complaining about the lack of US aid after the tsunami a few years ago. The part that chapped my ass? Not even 48 hours had passed.

Israel (whose right to exist I support BTW) gets the lion's share of US aid on a per capita basis. What do we get back? Not a lot. (Me, I see a few fuel filters in the parts stores and of course there's the Uzi.) But the entire Mideast wants to point fingers because of that. I say cut 'em all off. Not another damn dime.

Then we will see just how bad they really DON'T need us.

Jensenman wrote: It torques me the way there are some ungrateful bastards out there who complain because they say we haven't given enough. I forget exactly who it was, but there was some goober complaining about the lack of US aid after the tsunami a few years ago. The part that chapped my ass? Not even 48 hours had passed. Israel (whose right to exist I support BTW) gets the lion's share of US aid on a per capita basis. What do we get back? Not a lot. (Me, I see a few fuel filters in the parts stores and of course there's the Uzi.) But the entire Mideast wants to point fingers because of that. I say cut 'em all off. Not another damn dime. Then we will see just how bad they really DON'T need us.

Well I have heard that they give us a lot of intelligence in the Middle east and that is the main reason that we keep funding them. That and some rich donors to political parties want us to. Not saying those are good reasons.

Dr. Hess wrote: Yeah, Bill, that's what I'm talking about. I'd say that letting it go regional (state control), so that people in the north, like what we would call "blue states" could murder their children all they want, if that's what they like to do, would be a compromise. It still isn't right, and as Americans, the children have a right to live, but if the local state feels it necessary to promote their death and call them, say, Americans second and New Jerseyians first and thus subject to being killed, well, the state has the power to destroy. However, if people in what we would call "red states" didn't want their children murdered, they they should be able to pass laws outlawing the murder of their children and other states and or the federal government has no business sticking their noses in that state's business. I still say it is wrong for people in "blue states" to murder their children, but we encourage the murder of foreign children now, along with a lot of foreign adults, so where to draw the line on that?

All that would do is people would drive to the "blue states" and get abortions. Anyway this is whole point of the OP, that we get wound up in issues like this and forget about issues that could destroy the US. Because lets be honest Roe v Wade has been standing for how long now. That isn't likely to change.

Because lets be honest Roe v Wade has been standing for how long now. That isn't likely to change.

For nearly 70 years formal legal precedent held that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to individuals...

In 1938 that finding was a convenient way to make the 1934 National Firearm Act constitutional (which basically banned fully automatic weapons, short barrel shotguns, silencers, grenades, etc), an early example of judicial activism on the bench. A good outcome, but done incorrectly. This flawed finding was not overturned until 2008, but it was eventually fixed (and auto weapons remain illegal).

Roe v Wade is simiarly based in bad law, but was a convenient way to get the result desired. And most people probably agree with was a good outcome. But because of the flawed legal approach, I suspect it will be overturned at some point and the question returned to the states.

wcelliot wrote:

Because lets be honest Roe v Wade has been standing for how long now. That isn't likely to change.

For nearly 70 years formal legal precedent held that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to individuals... In 1938 that finding was a convenient way to make the 1934 National Firearm Act constitutional (which basically banned fully automatic weapons, short barrel shotguns, silencers, grenades, etc), an early example of judicial activism on the bench. A good outcome, but done incorrectly. This flawed finding was not overturned until 2008, but it was eventually fixed (and auto weapons remain illegal). Roe v Wade is simiarly based in bad law, but was a convenient way to get the result desired. And most people probably agree with was a good outcome. But because of the flawed legal approach, I suspect it will be overturned at some point and the question returned to the states.

But considering all the other problems we face is it really a productive argument to have. Basically it is an issue most people have really strong opinions on and that there is really no chance of compromise on. If the country is completely divided like it is now, I don't see any chance of any of the pressing issues we face ever getting solved and this country will just continue on a downward spiral.

No, I don't... and a lot of other folks don't either. I think that's why you see economic issues front and center and social issues like this not being of much importance right now.

Just a a couple of years ago, a lot of the GOP base would never consider voting for a pro-abortion candidate... I'm not even hearing it discussed as an issue right now.

96DXCivic wrote: But considering all the other problems we face is it really a productive argument to have. Basically it is an issue most people have really strong opinions on and that there is really no chance of compromise on. If the country is completely divided like it is now, I don't see any chance of any of the pressing issues we face ever getting solved and this country will just continue on a downward spiral.

Here's the answer:

Now everyone will be happy except I'll have to move out of Florida. In Jesusland there are no abortions, they shoot illegals coming over the border on sight, and if you get sick but don't have cash or a great private insurance policy the doctor says berkeley you. Meanwhile the rest of us move North and hope the crazy berkeleys down south don't decide to bomb us for not going to church on Sundays.

Seems we tried this a century and half ago... for some reason the "civilized" types didn't want the "crazy berkeleys" down south to leave like they wanted to....

The flaw in the analogy is that people down south don't want you to be screwed when you need health care, they help with that anyway. What they don't want is to not have it for anyone, which is on the horizon, unless you can pay in cash.

My wife has been in the medical field for 20 plus years, and is currently in a group of doctors of about 30. Many of them have already started charging their patients a fee for remaining their doctor, upwards to about a thousand a year per person, and kicking to the road patients that can't pay. Those people are not all going to be able to find another doctor, especially if they are on medicare. Most doctors can't survive on medicare patients it pays so little. In her office they have to average $95 per patient just to break even, medicare pays about $25 on average.

When Obamacare drives out the insurance companies, which is coming if the current law is not repealed, you will only be able to get a new government supplied health insurance similar to medicare. When that happens, and trust me doctors are already talking about it, cash for care businesses are going to flourish, and getting care with your "new" insurance is going to be long and substandard at best. Only people with lots of money are going to get quality care. If you think these things are happening behind the scenes, you need to rethink your position. Most doctors now are already having patients sign a form stating they will now pay above what insurance companies will for services, meaning you are going to have to pick up the slack out of your pocket. They know what is coming and none of it is good. In the end, we are ones that are going to pay for it.

To the original question, one of the biggest issues we have today is personal responsibility, selfishness and laziness. We want everything, don't want to work to get it, and blame everyone else when something happens. And we are so offended at everything that nothing gets done.

To put this in a GRM related analogy...it's like we buy a project car, sit on our fat butts drinking beer, and get pissed off when it doesn't get done. We start an activist committee to get the government to supply us with funding and workers, and when someone calls it a piece of crap, we get so offended that we sue them and demand a public apology.

In the end, the government declares that it is unfair that you have such a piece of crap and other people have nicer cars, so they tax the others until all they can afford is a piece of crap just like yours, and you are awarded several million dollars because you were so hurt from the comments of others. Of course by this time, inflation has devalued your money, and taxes have gone up to the point that all you can still afford is the same piece of crap.

So in the end your beer costs so much more you can barely afford it, you still have the same unfinished project, and you couldn't find a doctor to treat you when cut yourself on a piece of scrap metal while walking around your garage since your new medical insurance is like confederate money.

Clearly the correct answer to this question would have been to buy a Miata in the first place and you could have been driving it instead of sitting around drinking beer in your garage!

mblommel wrote:

96DXCivic wrote: But considering all the other problems we face is it really a productive argument to have. Basically it is an issue most people have really strong opinions on and that there is really no chance of compromise on. If the country is completely divided like it is now, I don't see any chance of any of the pressing issues we face ever getting solved and this country will just continue on a downward spiral.

Here's the answer: Now everyone will be happy except I'll have to move out of Florida. In Jesusland there are no abortions, they shoot illegals coming over the border on sight, and if you get sick but don't have cash or a great private insurance policy the doctor says berkeley you. Meanwhile the rest of us move North and hope the crazy berkeleys down south don't decide to bomb us for not going to church on Sundays.

Same idea, except a slightly better layout. People of Faith will understand this as a test. They mostly worship indoors anyway.

The USoBW map is fail. There's no way that San Francisco would ever concede to being part of it.

ReverendDexter wrote: The USoBW map is fail. There's no way that San Francisco would ever concede to being part of it.

And apparently they think Alberta will join all the rest of the liberal tree hugging hippies.

HiTempguy wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: The USoBW map is fail. There's no way that San Francisco would ever concede to being part of it.

And apparently they think Alberta will join all the rest of the liberal tree hugging hippies.

My better climate utopia will give the same courtesy to those who oppose it as the Native Americans were given. As part of the program... they will also be given blankets.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: My better climate utopia will give the same courtesy to those who oppose it as the Native Americans were given. As part of the program... they will also be given blankets.

Ineffective, notice how many natives are still around? The blankets were a good idea at biological warfare, but goes to show how poorly it works. So basically, you're saying that you'd give us Albertans free health care, money, and housing? I'm totally IN!

HiTempguy wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: My better climate utopia will give the same courtesy to those who oppose it as the Native Americans were given. As part of the program... they will also be given blankets.

Ineffective, notice how many natives are still around? The blankets were a good idea at biological warfare, but goes to show how poorly it works. So basically, you're saying that you'd give us Albertans free health care, money, and housing? I'm totally IN!

You are invited in if you bring gray market cars and alabaster redheads with loose morals. Otherwise, you get nothing and like it.