Jump to content
270soft Forum
Harris/Ernst 2020

State March Madness Round 2 Part F

Part F  

18 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Which is better?

  2. 2. Should the next march madness be which statue in the U.S. Capitol is the best? (Article below listing them all)

    • Yes
    • No, do the historic Senator list
  3. 3. If the next one is the historic Senators how should I determine which Senators to use? Please answer below.


  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 05/03/2019 at 04:59 AM

Recommended Posts

Perhaps you could do prolific senators from like the 1950's to present day? That may make it easier to select than say, through out all of American history. Just an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to do it, to be honest. @vcczar may be able to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

I believe that @vcczar listed important senators throughout history before but I can't remember. 

I did, awhile back. You can probably do a search for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to be doing one senator per state? How are you going to do this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Are you going to be doing one senator per state? How are you going to do this ?

Top two senators for each state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

 Found it!

Yeah, you could use that list. Here are some options of Senators to replace current senators, if you want to remove those:

AK: If not Lisa Murkowski, then Frank Murkowski

CA: If not Feinstein, William Knowland

CO: If not Gardner, then Gary Hart

CT: If not Murphy, then Joe Lieberman

GA: If not Purdue, then Richard Russell

KY: If not Rand Paul, then John J. Crittenden

OH: If not Sherrod Brown, then Salmon P. Chase

SC: If not Graham, then John C Calhoun

SD: If not Thune, then Tom Daschle

VT: If not Leahy and Sanders, then Robert Stafford and Justin S. Morrill

VA: If not Warner, then Carter Glass

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, you could use that list. Here are some options of Senators to replace current senators, if you want to remove those:

AK: If not Lisa Murkowski, then Frank Murkowski

CA: If not Feinstein, William Knowland

CO: If not Gardner, then Gary Hart

CT: If not Murphy, then Joe Lieberman

GA: If not Purdue, then Richard Russell

KY: If not Rand Paul, then John J. Crittenden

OH: If not Sherrod Brown, then Salmon P. Chase

SC: If not Graham, then John C Calhoun

SD: If not Thune, then Tom Daschle

VT: If not Leahy and Sanders, then Robert Stafford and Justin S. Morrill

VA: If not Warner, then Carter Glass

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Please choose which state you like better. Whether it's because of politics, beauty, entertainment, technology, etc.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sculptures_in_the_National_Statuary_Hall_Collection (For question 2)

Even though it wasn't on the list, Alberta is a far better place to live in my opinion than any American State, Capital District, Territory, or Commonwealth, bar none. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Patine said:

Even though it wasn't on the list, Alberta is a far better place to live in my opinion than any American State, Capital District, Territory, or Commonwealth, bar none. :P

No thank you. Plus the beer alone makes the US better IMO

drumguns.thumb.jpg.f1767f91adcb0de99821bee9ae4fc7fe.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

No thank you. Plus the beer alone makes the US better IMO

drumguns.thumb.jpg.f1767f91adcb0de99821bee9ae4fc7fe.jpg

Well, Alberta has only had three school shootings in my lifetime (43 years). No law-abiding civilian NEEDS  an assault rifle, or should have one. Also, the context of the 2nd Amendment and why it was made and the way the U.S. was at the time it was made is not at all what one sees in the modern U.S. Plus, the sick, twisted cultural fetish with guns in the U.S. is one of those "root problems" I feel NEEDS to be addressed, but no significant politician of any note is willing to touch or acknowledge - only play whack-a-mole with the symptoms. And, the American government doesn't even promote and enforce the degree of responsibility around mass firearm ownership that Switzerland or Finland do. The firearms situation in the U.S. as it is de facto - especially with the sociopathic, deathmongers of Mammon in the NRA and the big firearms corporations that fill their coffers - is a real clusterfuck of death and utter denial of responsibility that I feel absolutely no envy for.

And also, though I don't drink, next to no Canadians I know who do would agree with you on the beer thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Well, Alberta has only had three school shootings in my lifetime (43 years). No law-abiding civilian NEEDS  an assault rifle, or should have one. Also, the context of the 2nd Amendment and why it was made and the way the U.S. was at the time it was made is not at all what one sees in the modern U.S. Plus, the sick, twisted cultural fetish with guns in the U.S. is one of those "root problems" I feel NEEDS to be addressed, but no significant politician of any note is willing to touch or acknowledge - only play whack-a-mole with the symptoms. And, the American government doesn't even promote and enforce the degree of responsibility around mass firearm ownership that Switzerland or Finland do. The firearms situation in the U.S. as it is de facto - especially with the sociopathic, deathmongers of Mammon in the NRA and the big firearms corporations that fill their coffers - is a real clusterfuck of death and utter denial of responsibility that I feel absolutely no envy for.

And also, though I don't drink, next to no Canadians I know who do would agree with you on the beer thing.

Na, the NRA isn't the best organization for gun rights.  They are too willing to give into gun control proposal (and support candidates that aren't the best on guns).

Also, yes, citizens do need weapons capable of defending their rights against the forces of tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

Na, the NRA isn't the best organization for gun rights.  They are too willing to give into gun control proposal (and support candidates that aren't the best on guns).

Also, yes, citizens do need weapons capable of defending their rights against the forces of tyranny.

Then why aren't they using them to fight tyranny? Why have the tyrants in Washington, D.C. been in power, getting their way, solidly entrenched, having their lies and hollow promises believed, and even lauded and voted in (or their two corrupt, Mafia-style party successors) again and again by these "vigilant gun owners ready to take on tyranny" who, like less militant Americans alike, have been screwed over by them for about 80 years - at least. That claim sounds very disingenuous given the evidence and the situation in the Modern U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

Plus, the sick, twisted cultural fetish with guns in the U.S. is one of those "root problems" I feel NEEDS to be addressed, but no significant politician of any note is willing to touch or acknowledge - only play whack-a-mole with the symptoms.

You can address the cultural problem without banning guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WVProgressive said:

You can address the cultural problem without banning guns.

I didn't call for an outright ban. Note my comparison - unfavourable for the U.S. - with Switzerland and Finland's gun ownership in the sentence after your quote cuts off. Also notice in my reply to @jvikings1 how the "vigilance against tyranny" has truly been working out - and has just become emasculated cultural bravado with no real substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Na, the NRA isn't the best organization for gun rights.  They are too willing to give into gun control proposal (and support candidates that aren't the best on guns).

Also, yes, citizens do need weapons capable of defending their rights against the forces of tyranny.

 

19 hours ago, Patine said:

Then why aren't they using them to fight tyranny? Why have the tyrants in Washington, D.C. been in power, getting their way, solidly entrenched, having their lies and hollow promises believed, and even lauded and voted in (or their two corrupt, Mafia-style party successors) again and again by these "vigilant gun owners ready to take on tyranny" who, like less militant Americans alike, have been screwed over by them for about 80 years - at least. That claim sounds very disingenuous given the evidence and the situation in the Modern U.S.

 

19 hours ago, Patine said:

I didn't call for an outright ban. Note my comparison - unfavourable for the U.S. - with Switzerland and Finland's gun ownership in the sentence after your quote cuts off. Also notice in my reply to @jvikings1 how the "vigilance against tyranny" has truly been working out - and has just become emasculated cultural bravado with no real substance.

So, not only all of my two responses above here, but, even without violent revolutions to overthrow the tyrannical governments running the U.S. that are running roughshod over the people, lying to them, cheating them, failing them, acting against their best interests, and breaking their own laws as governments and officials within, and getting away with it AGAIN AND AGAIN, with no meaningful consequences to the joint they've taken that state of affairs for granted and become more and more bold in their corruption and abuses - there is not even the secondary aspect of the "armed vigilance" the Founding Fathers had in mind - to keep the government accountable from outside their halls of power. But, the vast majority of Americans allow all accountability to effectively unfold in it's peer-review, nepotistic, corrupt, favour-trading system of non-justice, and it's broken and easily compromised and circumvented "checks and balances," and the people do not demand or enforce any accountability or advocacy on the government in Washington, D.C. that is completely divorced from and outside their halls of power and closer to the people. And, given the whole electoral system in the U.S. is corrupted and rigged from top to bottom, that is not a long-term solution as it is either - only the faces change, not the big, entrenched problems. "Armed vigilance," as the vaunted concept the Founding Fathers put forth is nothing but "pop-gun tokenism" today. How do you respond here, @jvikings1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Patine said:

Then why aren't they using them to fight tyranny? Why have the tyrants in Washington, D.C. been in power, getting their way, solidly entrenched, having their lies and hollow promises believed, and even lauded and voted in (or their two corrupt, Mafia-style party successors) again and again by these "vigilant gun owners ready to take on tyranny" who, like less militant Americans alike, have been screwed over by them for about 80 years - at least. That claim sounds very disingenuous given the evidence and the situation in the Modern U.S.

Because the violation of rights hasn't reached a point worthy of violent revolution in the eyes of most Americans.  They believe that the government can still be salvaged from its current path.  However, there have been cases of property owners in the US standing up for their property rights through armed resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

However, there have been cases of property owners in the US standing up for their property rights through armed resistance.

You mean like Ruby Ridge, Wounded Knee, or the peaceful but armed occupation of the California Capitol Building by the Black Panthers' Militia? Those turned out really well to those "standing up" for their rights and led to constructive solutions to the problems at hand, didn't they?

 

16 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Because the violation of rights hasn't reached a point worthy of violent revolution in the eyes of most Americans.  They believe that the government can still be salvaged from its current path.

I don't believe this for a minute, in truth. I believe the U.S. (and other First World) government's application of the old policy of "bread and circuses" right from the Roman Emperors' playbooks is a much more honest reason for why this is the case. U.S. government violation of the rights of it's citizens is rampant and atrocious, and the "Patriot" Act gives tools not even begun to be fully tapped available for outright police state, Orwellian action that are now LEGAL, passed in a state fear where the people were manipulated to allow such a noose to be put around their necks' for the future. For now, however, the worst abuses are selective - by demographic - to divide the people among the current socio-political so evident today so no true unified front or ideology exists in defiance of the VERY REAL AND PRESENT RISING tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...