8bit_Theatre

1 minute ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Where do you live in California if you don't mind me asking? I am in Pasadena.

North Bay Area (Sonoma Co.)

US power consumption has been declining I believe for the past 2 or 3 years. We are pretty close to 1000 GW use. Therefore if about 10 GW were added each year....well you get the picture. 

1 hour ago, Merrytooth said:

lol.. unless USA is prepared to receive refugees from NK..

 

China /  East Asia do not want swarm of NK refugees in their backyard either..

 

So it is better for USA to step back and MYOB

In this case, I doubt there would be many. They'll all be dead.

1 hour ago, cyberfx1024 said:

According to Jerry Brown and Eric Garcetti it's a local issue since a quarter of the DACA recipients and Illegals in general live here in California. That's why the poverty rate here in California is off the charts.

For now. I would imagine that a decent percent of illegal immigrants will pour in to the state from neighboring states after this. Of course I have no clue where they will live. The house across the street is a rental that goes for 2100.00 a month. Its a 2 bedroom 1 bath house and about 1000 sqft. From what I gather one couple rents it and then a couple of weeks later the rest moved in. There are roughly 10-12 people in that house. Rough living conditions if you ask me.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this national monument has had the designation for a total of what? 250 days +/-? 

Is BLM still a thing? I figured it went the way of Occupy.

Just a couple of history related items for context. Antifa in its current form is about 30 years old. I think it could be argued it did help quash Neo-Nazism in Germany though its more likely that strict German laws have done more (though these laws would violate the 1st amendment in the US).

The original Antifa came about in the 1930s to combat the rise of fascism in Europe. Problem was their tactics actually backfired and helped fuel fascism's rise. Afterall the goal is Fascism is authoritarian government through the threat of violence. Therefore Antifa of the 30s was a bit like throwing gasoline on a fire.

39 minutes ago, bcking said:

Agreed.

 

Not only did the Southern states themselves freely admit that abolition was one of their chief concerns, most of their other concerns (most popularly among them being the issue of states rights) was directly linked to slavery. They didn't want increased states rights just because. They wanted it specifically because they wanted the right to decide for themselves whether to end slavery (which they clearly had no intention of doing).

 

It comes down to two questions for me:

 

1) If abolition was off the table, if they Northern states agreed to allow it to continue, but denied ALL other requests from the South...would the South still wanted to secede?

2) If the Northern States had agreed to ALL of the Southern states grievances EXCEPT continuing slavery. If they had given in to everything but required abolition...would the South still have wanted to secede?

 

While it is all speculation at this point the clear answers would be No to the first, Yes to the second.. I've never seen any well reasoned argument with evidence to suggest alternative responses. Sure they had other complaints but the crux of the issue was always abolition.

 

That being the case, slavery was the prime instigator for the South's desire to secede, and the desire to secede led to war.

The answer to 1 is - yes probably. I can think of one Tarriff that almost started a war 30 years prior.

The answer to 2 is - yes probably.

20 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   IMO, the fact that statues have largely stood to this day would seem to indicate that remembering the history itself is not the central issue.

 

   What I see is that municipalities don't want these monuments becoming a symbol for the new right wing extremist groups that are trying to appropriate them. Average citizens don't want these groups in their cities. Businesses don't want violent protests going on around them. Cities, especially ones that rely on tourism, don't want the stigma that goes with these kind of events and groups. 

 

  For people who are primarily concerned with preserving history, it's unfortunate that we have allowed these groups to link themselves with this. I do think there is a reason supremacist groups chose these symbols, and there is a reason people are resisting it. 

I think one solution would be to hand these monuments over to the civil war trust. That Trust has been buying up and preserving land where battles were fought. I could see many of these monuments sitting on the battlefields 

Just some history on the Sculpture itself. It was completed by Architect Henry Shrady who was also known for the Ulysses S Grant Memorial in Washington DC

3 hours ago, bcking said:

Please feel free to enlighten me. In particular regarding the reasons for the civil war as spelled out in the article linked previously (https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession). It wasn't my reference, it was a reference used to support other reasons (other than slavery) for the civil war.

 

In reality, of the 9 reasons that article lists, 7 of them were directly linked to slavery. 1 more you could argue was related. 1 was completely seperate (Texas had issue with federal military protection...not surprising). I'm pretty sure the entire South didn't go to war because Texas was unhappy with protection by the Federal government.

 

I understand people's desire to create a narrative with "many reasons" for the Civil War. After the war our country needed to heal and come back together. It is easier to do that when people talk about how it was "complex" and "multifaceted" instead of the reality.

 

The reality was wealthy Southerners in power were unhappy that they were going to be forced to give up their slaves so they came together and tried to argue that their States had the "right" to keep slaves because each state has the "right" to decide for themselves, and when that failed they left the union so that they could maintain their practice of slavery. "State's Rights" is a wonderfully PC way to put it, to avoid the real "Right" that they were fighting over (the right to own slaves). Unfortunately while States should have certain rights, they do not have the right to choose to do something that is clearly wrong. Owning humans are property is wrong. The Southern States did NOT have the "right" to decide to end that practice for themselves. It had to end.

When looking at history you have to use the context of the time. There are alot of statements about Union this, South that. If you asked people of the mid 19th century who they were, they would say things like "I'm an Virginian, or I'm Ohioan". In many ways the Civil War is responsible for our current national identity of America first, State second.

I agree that slavery was THE wedge issue but we can in someways understand the broader concepts of the fear that most southerners had if we look at government representation. The north's population was growing faster than the souths, the industrial revolution was beginning to drive the north's economy. There was a fear that the south would not have a voice in the federal government as its percentage of that government began to slip in to a minority. You can see similar elements at the state levels today. In California the counties around San Francisco and Las Angeles drown the voices of the rest of the state because of the population divide.

Also, just an interesting note. War was never declared. Lincoln never declared war because it would give a degree of validity to the Confederate Government.

In many ways too the Civil War mirrored the American revolution. Confederate forces were never fighting to win. Their goal was to outlast the will of Union forces to fight and hopefully attract UK or French intervention....which almost occurred.

They own their company, so they can take time off here and there. They could never stay longer than 40 days or so though because they have to get back to work, so B-2 isn't really an option. I also don't think they will be visiting as much next year. Probably 60 - 90 days for the year. Thanks for all the advice in this thread.

They are going to see how the Global Entry goes and then base their decision about Christmas off of that it sounds like.

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

I think you're missing the point. 

 

If we are willing to accept that we live in a country where 8,000+ people die un gun-related incidents, should we bother with terrorism, that doesn't kill nearly as many?

 

Are we exacerbating the issue with terrorism, and making something out of nothing?

Yes we are. Of course we are. 

5 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

But we still have an endemic problem with gun-deaths. Should we stop the dialogue because laws were passed?

Current trends indicate an overall reduction in violence in the US since the 1990s. I really don't know how else to put it.

21 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

Even if that is true, it still does not detract from the need of recognizing, addressing, and acting upon the deaths caused by guns. When you look at the mass shootings our country has come to accept as natural, they are all acts of terrorism involving guns. 

 

 

The US has passed countless laws to address guns. 

Federal Laws:

National Firearms Act 

Federal Firearms Act

Safe Streets Act

Undetectable Firearms Act

Gun Free School Zone Act

Handgun Prevention Act

Federal Assault Weapons Act (sunset...though still active in some states)

Protection in Lawful Commerce Act.

11 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

 Sorry to hear that you live in such fear that you feel a need to have a gun ready to go at all times. Must be hella stressful.

I think this post really illustrates the culture divide.  If I have a tyre iron in my car, do I live in constant fear of a blown tyre? Being prepared isn't the same as living in fear.

10 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

Exactly, ever since I have came to the USA I've heard some Americans say they got more freedom than those in Western Europe because they are allowed to have a gun. I just laugh because it is complete nonsense. My freedoms here are no different to what I had in the UK.

There are three things that come to mind for me.

1. Gun ownership

2. TV licenses 

3. Hate speech

4. Cars are expensive to keep in the UK....infact travel is expensive. I remember ticket prices spiking all the time for rail.

No typing was done.

He said she was scrutinizing everyone that was in front of them as well and that they had heard a number of "warnings" for different things before it was their turn, whereas the other lines were moving about twice as fast.

9 minutes ago, Beachlover said:

There is one huge difference though; hierarchy is very important in the US, in Europe ( especially West Europe) not so much.

 

 

I do not understand this statement. Can you elaborate?

15 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

It's not an exaggeration, 3% of the population own half of all guns in this country.

This should be a good thing. Its unlikely that 3% are using their firearms in crime. Most are collectors.

I also doubt most gun owners admit to gun ownership in polls

7 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

I'm aware of what the second amendment is, it's outdated and written at a time when muskets we're the main weapon of choice. It needs an upgrade because we're living in the 21st century.

Actually when the 2nd amendment was written there were breach loading rifles and even early repeaters. I'm sure they were aware of these since both had been used in the war. One interesting repeating design is a the swivel breach flintlock. They must have also been aware of how technology was progressing.

7 minutes ago, caliliving said:

Well do the parents remember if they typed anything in the computer? if they are flagged they will have problems.  they are coming for long times! if it was 2 week trips, that would be a different story.  they leave september? they should spend 6 months back in the UK. unfortunately, the christmas trip is pushing it and i really REALLY think it is a bad idea! 

I've asked. I'll see what they say. I've passed along all the info from this thread, i'm not sure what they will do. Unfortunately we can't fly out there yet for Christmas. Maybe it should be a Vancouver Christmas haha.

1 hour ago, JimandChristy said:

Really? I've lived in both countries and I feel just as much freedom here in the US than I did in the UK. What a load of poppycock. So the cultural violence in the US is to be accepted because of the 2nd amendment, I thought it was to meant to make citizens safer?

Its not about making people safer, its a limit of power for the government on infringing rights of the individual. Rarely does the protection of rights equate to safety.

1 hour ago, CaliCat said:

 

True, but shouldn't we then pay as much, if not more attention, to a problem that kills more people than terrorism?

 

I think we have spent quite a bit of attention towards it. There have been countless regulations passed in the last 80 years and gun crime has generally been trending down.

1 hour ago, f f said:

are they helping care for the grand child? watching it when you go out or doing any regular activities with the child?

No not really. I work full time, but my wife is at home with the child everyday.  The first visit was prior to and at the birth / Christmas. Second visit was for easter, third visit was for 4th of july. Current visit is actually eclipse related.