It's difficult to talk about Italy. It's a country full of contradictions. It's a rose with many thorns, nevertheless it never fails to leave you breathless. I think that writing a book wouldn't be enough to describe Italy. Maybe I'll start a new discussion where I'll answer to questions about Italy and write some notes. What do you think?
If only you knew how it works. No peace!
Yesterday won't be over until tomorrow and tomorrow began ten thousand years ago. For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ---William Faulkner
No peace? Ugh. I hate Southern heritage that involves the confederacy. The South will rise again? Come on guys. You've had ample time. If you haven't gotten your shit together by now, it's not going to happen. The only group of people that run around really proud that they lost a war. The ultimate sore losers.
I could go on and on.
What was this about?
Oh. Welcome. Did I say that already?
Well, I would say one reason is it defined the modern Republic, the states had more rights before the war, so that caused some resentment when the federal government consolidated power (which has continued much to our collective chagrin). Along with reconstruction and mishandling of things like the freedman. Not to mention the systematic rape (metaphorical and literal) of the population and of course the crushing, abject, rural poverty that exists today and is mostly ignored. Not to mention cultural biases based on Southern ignorance and stupidity. Sore loser? Maybe, but there is such a thing as being a bad winner too.
The Faulkner quote applies still IMHO.
I could go on and on as well, but whatever. I haven't eaten lunch yet and I won't let you ruin my buffalo chicken. Haha
Oh Lord. Do you live in the Real America? LOL!
When states had more rights, they made very bad choices. Without federal regulations, this place would be an even bigger shit hole than it is. If states fought for an important right, then I could possibly give benefit of doubt. But, you know, when they stand up for their right to keep schools segregated...why am I supposed to believe they know better? And I don't just mean Southern states. I think this applies to every state. Do you really think a company would reduce air pollution of it's own will? Or that they would pay a fair wage? Or guarantee safety of workers? Not unless the federal government forced their hands.
I think Matt and Avery just need to make out/have a knife fight and get it over with, instead of turning a intro tread into a political argument. No one is going to change there mind because people mostly don't even hear what the other side is saying so let's just not do it.
Well now you're just arguing for social contractualism and against Austrian economic philosophy. I think your model is flawed however.
If Virginia allowed a company to pollute, generally those legislates and executives would be voted out more swiftly than on the federal level. I mean, think about it, I doubt a state representative would be inclined to allow a business to negatively impact his own home. This would also allow for stronger and better representation and more accessible representation. Besides, since each state is different (demographically, culturally, economically) it only makes more sense for it to be governed locally. What's good for Massachusetts isn't good for Georgia (just as an example)
"What's good for Massachusetts isn't good for Georgia (just as an example)"
A more specific example - please. If it's a good idea, tell me why.
@Dwayne - would you rather I talk about sex? I'm not sure what your problem is. Has a single intro thread gone untarnished? I think this is one of the better diversions. In short, your argument did not change my mind.
I would say the Health Care Law just as an example. (I am not saying that I totally disagree with it either, there are parts I like) however, 26 states filed lawsuits against the federal government, seconds after it was signed. It is even being ruled on in the Supreme Court just this week.
Clearly half the states would agree with me. The union wasn't supposed to be run this way. The reason is simple: you can't keep power locked up all in one place, that breeds corruption (which has risen each year) The states would balance the playing field. Just my opinion though and it would keep DC from ramming legislation and policy down our throats without our say.
"I think this is one of the better diversions."
In this we both agree. Normally our fights resort to "Hey Matt- Fuck you." or, "You shut up woman, go make me supper, rawr" this is actually an interesting debate. I suppose I'll stop though.
"seconds after it was signed"
Which says it ALL. No one even read the fucker.
Now I'm personally a huge fan of a single payer program with the option to purchase additional private coverage if one so wishes. Because I'm that girl. And that was never even on the table. Yes, our president is too conservative for me.