Guard Dog

*shrug* am thinking that the study ignores that not all freedoms is equal. personal freedoms should be given more weight, no? looks like many o' the southern states have issues with personal freedoms. additional, poor states is understandably gonna have less regulatory laws as they simple cannot enforce even good laws. etc. regardless, its the price o' democracy. act surprised or angry that State and local Government is taking away 'freedoms' is kinda silly, no? is the democratic process at work. enough folks agree that smoking in restaurants is bad and that "there should be a law preventing it," hopeful results in such a law being passed. sure, is an infringement o' liberty rights, but virtual all laws is. prevent small business owners from being unfair to employees or operating without safeguards for the public is an infringement o' liberty and freedom. prevent folks from bringing invasive species o' plants and animals into a state is terrible burden on personal liberty *snort*, but the democratic process often arrives at the reasonable conclusion that west nile virus and dutch elm disease and japanese beetle infestations is stuff folks wanna avoid. 'course, the tyranny of the majority is always a threat. all you need is +50% to take away freedoms o' the minority. is democracy, but it is often stoopid, shortsighted and even cruel. the reason why the Bill of Rights and protections o' fundamental rights is so important is they is a check on the inevitable excesses o' the People. interesting but misleading link. HA! Good Fun! It was just discussion fodder Grom. Tongue was firmly in cheek!

Don't blame him! He was one state senator out of forty and he's 12 years gone at any rate. You can't keep sending the same cast of characters to Springfield and expect a different result!

Not exactly my field, social sciences, but it looks like, as a rule of thumb, the more densely populated an area is, the more regulations are in place (regardless whether such regulations are justified or not). Government is like drywall Spackle. You apply more where more is needed but if you apply too much anywhere you ruin the whole job!

I thought this was interesting. Reason Magazine ranked all 50 States by their overall freedom ranking. The results are based on tax burden, regulatory and government intrusion into private property, personal business (like needing a business license for your kid to sell lemonade in the front yard) etc. I would like to send my deepest condolences to Gromnir, Hurlshot, Manifested, Di, and all my other brothers & sisters languishing under the heavy chains of totalitarian cruelty in California. You finished 49th again. But... take heart in this... New York is even worse. They were dead last again! And you have better weather. My own home state was 6th, proving again we are the freest state in the land of the green (wait I think that's the other way around.... anyway) New Hampshire moved from 2nd to 1st over all. Maybe that "Free State" project is starting to take root. I with they'd picked somewhere warmer. Anyway... here is the list: http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/15/how-free-is-your-state-all-50-states-ran

There are just a handful of states that could survive as an independent nation. Texas would be the most likely to succeed. On the day it walks away it will be the 12th largest economy in the world. Now ignoring for a moment the massive problems such a move would cause (citizens leaving, influx of others, businesses leaving because business hates uncertainty) Texas would need three things to survive. 1) First and foremost they will need an amicable relationship with the US who is automatically their largest commerce partner. Seems like a stretch since they just divorced. 2) They need a government that maximizes the benefits of doing business in Texas. That means low tax, low regulation, few checks on land and resource exploitation. That means a Government that has less in the beginning and does less. Which leads to 3) The citizens are going to have to be willing to weather some lean years, some scarcity of imports until new trade deals are worked out, and a government that does less for them. It's daunting but it can be done. Now I've made it clear that the United States will cease to be "united" at some point. But it will be a big event that causes it. Suspending the Constitution (or a Constitutional Convention might do it) and some mad act by the Federal Government, or a zombie apocalypse or something. If you think about it, the United States really because the country it is on 6/21/1788,(not 7/4/1776) which makes it the 4th oldest continuous government in the world. That is unusual and it a testament to our people and the brainchild of our founders. I hope and pray it continues on forever but that would be bucking history in a big way.

In a normal year she would be the biggest piece of s--t to ever seek the Presidency. This year she is arguably not even the biggest piece of s--t in this election.

Now reading Valley of the Shadow by one of my all time favorite writers Ralph Peters. It's historical fiction that tells the story of the Shenandoah Valley campaign in 1864 from both armies perspectives. Also, nearly finished an excellent book called A Fort of Nine Towers by Qais Akbar Omar. It's a memoir of his family and growing up in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion to the Taliban and the lengths his father went to to keep them safe. Very compelling story.

Ah they come by it honestly. Most of those areas you mentioned actually were countries on their own once.

I watched this but after the interview she did clarify she did think Hilary is honest Her campaign did, not her. BIG difference.

Even Hillary's own people can't bring themselves to say she is honest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Libx8UvOrs

New campaign ad... and it's a good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPD8kPiOygA

Yeah, my black friends I talked to when this first started happening was that he's racist and being racist automatically means he has something against black people. Even though, I couldn't ever get an example of it.

I'll use my SKS to slow them down and chop their heads off when they're wounded so I don't need sword skills. Although I suppose I'd absorb them after a while. Following me around on tree-trimming day, waiting for nature to take it's course won't teach you a thing about fluid mechanics, soil chemistry or how to design a wireless network!

All three of you completely missed the point. They were not fighting for slavery, or nebulous concepts like the "social order". They were fighting for their homes, their families and neighbors. They were fighting to save each other. Except for June & July of 1863 every battle fought in the Civil War was fought in the south. 90% of the civilian casualties were southerners. It is tragic that they were ultimately fighting to preserve an atrocity but that is not how they saw it and it's really not a sin that can be laid at their feet so much as on the CSA government.

Well, I like KP's notion of immortality being a Highlander-esque sword fight playoff. Unless you suck at sword fighting. Then you wouldn't be around long. My luck though I'd probably slip off a doggone ladder while trimming the trees with a chain saw and cut my own head off.

What? Why? If you're of an Abrahamic religion, you believe that God will either return to Earth or end all things in some manner or another anyways. Regardless of your immortality, I think God should win here and he renders judgement unto you as he does all others. If you're Hindu or Buddhist, you'd just be allowed to keep living your one life instead of living out many different ones. I can't think of many specific faiths where you believe you really lose if you're immortal. The answer to that is in the Gospel of John, 18:36 It's been at least 20 years since I've read the bible so please forgive me but I'm not following "My Kingdom is not of this world". I was answering Barti's assertion that according the some interpretations of Christianity (and the other 2/3 of the big three I believe) the "world" will be remade into the kingdom of heaven at some point. Therefore if you are immortal you'll be around to see it happen. I don't subscribe to that notion myself. I believe that heaven and "the universe" are two separate things that do not conjoin at any point. Staying in one consequently means never entering the other. Which was what I was saying originally.

Consider what I wrote in post 23 and look at the Cliven Bundy fiasco in Nevada. People from all around the country showed up to defend him and his family and property. They got no benefit from that cattle or his money and asked him for nothing. And it wasn't as if his cause was just or the Government was in the wrong. It wasn't, and they weren't. It because the government, rather that doing things peacefully and respectfully of it's people came in and did what the US Government seems to love to do best these days; point guns at Americans. Harry Reid called them all terrorists and traitors. They should wear that little man's words with pride because IMO they were good citizens. I'm sure Harry Reid would say Col. Barett and his militiamen who faced the British at Concord were also traitors. The lined up to defend their people and homes from their government too. .

What? Why? If you're of an Abrahamic religion, you believe that God will either return to Earth or end all things in some manner or another anyways. Regardless of your immortality, I think God should win here and he renders judgement unto you as he does all others. If you're Hindu or Buddhist, you'd just be allowed to keep living your one life instead of living out many different ones. I can't think of many specific faiths where you believe you really lose if you're immortal. The answer to that is in the Gospel of John, 18:36 am suspecting that the verse in question is not about becoming a telepathic god-puma. HA! Good Fun! No but I'd like to read that one!

What? Why? If you're of an Abrahamic religion, you believe that God will either return to Earth or end all things in some manner or another anyways. Regardless of your immortality, I think God should win here and he renders judgement unto you as he does all others. If you're Hindu or Buddhist, you'd just be allowed to keep living your one life instead of living out many different ones. I can't think of many specific faiths where you believe you really lose if you're immortal. The answer to that is in the Gospel of John, 18:36

It's hard to say what the meaning of American citizenship is when the government actively wages war on its own citizens and favors criminal aliens over citizens: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/13/irs-admits-it-encourages-illegals-to-steal-social-security-numbers-for-taxes/#4c8555fe237a The IRS actually has a policy not to tell a citizen that his social security number has been stolen to file fake tax returns. IMO the words "citizen" and "government" have very little association. The government demands what we owe them by force. Good citizenship is what we voluntarily offer each other.

I really liked Gromnir's answer. Americans, perhaps more than other nationalities, do have a sense of self value. We live in a country where the "rugged individualist" is still the ideal. Dependency, on government, on family, on anything is largely disdained for good or ill. We revere and respect self made people and aspire independence in both our social and private lives. But while that might be an American trait it really misses what Bruce was asking; what does it mean to be a citizen? I think it means an acknowledgement of community. The people who live around you share a bond with you. A shared history, culture, language, as well as geographical proximity. Being a good citizen means acknowledging that bond. Being a good American citizen means not just acknowledging that bond but also the self value (meaning individual liberty) of those people. Respecting their rights, property, privacy, etc. And this includes a willingness to defend all of this as well. If I saw someone breaking into my neighbor's home I would defend his home from that person as vigorously as I would my own and expect that they would do the same. I've mentioned before the US Civil War is one of my favorite subjects for study. One thing that I've always found remarkable was the willingness of the Confederate Soldier to fight. Most of the officers were in the US Army before the war and were professional soldiers who left to serve their native States. But the majority of the infantry (at first) was made up of volunteers. These men were farmers and tradesmen. They were not wealthy and did not own slaves. Slavery did not benefit them in any way. So what motivated them? I read the answer in a book, a true story about a Confederate soldier called Jack Hinson's One Man War. In the book he recounts a conversation between a Union Captain and a Confederate soldier who had been captured at Knoxville. The Captain asked the soldier why he was fighting against his own countrymen. The soldier answered simply "Because you are here". That willingness to defend what is not exclusively yours, the homes, lives, and liberties of your community is what makes a "good" citizen IMO. This shared bond is not iron. Far from it. It is the most tenuous of things and exists only so long as the self value and liberty of those who share it are respected by all who share it. The moment that is violated then there is no community. This sense of community should not be taken as an obligation to support one another. Only to defend one another. In the American example we expect you pull your own weight, support yourself. Not ask or demand we give you what we have. Yes there is some sharing to be expected but what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine. As Ayn Rand once wrote "I will die for you but I will not live for you" Just my $.02

OK, I am formulating a serous answer but I have to go to work.

To tell the truth, count me out. If you are a religious or spiritual person in any way then you probably believe you will one day see your loved ones who have passed away again. You can forget that if you're immortal. As Anne Rice ( who copied Charles Maturin, who copied the medieval legend of the Wandering Jew) pointed out you will go on never changing while everyone you love ages and passes on. Oh sure they will be replaced by new people who will do the same, and on it goes until you can no longer remember all the people you once knew or you don't even bother making new friends anymore. I remember talking to one of the old guys at the VFW a few years ago. He has 88 years old and still pretty spry. But he told me he wanted to die. His wife was long gone, his son died young. Everyone he ever knew had already passed. Sure he had friends, but it's not the same. It's like watching a really good movie, reading a good book, or good computer game. You can only do it for the first time once. After that you know how it all turns out. And every time after you enjoy it less. Last night I sat on my front porch, sipped high quality whiskey and listened to the sounds of the night and rain on the trees. I've done it many times and I still love it but I think you savor it more knowing there is only finite number of times I will get to do it. To take a quote from the Bible (since I started this from a religious viewpoint) "What has been is what will be, and what has been done will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun." And that is how it would be for you. And it it sucks... well, its only for eternity.