Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just point out to you that California's economy is still growing at annual rates that are comparable to the total size of Montana's economy. What about "growing economy" is hard for you to understand?
When you double population, naturally you double money flow, if only because you have twice as many people buying at least the basics. CA's population has doubled in recent decades; Montana's has not. It's disingenuous, and perhaps deliberately deceptive, to conflate that with "economic growth". If you were to plot against CA's growing population, and localized price inflation, I suspect you'd find that CA's economy has not "grown" at all on a per-capita basis.
Please tell that to my friend at Virginia Tech. Oh wait, you can't, because he was shot and killed in cold blood by someone who in any reasonable country should NEVER have had access to a gun.
If we can't have a reasonable way of screening gun purchases (which anyone who doesn't have something to hide shouldn't have a problem with, eh?) then, as much as I hate to say it, I'm all for guns being completely banned. I'd rather guns be banned then to have such freewheeling gun control laws like we have now.
Typical authoritarian garbage. My liberties, enumerated in the Constitution of this grand Republic, and in the constitution of the State of Maine, take precedence over anyone's desire to "feel" safe. None of us are safe. None of us ever will be. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
It is a dangerous world we live in. There is no amount of legislation that will protect you from the dangers of life. You can spend all your efforts on banning guns, because you don't feel safe, and then walk down the road one night and get hit by a car going 100 miles an hour. You could also choke to death at a restaurant while eating your favorite food. Die of pneumonia, a heart attack, stroke, influenza. You could drown... need I go on with the numerous ways in which any one of us could kick the bucket? Life has a 100% mortality rate. You will die one day, as will I.
I will continue to support freedom first and foremost, as it freedom the only legacy worth leaving behind. No amount of infringement of our rights is going to change the fact that the world is dangerous. Nor is it going to change the fact that there are good people and bad people. 100 years from now, it won't mean squat, we'll all be green and moldy and six feet under.
I will continue to support freedom first and foremost, as it freedom the only legacy worth leaving behind. No amount of infringement of our rights is going to change the fact that the world is dangerous.
Typical authoritarian garbage. My liberties, enumerated in the Constitution of this grand Republic, and in the constitution of the State of Maine, take precedence over anyone's desire to "feel" safe. None of us are safe. None of us ever will be. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
It is a dangerous world we live in. There is no amount of legislation that will protect you from the dangers of life. You can spend all your efforts on banning guns, because you don't feel safe, and then walk down the road one night and get hit by a car going 100 miles an hour. You could also choke to death at a restaurant while eating your favorite food. Die of pneumonia, a heart attack, stroke, influenza. You could drown... need I go on with the numerous ways in which any one of us could kick the bucket? Life has a 100% mortality rate. You will die one day, as will I.
I will continue to support freedom first and foremost, as it freedom the only legacy worth leaving behind. No amount of infringement of our rights is going to change the fact that the world is dangerous. Nor is it going to change the fact that there are good people and bad people. 100 years from now, it won't mean squat, we'll all be green and moldy and six feet under.
They've been talking about this for a long time.
Haven't you been complaining about Obama not rushing headlong into decisions that affect the lives of our military members?
They've been talking about this for a long time.
Haven't you been complaining about Obama not rushing headlong into decisions that affect the lives of our military members?
Obama doesn't seem to have anything against rushing headlong into decisions that will affect our wallets...
When you double population, naturally you double money flow, if only because you have twice as many people buying at least the basics. CA's population has doubled in recent decades; Montana's has not. It's disingenuous, and perhaps deliberately deceptive, to conflate that with "economic growth". If you were to plot against CA's growing population, and localized price inflation, I suspect you'd find that CA's economy has not "grown" at all on a per-capita basis.
From 2000 to 2008, California saw an 8.5% increase in population. California per capita GDP was $37,859 in 2000 and $42,064 in 2008. That's an 11.1% increase over the eight year span.
Montana, saw a population increase of 7.2% - just a little less than California. GDP per capita went from $23,653 in 2000 to $28,170 in 2008. This is a 19.1% increase.
Too bad Montana doesn't just blindly barge ahead without thoroughly weighing its decisions, like they do in Washington D.C., eh??
A threat of secession over a non-existent infringement of gun rights, is most certainly blind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.