Could be on the NOV ballot
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should Calif be split up?
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
I can see where a little separation could work! :tongue3: https://desertf16apg.files.wordpres...at-touches-the-light-is-los-angeles.jpg?w=869
SolaSaint
Well-Known Member
If they do that and split Texas in three, then Obama will be prophetic by stating he has visited all 57 states. lol
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Split up or split off? The country might be better if it drifted out to sea, just an island in the sun!
Them stupid people out there are letting farm land turn to desert to save some little sardine and blaming it on global warming.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
I agree with OR. "Excommunicate" California. :laugh:
I bet you heard that on Fox News(?). CA is having the worst drought in recorded history.
TIME: Hundred Years of Dry: How California’s Drought Could Get Much, Much Worse — “Californians need to be ready, because if some scientists are right, this drought could be worse than anything the state has experienced in centuries. B. Lynn Ingram, a paleoclimatologist at the University of California, Berkeley, has looked at rings of old trees in the state, which helps scientists gauge precipitation levels going back hundreds of years. (Wide tree rings indicate years of substantial growth and therefore healthy rainfall, while narrow rings indicate years of little growth and very dry weather.) She believes that California hasn’t been this dry since 1580, around the time the English privateer Sir Francis Drake first visited the state’s coast.”
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
One thing I did hear on Fox News which no other cable channel or national news network is reporting, is the fact that there are two droughts in California, one natural, one man-made.
Pay special attention, if you dare watch the video (beware: it will violate your closely held false beliefs) to the portion dealing with how environmentalists have forced diversion of millions gallons of fresh water to be dumped into the Pacific Ocean to preserve the delta smelt fish and salmon. The EPA under the Little Marxist Dictator's leadership has chosen fish over people.
Additionally, the video states that no new water storage facilities have been built in the last 30 years despite the population of the state doubling in that time. Californians have no one to blame for the lack of fresh water except their own socialist government, poor planning, and the feds who have chosen to endorse the preservation of animals over people.
In 1941, three of our northern most counties proposed combining with counties in southwest Oregon to form the state of Jefferson. Personally, I favor at least a north\south split so water transfers would be handled on an inter- rather than intra-state basis.
Who gets stuck with Jerry Brown?
that'll probably be central california.
But building new fresh water storage facilities would require government spending maybe even a tax hike. I thought that was forbidden under the Republican mantra. Also our bridges are falling down and infrastructure crumbling. Again the government must step in, right?
you're hilarious.
government CANNOT tell its citizens they MUST have health care or else ....
government CANNOT tell its citizens not to buy tobacco....
government CANNOT tell its citizens not to drink this or that soda....
government CANNOT butt its head on PERSONAL and FAMILY matters of its citizens for which there is no constitutionally mandated courts or government offices assigned to handle them....
government MUST and SHOULD work to supply its citizens healthy, potable water sources and facilities.
that's what they paid taxes for.
government SHOULD step in when facilities that their citizens use and which they have the constitutional mandate via laws to maintain are breaking down.
that's what people paid taxes for.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Water and land management to the extent that it is done for the benefit of agriculture and wild life are legitimate concerns for the government. Providing for the "social welfare" is not -- and don't go running to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution to point out to me what it says. The Preamble is not codified law.
I thought we were talking about the lack of water and ouir crumbling infrastructure. How do you propose to pay for that. I agree that it's necessary.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
This is completely disingenuous. You're the one who made this about the cost.
You're making no sense. I believe that the government should be responsible for this kind of thing. Most people here wouldn't vote to raise taxes if their mother's life depended on it. I say it's necessary. hat do you say?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That is what that 1st Trillion the big o spent was supposed to go for, infrastructure, "shovel ready jobs". But, as he later admitted. he lied, there were no "shovel ready jobs".
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You are kidding, right! They done done all that.