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.
Again, how do you think they got by up here before all the "outsiders" found them? I'd say that up until about 15 years ago most didn't know this state was even here or have any notion to have their "summer" house here and the locals did just fine. They sold thier goods to each other buying totally local, didn't care that no chain stores existed nor did they want them. What they couldn't get here they took a "vacation" and went to Spokane and Missoula. Worse case we could go to our trading partners to the north (Canada) where we can get anything we want. So, not really as hard as you'd like to think.
Oh, just to get something straight, I really hope it never comes to this as it'd probably get ugly but if it did I guess I'd choose to stand behind my state.
This is not the past; this is the present.
Then they should have no problem doing it again.
No cable, no major manufacturing, no internet unless you're buying from an outside source, no infrastructure for that.
I'm assuming you'll stop using all services from outside area.
You are independent and can take care of all of your needs.
I gather you've never heard of treaties or trade agreements... or noticed that Montana sits astride THE major northern-tier east-west commercial corridor for both rail and highway shipments.
Ya know, if Montana's taxes that are presently paid to the feds stayed home in Montana, Montana probably wouldn't NEED any federal subsidies. Remember every dollar that goes to Washington comes back reduced to about 60 cents, after overhead and waste, and it ALL comes out of OUR pockets one way or another. Federal money doesn't just magically appear from the air.
I’ve heard of trade agreements, but that doesn’t mean that the other 49 states will be playing.
Let’s look at what Montana pays and benefits from by way of federal taxes: The Tax Foundation - Tax Research Areas > Montana
I didn't ask for his approval, nor yours. Can't handle typo's I think you'd be falling to pieces after this blog. Obfiscate won't work. Confuse won't work. Misdirect won't work. Got any more parlor tricks?
Handle them? Heck, I perfected the art of the typo.
Moderator cut: please discuss topic, not other members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232
Part of the problem in my opinion is that people that actually do the work, (IE: Military, first responders, utilities, etc..) don't have the time to get into the politics most of the time. From experience I know what it's like to be exhausted from your day job, and It's tough to follow politics when you are busy dealing with life or death, technical, or other complex situations on a daily basis. I know lots of other people feel the same way.
Money should never have anything to do with a persons appointment into an elected position, but it does, and that is a huge part of the problem. There are plenty of thoughtful, caring, considerate people in this country.. Sad that more of them are not elected, or can even get to where they would be considered for candidacy because of financial interests.
Agreed, but on the voter end of your statement I think it's worse than just the work load of 95% of the country. Civilization encourages people to be specialists, which leaves 100% of us at a disadvantage leaning on an 'expert' too hard. Bogus intelligence reports for Iraq ring a bell? We wouldn't be divided about war if not for lies predicated upon lies- that's not informed consent where everyone knows the stakes and commits themselves thick and thin together.
The bigger the civilization, the more convoluted, the more charlatans can trojan horse themselves into 'expert' status. F/T job as paid for testimony in courthouses is perfect illustration. Talking heads purveying themselves as journalists. Non repub on a repub ticket, non dem on a dem ticket. Truth in advertisement is woefully absent. Consumers, taxpayers, and voters are frustrated beyond belief in all parties- another unanimous vote. Trying to discern the truth is a mind bending trip down the rabbit hole. Lean on the experts to cave down there or do what most do- live in your own apathetic bubble. Angry or depressed isn't the only choice we've got.
The money end of your statement- DC is a cesspool and has been for over a century. The only way I can see to fix it is to reform lobbyist & campaign systems to level the playing field. Let honest people called to public service keep their eyes in the boat without having to run the gauntlet of a snake pit. Mr Smith needs a fighting chance and We the People have to insist it through petition. Rotten apples have had a carefree existence. A reliable career track that bee lines to DC, madison ave, wall street.
As things are, 2 parties are vying for the lions share of warchest, whomever has the biggest pile & the most artful congenital liars for campaign mgmt wins. This has fed a thriving population of congenital liars. Air and light was put on finance and actuaries on wall street. How about the rest? The warchest must be out of their hands. The smear campaigns must go. Statesmanship must be restored.
Keeping status quo... voter apathy or voter anger. Repubs are 3 parties. Dems are 3 parties. Drop your swords, forge them into plowshares and build your own party. This is the only productive method within the framework of constitution I can see for we the people to assert control of our own government in orderly fashion. The repubs need to BE repub, not the catch all of disparate groups. Same for dems. No one is happy. We really do need change, but no one seems to know how or into what.
There's a grand illusion sold that only those in the NRA support the 2nd amendment. Extreme right wing means to keep that voting block, even if it means all other issues come last, even if they're shooting themselves in the foot. Only extreme left wing in certain % squarely oppose. The rest of us become a battleground and the heaviest issues get neglected as a result. This cannot continue on.
I test out as a centrist and have no party of my own. I'd be pleased as punch if I could attend my own primary instead of bouncing between 2 parties I know full well I never belonged. I'm not interested in party crashing. The nasty power grabs by neo cons and religious right corrupting parties away from their actual foundations make me lose all respect. They aren't trustworthy as evidenced by their own behaviors. Look where all 4 are at now over it. Paleo's, neos, religious, and independence. Truth in advertisement. Let everyone have their own parties. We cannot afford lies.
Alternative idea is to forget any party labels whatsoever. Vote line item by line item on the issues themselves, and let the best candidate aggregate vote win. Another option is to refuse candidates the right to have any agenda concerning constitutional issues- that's best left in the hands of judiciary rule of supreme court. It's their job to protect the constitution. This would force people to vote on solutions and less on superficial charisma or hatfield/mccoy drama. Undecided voters taking that sort of test online hosted by a non partisan source could be a cost effective method. Anyone with better ideas, you have my ear. Our world is so much more complex than the framers had ever imagined, and it takes more work now than it ever did before to stay between the lines of what should remain constant- OUR constitution.
Last edited by katzenfreund; 03-16-2009 at 09:00 PM..
Actually, that would be under freedom of religion, which also means freedom FROM religion, including yours (and mine, if I had one).
Being gay is not a religion so it's not covered.
Quote:
It falls under freedom of speech too, albeit less directly. Freedom of speech means tolerating ugly speech as well as speech you agree with.
I have never heard anyone attempt to pass a law saying gay people can't say what they want have you?
Quote:
It falls under freedom of assembly -- which means anyone with anyone else, not just organizations you approve of.
I've yet to see a gay parade or any other assembly banned even though I think some are raunchy enough they should be (or at least toned down). Example being S.F.'s parade.
Quote:
Freedom means tolerating people you don't like -- so long as they don't swing their fist into your nose. At that point, your tolerance rightfully ends. Without that freedom, in the future YOU may be the minority that is neither liked nor tolerated (much as conservatives and whites are becoming the hated minority in California!)
Contrary to an increasingly popular misconception, the Constitution is NOT a list of things that are permitted to the citizens. It is a list of the very narrow things that the government is allowed (not required) to do or restrict. Nowhere does it say that the government has the right to restrict someone's sexual orientation.
And you might be amazed how many people YOU know are gay (not to mention how many NFL players are, but that's another subject), but since they don't make a big deal about it, who cares? As the MT forum thread on racism discusses, it doesn't matter if someone is black, white, green, plaid, or Martian -- and we'll add to that, straight or gay -- so long as they don't shove it into other folks' faces. (Yes, it is equally possible to shove "being straight" into someone else's face, just like it's possible to shove "being white" or "being black" into someone else's face.)
So... in the true spirit of Montana, it doesn't matter if someone is gay or straight, any more than it matters if they're a cowboy or an indian. It only matters that they uphold every citizen's rights, and don't infringe on anyone else's rights.
I don't care if someone is gay or straight unlike some of my Montana neighbors who'd shoot them if they could but I do draw the line at gay marrage. I don't care if they have civil unions with all the legal rights and tax rights but don't call it marrage.
Marrage in my opinion is a religious contract that has been defined since day 1 when whatever religious book you follow was written and no government has the right to change those.
Secondly, if you allow marrage to be redefined then you'll have to allow bigomy (remember you can't discriminate) or pretty much whatever "marrage" someone wants to do or is this reassignment of "rights" just reserved for the groups that can be the most vocal and disruptive?
I apologize for taking a sharp turn off topic, this is definately a discussion for another thread so I'll stop here.
Moderator cut: please discuss topic, not other members
Agreed, but on the voter end of your statement I think it's worse than just the work load of 95% of the country. Civilization encourages people to be specialists, which leaves 100% of us at a disadvantage leaning on an 'expert' too hard. Bogus intelligence reports for Iraq ring a bell? We wouldn't be divided about war if not for lies predicated upon lies- that's not informed consent where everyone knows the stakes and commits themselves thick and thin together.
The bigger the civilization, the more convoluted, the more charlatans can trojan horse themselves into 'expert' status. F/T job as paid for testimony in courthouses is perfect illustration. Talking heads purveying themselves as journalists. Non repub on a repub ticket, non dem on a dem ticket. Truth in advertisement is woefully absent. Consumers, taxpayers, and voters are frustrated beyond belief in all parties- another unanimous vote. Trying to discern the truth is a mind bending trip down the rabbit hole. Lean on the experts to cave down there or do what most do- live in your own apathetic bubble. Angry or depressed isn't the only choice we've got.
The money end of your statement- DC is a cesspool and has been for over a century. The only way I can see to fix it is to reform lobbyist & campaign systems to level the playing field. Let honest people called to public service keep their eyes in the boat without having to run the gauntlet of a snake pit. Mr Smith needs a fighting chance and We the People have to insist it through petition. Rotten apples have had a carefree existence. A reliable career track that bee lines to DC, madison ave, wall street.
As things are, 2 parties are vying for the lions share of warchest, whomever has the biggest pile & the most artful congenital liars for campaign mgmt wins. This has fed a thriving population of congenital liars. Air and light was put on finance and actuaries on wall street. How about the rest? The warchest must be out of their hands. The smear campaigns must go. Statesmanship must be restored.
Keeping status quo... voter apathy or voter anger. Repubs are 3 parties. Dems are 3 parties. Drop your swords, forge them into plowshares and build your own party. This is the only productive method within the framework of constitution I can see for we the people to assert control of our own government in orderly fashion. The repubs need to BE repub, not the catch all of disparate groups. Same for dems. No one is happy. We really do need change, but no one seems to know how or into what.
There's a grand illusion sold that only those in the NRA support the 2nd amendment. Extreme right wing means to keep that voting block, even if it means all other issues come last, even if they're shooting themselves in the foot. Only extreme left wing in certain % squarely oppose. The rest of us become a battleground and the heaviest issues get neglected as a result. This cannot continue on.
I test out as a centrist and have no party of my own. I'd be pleased as punch if I could attend my own primary instead of bouncing between 2 parties I know full well I never belonged. I'm not interested in party crashing. The nasty power grabs by neo cons and religious right corrupting parties away from their actual foundations make me lose all respect. They aren't trustworthy as evidenced by their own behaviors. Look where all 4 are at now over it. Paleo's, neos, religious, and independence. Truth in advertisement. Let everyone have their own parties. We cannot afford lies.
Alternative idea is to forget any party labels whatsoever. Vote line item by line item on the issues themselves, and let the best candidate aggregate vote win. Another option is to refuse candidates the right to have any agenda concerning constitutional issues- that's best left in the hands of judiciary rule of supreme court. It's their job to protect the constitution. This would force people to vote on solutions and less on superficial charisma or hatfield/mccoy drama. Undecided voters taking that sort of test online hosted by a non partisan source could be a cost effective method. Anyone with better ideas, you have my ear. Our world is so much more complex than the framers had ever imagined, and it takes more work now than it ever did before to stay between the lines of what should remain constant- OUR constitution.
Very well thought out. I too wish I had more choices when it comes to elections. I fully belive ALL of the people runing should be allowed into the debates and allowed to speak not just the party darlings. I'd really like to see a Nevada style "none of the above" choice as well.
Last edited by katzenfreund; 03-16-2009 at 09:01 PM..
Luke 22:36 - And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one.
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.
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.
