Wrath of Dagon

Hey, there's hope yet: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/18/la-times-tracking-poll-clinton-44-percent-trump-43-4-percent/ Don't give up until the end.

And which political group do you think is standing in the way of the new water projects? Also I love Salmon. I don't know, which one? Can't be the Republicans, they've been entirely castrated in CA. Actually digging around seems to show that it is mostly corporations that seem to oppose his plans. As much as I hate corporations, I would think it's the environmentalists that are more at fault here. But I haven't studied the issue.

And which political group do you think is standing in the way of the new water projects? Also I love Salmon. I don't know, which one? Can't be the Republicans, they've been entirely castrated in CA.

Here's just one example of the extremely widespread SNAP fraud: http://nypost.com/2013/07/28/nyc-welfare-food-is-shipped-in-barrels-to-the-dominican-republic-then-sold-on-the-black-market/ States don't care about the fraud because all the funding comes from the feds, the fraud actually helps the state economy.

You have no idea how this works at all. Really. Why don't you enlighten me how the supreme court gets to set asside the constitution. What could really happen is that the state of whatever passes a law requiring more stringent background checks and psychological tests and so on, there is a lawsuit and it ends up in the supreme court. The supreme court gets to enterpret the constitution and you will still have your 2nd ammendment, as well as some sensible gun laws, hypotheticallly speaking. The reason for that is that whatever the SC says the law is, that's what it is. There's no accountability to anyone, and no appeal. If the SC says a circle is square, then legally it's square. In the 30's the Court ruled that a farmer who didn't engage in interstate commerce was still covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause, because failure to participate is still a form of engagement. As far as the Second Amendment, all the liberals on the court already said it's a communal right, not an individual right, which means it doesn't actually protect anything. yes. the extreme endangered sky whales that cause rainfall has been disappearing at an alarming rate over the past century. ever since folks started going to school and learning 'bout convection in elementary science classes, sky whale sightings has decreased to the point where they now face almost inevitable extinction. ... 'course, a half decade o' record low rainfalls and almost non-existent snow-pack in the sierra nevadas might also be at the root o' the problem. *eye roll* HA! Good Fun! Also failure to do any new water projects while the population doubled. They're also dumping fresh water into the ocean because of the salmon, I think that's what redneckdevil meant.

yes, you were extreme vague about policies in general, which is why we addressed your only concrete claims and concerns. and yeah, we suspect that less people would receive welfare if texas seceded. again, did you not understand the fed dollar differential? texas wouldn't be able to cover the costs o' fed programs as you is a dependent state. you can't afford welfare or a multitude o' other programs. oh, and children is far-and-away the largest age group receiving welfare benefits, and they receive the mostest individual benefits. no doubt once wod cures cancer and patents riding dinosaurs, he will tackle the problem o' reducing welfare recipients w/o punishing the children who is already suffering the most. HA! Good Fun! We wouldn't run welfare programs the way the feds run them. It would be very difficult to get welfare in independent Texas. Anyway, "how will we ever fund welfare" isn't a burning question on anyone's mind.

SNAP rates aren't solely due to illegals of course (and that's not what I said, I said Federal policies in general) and there are plenty of historical differences between Texas and California. Anyway it has nothing to do with Texas seceding. I'll guaranty that if we ever do secede, there'll be a lot less people receiving welfare of any kind in Texas than in California.

Probably Ted Cruz, though that might be infamous.

Not so sure they don't get SNAP. Apparently there isn't much checking. But even if they don't, their children born on US soil are eligible, so the underclass keeps growing. California has 4 times as many poor people as any other state, but it also has more rich people than any other state. Texas could certainly secure itself against illegal immigration, where there's a will there's a way. We wouldn't be a pauper nation, without the federal government pulling us back, we'd be the most prosperous, freest nation in the world. The last I checked, there are a lot more people moving from California to Texas than the other way around, and it certainly isn't for the climate. Edit: "California is the nation’s welfare queen: The state accounts for one-third of America’s welfare recipients, though it only contains one-eighth of the population, and there’s no good reason for it." http://www.nationalreview.com/article/302148/california-americas-welfare-queen-nash-keune

We'll pull our own weight when the feds quit flooding us with illegals. SNAP recipients are created by Federal policies, not Texas policies. Besides, if we're costing US money, US should be happy to let us leave, no? You have no idea how this works at all.

If Hilzilla wins, Second Amendment is gone, that is not even debatable. She also wants to make gun manufacturers liable for any deaths caused by their guns, that will put them all out of business. A complete ban will come later. I hope you like martial law in Texas because that's how you get martial law in Texas. Funny, there's no martial law in Quebec, Scotland or Catalonia. We joined under false premises. We were promised a limited and Constitutional federal government.

Hey, may be we get our secession out of all this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/clinton-wins-texas-secedes/496166/ It'll be more than 40% if they ban guns.

That's not how it's supposed to work though.

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.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I find it amusing, and a little ironic, that you define the US by something that, while important from a historical standpoint, isn't nearly as vital to making the US the US as, say, the Constitution (and not only because that, unlike the Deceleration, is something that still has an impact on the country and the laws since it's an actual legal document and the foundation that everything else is blog upon). Personally if I had to choose one thing to enshrine it would be the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution sets up the structure of the government, the legal system, and enumerates certain specific rights. The Declaration is what says what America is all about, or used to be about. Edit: Third party candidates have little chance to be in debates: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/presidential-debate-stage-gary-johnson-jill-stein-libertarian-green-party-polls-requirements-criteria The decision will be made in mid-September though, so still a month to go.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I would add "rule of law" to that. If you want a longer answer, read "Tales of the South Pacific" by James Michener. Unfortunately we've already lost most of that, fools never realize what they have until it's gone.

WOD this whole issue people have with changes to flags is really unnecessary, if you can be honest about the reality of the 2016 Lets be honest most people think a flag symbolically represents the nation, they place real value in it and think changes to it should only seen as negative. But what about changes to a flag to make it inclusive ? So changing the USA flag positive way would you support that? Yes, we should change it to the white flag of surrender.

Huh?

Playing Graviteam Tactics: Mius-Front. Very fun game. You don't quite have the same amount of control and feedback in tactical battles as you do in Combat Mission, and may be CM is more of a sim, but this one has a real campaign!

In 10 years the American flag will be considered racist, possibly sooner.

Everything we know is wrong: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/researchers-orbit-a-muon-around-an-atom-confirm-physics-is-broken/

I was just reading about Perot on Wikipedia and I forgot that he actually dropped out of the race before he got back in. That hurt his chances more than anything.

I would agree that Trump is in trouble right now. You have to meet a certain threshold before people will entrust you with the presidency, and once you image is formed in the public mind it's very hard to overcome. Right now it's a referendum on Trump which he will lose. It has to become a referendum on Hillary for her to lose. It would take a very special set of circumstances for Trump to still be able to win.

Let me guess, Communication Arts? I got my degree out of a Cracker Jack box. But it came with a cool decoder ring. Electrical engineering and computer science. I'm sure the decoder ring is worth a lot more than your actual degree. No matter what's in his tax return, they would provide a huge amount of ammo for Hilzilla's opposition research and the media that's doing the work for her. They can distort anything and make a good use of it. And of course most people's business record isn't all that honest, I don't expect Trump's to be any different. Why won't Hilzilla release her speeches to Goldman Sachs, or the 30 thousand e-mails she deleted while under Congressional subpoena? Nothing surprises me anymore about Trumps comments or general bombast , its hard for Trump to actually shock or offend me anymore ...my expectation of what he says is typically " how low can Trump stoop with his rhetoric " He says things like "Obama\Clinton are the founders of ISIS " http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/trump-obama-isis/index.html And then he claims " I was just being sarcastic " ...this is the man who wants to be the leader of the most powerful military and economic superpower in the world Why wasn't there any outrage when Hilzilla called Trump "a recruiter for ISIS"? If he's the recruiter, she's the founder.

There was nothing wrong with my school but I went a lot earlier than you did.