NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/1/726506/-Nearly-One-Third-of-Georgia-Republicans-Would-Secede

Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America?

US: 61
Independent nation: 35

Democrats: US 88, Ind 8
Republicans: US 52, Ind 43
Independents: US 61, Ind 33

Would you approve or disapprove of Georgia leaving the United States?

Approve: 18
Disapprove: 76

Democrats: Approve 5, Disapprove 89
Republicans: Approve 32, Disapprove 63
Independents: Approve 14, Disapprove 79

This group of fringe GOP'ers seems to include much of the Georgia Senate, which is not altogether surprising when you consider the cast of characters the electorate in Georgia tends to send to Atlanta (and to Washington) under the GOP banner.

Take the Congressional delegation. When the entire Republican delegation to the House is composed of Republican Study Group wingers...when Tom Price, Lynn Westmoreland, Jack Kingston and Phil Gingrey are all duking it out for the title of second nuttiest Republican (our hats are off to Paul Broun on that one)...

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/04/16/georgia-senate-threatens-dismantling-of-usa/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

It wasn’t quite the firing on Fort Sumter that launched the Civil War. But on April 1, your Georgia Senate did threaten by a vote of 43-1 to secede from and even disband the United States.

It was not an April Fool’s joke.

In fact, Senate Resolution 632 did a lot more than merely threaten to end this country. It stated that under the Constitution, the only crimes the federal government could prosecute were treason, piracy and slavery.

“Therefore, all acts of Congress which assume to create, define or punish [other] crimes … are altogether void, and of no force,” the Georgia Senate declared.

In other words, in the infinite, almost unanimous wisdom of the Georgia Senate, Michael Vick is being imprisoned illegally, Bernie Madoff should serve no time for stealing $60 billion and the Unabomber must go free. In fact, the federal penitentiary in Atlanta should be emptied of its inmates.

Texans too:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/23/723608/-Lots-of-unpatriotic-Texans-want-out-of-the-union

Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America?

US: 61
Independent nation: 35

Democrats: US 82, Ind 15
Republicans: US 48, Ind 48
Independents: US 55, Ind 40

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Rick Perry's suggestion that Texas may need to leave the United States?

Approve: 37
Disapprove: 58

Democrats: Approve 16, Disapprove 80
Republicans: Approve 51, Disapprove 44
Independents: Approve 43, Disapprove 50
Wow. Poor Austin, stuck in the middle of so much crazy. This is legitimately scary stuff -- so-called "patriotic" Republicans are split in half over secession, while supposedly "unpatriotic" Democrats love America so much that they want to remain part of the United States. And as Perry gears up for that tough primary, he's got to like that 51 percent of like Republican voters approve of his traitorous talk.

Well, there's 51 percent of Republicans who better not be flying an American flag. They are spitting on Old Glory. What next, burn her at the 4th of July Tea Parties?

Ironically, the United States would be (politically) better off without Texas, making it near-impossible for Republicans to control much of anything in the 49-state union:
(And to add, in case the sarcasm wasn't clear enough, I'm not about to let the wingnuts steal Texas away, even if it would benefit my politics. I love America for everything it is, not for who is in the White House.)

I understand politicians spouting nonsense, but how do Republican voters think this makes any sense?

Don't let the door hit 'em on the ass on the way out!

Daily Kos, yeah, right up there with MoveOn.org as a reputable source...

I was hoping for something upwards of 90%.

The Georgia Senators actually passed a bill saying that the government can't enforce its laws? Are they actually going to try to enforce this by releasing or protecting criminals in their state? Because if so, I suggest we add their asses to those in the federal prisons. After all, they did acknowledge that the government can prosecute treason.;)

Daily Kos, yeah, right up there with MoveOn.org as a reputable source...

I was hoping for something upwards of 90%.

People like you disgust me. You are advocating a course of action for which the only plausible outcome is thousands or millions of Americans dead, and quite possibly an America relegated to third world dictatorship status.

I love America for everything it is, not for who is in the White House.
Bleeeurrrrgh.

I'd want to secede from this tripe also...


On a more serious note, is this figure really surprising? I was under the impression that there's always been a large amount of right-leaning voters in the South who'd like to secede. Perhaps the numbers have jumped up, but wasn't there always a large amount of libertarian-minded folks down there?

Daily Kos, yeah, right up there with MoveOn.org as a reputable source...

demonstrate that the polling commissioned by dkos through research 2000 is flawed. you can do it, right?

demonstrate that the polling commissioned by dkos through research 2000 is flawed. you can do it, right?

Well obviously if its liberal it can't be true, right?;)

The Georgia Senators actually passed a bill saying that the government can't enforce its laws? Are they actually going to try to enforce this by releasing or protecting criminals in their state? Because if so, I suggest we add their asses to those in the federal prisons. After all, they did acknowledge that the government can prosecute treason.

First it is slavery, then it is allowing blacks to vote, then it is segregation--soon it will be same-sex marriage. They just hate progress. Yes, throw them in the pen for trying to create the "Most Conservative Theocracy of Georgia".

On a more serious note, is this figure really surprising? I was under the impression that there's always been a large amount of right-leaning voters in the South who'd like to secede.

i wish this question had been consistently polled in every state for the past few decades. seems like that would be good data to have.

The Georgia Senators actually passed a bill saying that the government can't enforce its laws? Are they actually going to try to enforce this by releasing or protecting criminals in their state? Because if so, I suggest we add their asses to those in the federal prisons. After all, they did acknowledge that the government can prosecute treason.;)

Some local government in Georgia should pass a bill(or whatever) saying the Georgia Senate can't pass bills about what laws the federal government can enforce. For the lulz.

Well obviously if its liberal it can't be true, right?;)

As Colbert said, reality "has a liberal bias".

People like you disgust me. You are advocating a course of action for which the only plausible outcome is thousands or millions of Americans dead, and quite possibly an America relegated to third world dictatorship status.

No, just the same thing that happened last time: A war that ends-up depriving the South of many of its rights for a long time.

demonstrate that the polling commissioned by dkos through research 2000 is flawed. you can do it, right?

It's the Fox news problem. They clearly have a stake in the issue, so it would be unwise to trust them. No?

As Colbert said, reality "has a liberal bias".
No, it's that the liberals have a liberal bias in perceiving the reality, and dismiss everyone who doesn't as an idiot.

No, it's that the liberals have a liberal bias in perceiving the reality, and dismiss everyone who doesn't as an idiot.

That's probably because so many of them are. Of course a huge chunks of liberals are too, but at least they perceive reality with a liberal bias so they can't be all bad, can they? ;)

It's the Fox news problem. They clearly have a stake in the issue, so it would be unwise to trust them. No?

except that they aren't just making up numbers. their methodology and results are actually way more open than most other polling outfits, giving everyone access to basically all of it. and if you check them against the aggregates in pollster, their results are not outside of the normal range at all. hell, they were one of the best pollsters during the election season.

their stake in the issue is reliant on having good info - bad info gives you the republican problem, where they can't deal with reality as they just don't recognize it.

As Colbert said, reality "has a liberal bias".

me and rpp were saying that here before him, so colbert is dead to NSG until he apologizes

Daily Kos, yeah, right up there with MoveOn.org as a reputable source...

I was hoping for something upwards of 90%.

How patriotic of you.

I love how whenever the chips are down conservatives of Myrmi's brand (I speak only of his brand, not all conservatives) are the actual cut-and-runners. They love to talk trash about how everyone else isn't American enough, but when it comes down to it, the ones who lack patriotism is them.

Actually, is anyone getting a little worried? If more conservative states start to do this, might we see a genuine secession movement appear?

How patriotic of you.

I love how whenever the chips are down conservatives of Myrmi's brand (I speak only of his brand, not all conservatives) are the actual cut-and-runners. They love to talk trash about how everyone else isn't American enough, but when it comes down to it, the ones who lack patriotism is them.
I'm not sure what to make of this... It's unpatriotic to want the country to run according to our Constitution, as opposed to whatever Congress can get a majority vote on?

Find a place where I've ever called a citizen of the United States un-American. Or apologize.

Actually, is anyone getting a little worried? If more conservative states start to do this, might we see a genuine secession movement appear?

no. firstly because free association is good in principle, so if enough people in a place want out, why the hell not? but more pragmatically, those most likely to support secession currently are the most retrograde fucktards in the country. they are personally responsible for a significant chunk of our problems. they hate knowledge, hate freedom, hate equality, love torture, love the police state, and want a theocracy.

good fucking riddance.

I'm not sure what to make of this... It's unpatriotic to want the country to run according to our Constitution, as opposed to whatever Congress can get a majority vote on?

Find a place where I've ever called a citizen of the United States un-American. Or apologize.

Try and yell, "FO-ORRRRRRRRT SUM-TERRRRRRRRR!!!" You and New Mitanni would get along so well.

I'm not sure what to make of this... It's unpatriotic to want the country to run according to our Constitution, as opposed to whatever Congress can get a majority vote on?

Find a place where I've ever called a citizen of the United States un-American. Or apologize.

You spoke of desiring secession. Secession is treason, as determined by the outcome of the Civil War.

I am therefore, under the logic you yourself have continuously operated under, justified in calling you unpatriotic.

You spoke of desiring secession. Secession is treason, as determined by the outcome of the Civil War.

I am therefore, under the logic you yourself have continuously operated under, justified in calling you unpatriotic.
Och, pish to that!

As FS rightly says, if folks want to join together in free association, why prevent them? Point out its flaws and impracticability, sure, but calling it treasonous is a bunch of nonsense.

And no cries of, 'They started it first!'.

Georgia's retarded, so I'm not surprised. Every last inch of it is stupid and miserable--and their signature crop, peaches, are more delicious when they come from Canada. I say let 'em go. The union will be stronger, and we'll finally be rid of "Hot-lanta".

me and rpp were saying that here before him, so colbert is dead to NSG until he apologizes

I am pretty sure Colbert said it on The Daily Show, which predates NSG considerably.

Actually, is anyone getting a little worried? If more conservative states start to do this, might we see a genuine secession movement appear?

But I am guessing they will not have as many defectors from the Army as they did the last time they tried this. We would have all the tanks and carriers, and they would have no international support.

I would have thought that this number was fairly constant.

And hell, I can find people who want Northumbrian independence in the UK. Nobody gets their knickers in a twist about that. It's just talk. All of it.

Though I do like the framing.

The utter morons who call for secession tend to be the same utter morons twho call liberals anti-American.

Which means they're not only utter morons, they're hypocrites to boot.

Typical, really. Screw them, in the ass, sideways, with a poleaxe, by force.

I find the first question too open ended.

Actually, is anyone getting a little worried? If more conservative states start to do this, might we see a genuine secession movement appear?

Perhaps (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28559)! You know this is a joke link, right?

I am pretty sure Colbert said it on The Daily Show, which predates NSG considerably.

it was the press dinner where he ripped into the bush admin, as far as i know

it was the press dinner where he ripped into the bush admin, as far as i know

I think he said it multiple times...I am almost positive he said it on the debut episode of his series, and on The Daily Show--I could be wrong.

I think he said it multiple times...I am almost positive he said it on the debut episode of his series, and on The Daily Show--I could be wrong.

i don't recall any instances on the daily show, but it definitely was used here before the colbert report went on. in any case, he's still dead to NSG until he apologizes, as we are not ones to let a little plausible ambiguity get in the way of a good feud.

Dear Georgia:

Don't let the door hit ya!

Well obviously if its liberal it can't be true, right?;)

Oh snap! :cool:

Daily Kos, yeah, right up there with MoveOn.org as a reputable source...

You're right, the dKos is hardly fair and balanced.

They don't bill their stuff as news - its opinion. But the pollsters they use are quite reputable, and I would defy you to prove otherwise.

The utter morons who call for secession tend to be the same utter morons twho call liberals anti-American.

Which means they're not only utter morons, they're hypocrites to boot.

Typical, really. Screw them, in the ass, sideways, with a poleaxe, by force.

Or we could try the Little Nicky treatment - a sideways pineapple up the ass. :p
(Of course y'all realize that I'm being as serious as a $3 note, right?)

Och, pish to that!

As FS rightly says, if folks want to join together in free association, why prevent them? Point out its flaws and impracticability, sure, but calling it treasonous is a bunch of nonsense.

And no cries of, 'They started it first!'.

I actually do agree with you, hence why I said under his logic.

I understand politicians spouting nonsense, but how do Republican voters think this makes any sense?

The poll is nonsense and is akin to claims of people who say if "President X" wins the election im moving to Canada. Noone ever moves to Canada in reality because the results of any election and its all just people making silly noise.

Actually, is anyone getting a little worried? If more conservative states start to do this, might we see a genuine secession movement appear?
no.

if you look at it, the number of republicans that want to seceed is about the same as the usual number for nutcases in this country. its bad for the republicans because as they shrink their percentage of nutz rises.

americans are uninterested in that level of involvement in anything. we are far to satisified with our lives to mess it up with revolution.

Daily Kos, yeah, right up there with MoveOn.org as a reputable source...

I was hoping for something upwards of 90%.
To quote the Republicans, "If you don't like the country, you can just GEEEET out!"

The GOP has itself become a fringe movement, a mockery of a real political party.

To quote the Republicans, "If you don't like the country, you can just GEEEET out!"

The GOP has itself become a fringe movement, a mockery of a real political party.

Do you think it will ever recover, or will it just piss itself away as the Party of Theocracy?

Do you think it will ever recover, or will it just piss itself away as the Party of Theocracy?

It will recover, ANY party in power will eventually piss off the population and cause it to seek alternatives. Its just a matter of time and history. The words Democrat and Republican are interchangeable in this regard.

To quote the Republicans, "If you don't like the country, you can just GEEEET out!"


Then surely we should be praising these Republicans for being consistent and trying to leave when they don't like the country? ;)

If we can somehow save Austin and put it inside a magic bubble, I wouldn't mind letting Texas go. :p

no.

if you look at it, the number of republicans that want to seceed is about the same as the usual number for nutcases in this country. its bad for the republicans because as they shrink their percentage of nutz rises.

americans are uninterested in that level of involvement in anything. we are far to satisified with our lives to mess it up with revolution.

"Grand Old Party. Warning: Contains Nuts"

The bizarre thing is that the people who want to secede think that they're *more* American than the rest of the country. Presumably secession is a second best to chucking all the blue states out of the Union.

I think Colbert said something like "the liberals are tearing this nation apart, so the only solution is to tear harder!". The intellectual contortions that the American right has to go through to justify their positions are really just painful to watch these days.

Anybody who creates this for an Olympic mascot should be kicked from the Union.

http://www.izzypins.com/images/mascot.jpg


Izzy the Whatizit?

The nation IQ level would increase.....

Meh, Georgia sucks anyway, Ive been there...

We need a revolution. The government clearly has a Totalitarian society in its sights.

Meh, Georgia sucks anyway, Ive been there...

I went to Georgia when I was a kid, down to Atlanta. Naturally, since it was my first time going there, I went to the Coca-Cola bottling plant that they have their, or the model plant or whatever, where you can take a tour. I don't remember much since I was much younger, but what I do remember is that at the very end you get to have a drink, except the machines were broken so they just shot out gobs and gobs of syrup, with no soda water to go with it. Naturally, being the sugar-loving individual I was, I ate the stuff up like candy (which it basically was). As I'm sure you can imagine, my stomach did not enjoy that day, and about an hour after all the fun, neither was I.

We need a revolution. The government clearly has a Totalitarian society in its sights.

http://mattsteinglass.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/totalitarian_temptation_bennjerrys.jpg

You'll be missing out on the creamy goodness, ;)

http://mattsteinglass.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/totalitarian_temptation_bennjerrys.jpg

You'll be missing out on the creamy goodness, ;)

Interesting how the top says "Festivus". Is it one of those split-down-the-middle containers?

Interesting how the top says "Festivus". Is it one of those split-down-the-middle containers?

Yes, to celebrate Totalitarianism's Godless Commie origins, :p

I actually do agree with you, hence why I said under his logic.
Ahh, profuse apologies.

"Grand Old Party. Warning: Contains Nuts"

The bizarre thing is that the people who want to secede think that they're *more* American than the rest of the country. Presumably secession is a second best to chucking all the blue states out of the Union.

I think Colbert said something like "the liberals are tearing this nation apart, so the only solution is to tear harder!". The intellectual contortions that the American right has to go through to justify their positions are really just painful to watch these days.
for sure. they are so confused and hurt that the rest of the country rejects their insanity after they have had free rein for 8 years.

http://mattsteinglass.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/totalitarian_temptation_bennjerrys.jpg

You'll be missing out on the creamy goodness, ;)

Holy shit that sounds tasty. *noms*

http://mattsteinglass.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/totalitarian_temptation_bennjerrys.jpg

You'll be missing out on the creamy goodness, ;)

I already have a favorite (http://seanmunoz.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/americone_dream_large.jpg).

Might be worth a shot though.

I already have a favorite (http://seanmunoz.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/americone_dream_large.jpg).

Might be worth a shot though.

Ive been meaning to try it, I just havent had the chance yet...unfortunately, my monthly pint allowance has been spent on Buttered Pecan, :(

But I am guessing they will not have as many defectors from the Army as they did the last time they tried this. We would have all the tanks and carriers, and they would have no international support.

Iran backs terrorists in Palestine. Why not in America? And don't say its because their religions oppose each other. Principles in politics tend to disappear for (albeit temporary) alliances of convieniance.

Well, maybe not Iran, but to say they'd have no international support is foolish. America has more than enough enemies around the world who'd like to watch us destroy ourselves, and fan the flames if needed.

Iran backs terrorists in Palestine. Why not in America? And don't say its because their religions oppose each other. Principles in politics tend to disappear for (albeit temporary) alliances of convieniance.

Well, maybe not Iran, but to say they'd have no international support is foolish. America has more than enough enemies around the world who'd like to watch us destroy ourselves, and fan the flames if needed.

Well, I would say they would have no International support who could actually do anything...

Either because of Politics or the ensuing Blockade...

afterall, Napoleon III was a big time supporter of the Confederacy, but without a means to actually act on it, it was largely beside the point...

and lets face it, no one with the kind of influence that France had is going to support this venture...

Damn, a bunch of them Georgians must've read my post-election post :D

GO DAWGS!!!

Well, I would say they would have no International support who could actually do anything...

Either because of Politics or the ensuing Blockade...

afterall, Napoleon III was a big time supporter of the Confederacy, but without a means to actually act on it, it was largely beside the point...

and lets face it, no one with the kind of influence that France had is going to support this venture...

Russia likely would.
Just to get the missile defense stuff removed faster.

Damn, a bunch of them Georgians must've read my post-election post :D

GO DAWGS!!!

You're anti-American, so that bullshit post is unsurprising. But your whinings sure get amusing as your ideology loses steam and relevance. As Arlen Specter becomes a Democrat, as stem cells are researched and gays marry. As a government that is quite the opposite of Bush does what it deems necessary. As your ideas die. Because that's what's happening, NM. Quite simply. The GOP is dying. It will lose relevance, and, as the new generations become more and more liberal, the GOP will either change into something respectable or merely disappear.

Nothingness. Forever zero. An absence.

Dust to dust.

We need a revolution. The government clearly has a Totalitarian society in its sights.

Shut up.

Then surely we should be praising these Republicans for being consistent and trying to leave when they don't like the country? ;)

They arn't allowed to bring any part of country with them.

Damn, a bunch of them Georgians must've read my post-election post :D

GO DAWGS!!!

Treasonous dog. You should be ashamed of yourself. And if any of these nitwits are serious about seceding from the Union, I hope to God that full charges are pressed against every last one of them.

They arn't allowed to bring any part of country with them.

The supreme court of Georgia has ruled they are allowed to.
The rest of the US is declared defunct and subject to Georgia administration east of the Mississippi and Texas administration west of the Mississippi.

I'm sorry, who is the one calling for secession again?

That's what I thought.

Talk of succession is part of American politics.

the Ninth Circle has a spot reserved for him along with other political traitors.

And for you and your ilk? Treason = Betrayel. I believe your kind, who are calling for secession, have a much higher chance of heading there than someone who switched political allegiances.

1968: Richard Nixon, elected and re-elected.

Perhaps the most liberal President of the 20th Century.

But that is beside the point: Those Presidents were against same-sex marriage, so they are becoming less relevant to today.

And for you and your ilk? Treason = Betrayel. I believe your kind, who are calling for secession, have a much higher chance of heading there than someone who switched political allegiances.

Succession is simply regionalism.

Perhaps the most liberal President of the 20th Century.

Nixon would talk conservative then act liberal.

Nixon would talk conservative then act liberal.

He sometimes called himself a "moderate conservative"; other times he called himself a "practical liberal".

I have no idea what the fuck he playing at; he talked like the damned embodiment of conservatism, than goes and raises social spending. He frequently used racial slurs, and yet supported Affirmative Action, and told his friends that racism was the worst social ill of the time.

The nation IQ level would increase.....

sigh. You know what they say. Take the dumbest person in Alabama, move him to Atlanta and the IQ in both states goes up.

Seriously though, please break away, Georgia. We here in Alabama look forward to Columbus and Augusta turning into the Nuevo Laredo's of the East Coast.

Does anyone have poll numbers in NE states after the Bush election in 04? Also the numbers in Georgia after Bush? I have a feeling most americans are just sore losers.

Better yet what about poll numbers in NE states of Repubs, Dems, and independents? "Secession" is easily marketable to the south by republicans because secession and the confederacy are still a point of pride to many southerners (even if slavery isn't).

You know, as a conservative, soon-to-be registered Republican, I find the calls for secession unpatriotic and nearly treasonous, to be honest. Just because you disagree with those in power does not mean you must completely separate yourself from the rest of the nation. When Reagan was in power, I don't believe many liberals were calling for a Liberal Republic of New York or anything.

God, we need intelligent, open-minded conservatives to take the party.

Does anyone have poll numbers in NE states after the Bush election in 04? Also the numbers in Georgia after Bush? I have a feeling most americans are just sore losers.

I don't think it was a big deal because I have heard nothing of any Northeastern or West Coast liberal state passing regulations that affirmed the right to break up the United States of America because they felt bad. They [gasp!]actually convinced people of their position, and ran a better candidate than Gore or Kerry.

You know, as a conservative, soon-to-be registered Republican, I find the calls for secession unpatriotic and nearly treasonous, to be honest. Just because you disagree with those in power does not mean you must completely separate yourself from the rest of the nation. When Reagan was in power, I don't believe many liberals were calling for a Liberal Republic of New York or anything.

God, we need intelligent, open-minded conservatives to take the party.

It's not "nearly", it's OUTRIGHT treasonous to call for secession. Anyone who calls for secession is a traitor.

God, we need intelligent, open-minded conservatives to take the party.

That might just happen.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=590581

He sometimes called himself a "moderate conservative"; other times he called himself a "practical liberal".

I have no idea what the fuck he playing at; he talked like the damned embodiment of conservatism, than goes and raises social spending. He frequently used racial slurs, and yet supported Affirmative Action, and told his friends that racism was the worst social ill of the time.

I think he was trying to get both sides to vote for him.
If you talk the talk conservatives don't really care if you actually do anything.
where as if you increase social spending with a wink the liberals get happy and have a tongue in cheek approach to dealing with conservatives.

I don't think it was a big deal because I have heard nothing of any Northeastern or West Coast liberal state passing regulations that affirmed the right to break up the United States of America because they felt bad. They [gasp!]actually convinced people of their position, and ran a better candidate than Gore or Kerry.

Yeah, like I said though, the Republicans could just be easily exploiting secession as marketability thing to the south to try and strengthen their position. I wonder how many northeastern/west coast republicans are actually calling for it. I'm guessing significantly lower, though you could always argue that has to do with the liberal/conservative dichotomy rather than Democrat/Republican (given that northeastern repubs tend to more socially liberal than their southern counterparts).

Yeah, like I said though, the Republicans could just be easily exploiting secession as marketability thing to the south to try and strengthen their position. I wonder how many northeastern/west coast republicans are actually calling for it. I'm guessing significantly lower, though you could always argue that has to do with the liberal/conservative dichotomy rather than Democrat/Republican (given that northeastern repubs tend to more socially liberal than their southern counterparts).

If you're going to advocate secession as a political ploy, you're a failure and you deserve to sink into the mire of history with the Whigs.

You see, here's the thing. As someone who also is more socially conservative than liberal, I don't think it's necessarily social conservatism that is bad, it's just how it is practiced.

Here's what I mean. I'm against abortion, because, yes, I do believe that a fetus is a human life. That is my personal, moral stance, I honestly don't care if some scientist is saying a fetus is not a human life, I disagree.

However, I am not going to go yell at an abortion clinic and tell them they are baby-killers or some shit like that. That just makes me look like a douche.

What I should do is research the pros and cons to abortion rights, and try to find a way that shows that abortion can be harmful.

Same thing with gun control, affirmative action, and other various things like that (I personally don't care if gay people get married, because the marriages are civil only if a church doesn't want to marry them, and I'm still undecided on the death penalty).

You got too many conservatives who, as well meaning as they are, argue to much from emotion. That deserves a newspaper to the nose. Bad dog!

Argue from facts. That is how you win arguments. (And yes, facts can support conservative social views).

If you're going to advocate secession as a political ploy, you're a failure and you deserve to sink into the mire of history with the Whigs.

Agreed. If the Republican Party was to, as a whole, promote secession from the Union, I would join a 3rd party.

You got too many conservatives who, as well meaning as they are, argue to much from emotion. That deserves a newspaper to the nose. Bad dog!

You also get the ones who aren't even well-meaning. The ones who want to make human pyramids out of "Moslems" and oppress "sodomites" and seceed from the US and start wars. Not bad dogs, but slobbering rabies-infected mutts.

You also get the ones who aren't even well-meaning. The ones who want to make human pyramids out of "Moslems" and oppress "sodomites" and seceed from the US and start wars. Not bad dogs, but slobbering rabies-infected mutts.

Yeah, those, too. But there are those in all kinds of groups.

It's not "nearly", it's OUTRIGHT treasonous to call for secession. Anyone who calls for secession is a traitor.

Uh, no. Sorry to blow the whistle on the Heikoku train, but that's outright bullshit. Treason is a great deal more than that, as it should be, because otherwise we would be stifling free speech.

And frankly, as always, you are deluging us in your arrogant ichor. Please tone it down, because you really make this side of the argument look worse.

Uh, no. Sorry to blow the whistle on the Heikoku train, but that's outright bullshit. Treason is a great deal more than that, as it should be, because otherwise we would be stifling free speech.

And frankly, as always, you are deluging us in your arrogant ichor. Please tone it down, because you really make this side of the argument look worse.

What, Kyr? Speaking against Bush was called treason by them.

What, Kyr? Speaking against Bush was called treason by them.

So? Does that mean we seriously have to stoop to their level? I'd like to think that we could actually have moral superiority by actually being, you know, morally superior.

So? Does that mean we seriously have to stoop to their level? I'd like to think that we could actually have moral superiority by actually being, you know, morally superior.

We disagreed with Bush.

They talked SECESSION.

What, Kyr? Speaking against Bush was called treason by them.

Who is them ???

I spoke against Bush on several issues but I might be inclined to vote to succeed from the union.

Who is them ???

I spoke against Bush on several issues but I might be inclined to vote to succeed from the union.

And if you succeed you'd secede? Or you think you'd succeed AFTER seceding? :p

The answer being neocons.

We disagreed with Bush.

They talked SECESSION.

So what? Seriously?

I don't understand where you get off most of the time pretending like you're an American anyway. Why do you care what individual citizens say? They can say it all they want. I think it's ridiculous, but they can say it if they want.

They would only be committing treason if they were actually attempting secession, and none of them are doing that.

So what? Seriously?

I don't understand where you get off most of the time pretending like you're an American anyway. Why do you care what individual citizens say? They can say it all they want. I think it's ridiculous, but they can say it if they want.

They would only be committing treason if they were actually attempting secession, and none of them are doing that.

Because these are the same guys that called liberals anti-American, US-haters, et al, for disagreeing with Bush. They don't get to expect different treatment when they, unlike us, actually call for a crime.

You're anti-American, so that bullshit post is unsurprising. But your whinings sure get amusing as your ideology loses steam and relevance. As Arlen Specter becomes a Democrat, as stem cells are researched and gays marry. As a government that is quite the opposite of Bush does what it deems necessary. As your ideas die. Because that's what's happening, NM. Quite simply. The GOP is dying. It will lose relevance, and, as the new generations become more and more liberal, the GOP will either change into something respectable or merely disappear.

Nothingness. Forever zero. An absence.

Dust to dust.

Maybe the GOP is losing steam, but will that trend continue into a fading into insignificance? Possibly, but a new conservative party will form. And if one doesn't the country will face secessions and rebellions.

Maybe the GOP is losing steam, but will that trend continue into a fading into insignificance? Possibly, but a new conservative party will form. And if one doesn't the country will face secessions and rebellions.

Then, get one that keeps church and state separated, and one that stays the hell out of other countries this time, kthxbai.

Then, get one that keeps church and state separated, and one that stays the hell out of other countries this time, kthxbai.

As long as there are superpowers, or hell, regional powers, countries will always meddle in other countries affairs.

Get over it. Work on making your country stronger, and maybe you won't get stepped on by more powerful countries.

Then, get one that keeps church and state separated, and one that stays the hell out of other countries this time, kthxbai.

In an interdependent world, countries are always in other county's business--the big one's just have an upper hand. That is reality.

Because these are the same guys that called liberals anti-American, US-haters, et al, for disagreeing with Bush. They don't get to expect different treatment when they, unlike us, actually call for a crime.

Conversely, this is Georgia we're talking about. There's a segment of the state that still retains a memory of when Sherman leveled a sixty mile wide path through the state--something I wouldn't be surprised about, since that's a little adventure my family's memory still retains, as my Great-great-great-great Grandfather was attached to XV Corps in Sherman's. I'd like Georgia to try, because burning a path through that state sounds like a fun idea.

Conversely, this is Georgia we're talking about. There's a segment of the state that still retains a memory of when Sherman leveled a sixty mile wide path through the state--something I wouldn't be surprised about, since that's a little adventure my family's memory still retains, as my Great-great-great-great Grandfather was attached to XV Corps in Sherman's. I'd like Georgia to try, because burning a path through that state sounds like a fun idea.

Okay, but YOU talk about it for shits and giggles. Neocons talk about it because they're idiots. :p

Because these are the same guys that called liberals anti-American, US-haters, et al, for disagreeing with Bush. They don't get to expect different treatment when they, unlike us, actually call for a crime.

Time to get over it H2.

Also why do you insist on acting the same way as the people you despise and criticised for acting that way?

Nothing succeeds like secession.

Maybe the GOP is losing steam, but will that trend continue into a fading into insignificance? Possibly, but a new conservative party will form. And if one doesn't the country will face secessions and rebellions.

Politics in America goes in cycles. A decade ago the Democrats were the party of obsolecence, now its the Republicans. In another 10 years when the Democrats find something to piss people off it will be the Republicans again. Rinse and repeat.

While this pro-secession sentiment would normally please me, the fact that a lot of them want to secede for a very stupid reason ("Oh noes we have a black President!!!!111") negates any feelings of pleasure I would otherwise feel.

That being said, nothing would please me more than to see states start seceding left and right, bringing about the long-overdue and richly-deserved demise of the U.S.

No, it's that the liberals have a liberal bias in perceiving the reality, and dismiss everyone who doesn't as an idiot.

Unfortunately, most people do that, regardless of ideology.

Last, and not quite as important is the fact that Rachel Corrie had to travel to a foreign country to shout anti-American obscenities while burning the American flag. That's pretty close to treason in my opinion.

How is this close to treason but you can't understand why people consider talks of seccession treason?

No, it's that the liberals have a liberal bias in perceiving the reality, and dismiss everyone who doesn't as an idiot.

It doesn't really make sense to say that conservatives have a conservative bias or liberals have a liberal bias. Those words only work as self-referential labels. No one can agree on what terms those words encompass.

Take the torture issue for example. Both conservatives and liberals want the country to be safe, so you can't really accuse one side or the other of having a "security bias."

Conservatives argued that the best way to keep the country safe was to torture prisoners for information.

Liberals argued that torture was only designed to produce false confessions, and by extension, false intelligence.

Conservatives had a cruelty bias, and liberals a compassion bias.

Now the numbers are out. It turns out that the liberals were right. No good intelligence was produced by torture. All the claims of terrorism prevented by torture turned out to be lies that the torturers told to avoid being prosecuted for war crimes.

Now it's hard after the fact to tell which liberals believed that torture was bad because they were nice decent people, and which ones actually knew that torture did not work.

But we know that conservatives were neither decent, nor did they know the truth. Conservatives bias led them to wrong conclusions because they like hurting people.

Liberal bias led them to correct conclusions because part of the "liberal bias" is asking questions before jumping to conclusions.

And the key difference in liberal versus conservative biases (meaning biases that those people have, not biases towards those ideas) is that now that the numbers are out, conservatives still insist that torture is good and that no one should be punished for it.

No, it's that the liberals have a liberal bias in perceiving the reality, and dismiss everyone who doesn't as an idiot.

I find that it's more that far-left types tend to be smartasses, whereas far-right types tend to be dumbasses.

Either way, they're both still asses.

Oh and for a little bit of amusing hypocrisy.

Hey, the Democrats waged an eight year battle against America regarding the war in Iraq. I think that culminated in Harry Reid's statement that the war was "lost". His word, not mine. That's far more anti-American than wanting a different kind of stimulus. But I think you're being a little cute...

So democrats were being anti-American and "waging an eight year battle against America"?

They've figured out that they can play the 'patriotism' card and get sympathy, so they will milk it for all it's worth. The only people calling anyone anti-American because of their intense hatred of the President and his policies are the Democrats, themselves.

So the only ones calling the Democrats anti-American are the Democrats... oh, and Myrmi, since I can quote him saying exactly that.

Good thing you never said it. You said, quote you or apologize. It looks like you're the one who should be apologizing. And you should look up The Nazz and apologize there since your embarrassing tirade pretty much makes a mockery out of your silly claims about how it's all the Democrats doing.

<snip> flame, flamebait<snip>

<snip>flame, flamebait<snip>.

Other players have a right not to be subjected to the poisonous atmosphere created by posters who cannot control their personal animosities.

Your posts have been deleted, you have both been banned for three days, you both now have another Official Warning recorded on your nations and you are both a breath away from deletion.

From now on, stop and think very carefully before each post you make.

Perhaps it's because you are yourself nothing more than a parasite.

The rest of your post was addressed -- marginally, in some parts -- to the poster's argument. The sentence quoted above is addressed directly to the person behind the argument, the poster himself. That's a flame. Flaming is against the rules. Read the One-Stop Rules Shop (link in my sig).

This is a friendly warning. Don't do anything to merit an unfriendly one.

A couple of others in this thread should wind the rhetoric back a few notches, too. A verbal flourish isn't worth an infraction card or a ban.

How is this close to treason but you can't understand why people consider talks of seccession treason?

Because Georgians are Real Americans, and don't pull live babies out of the wombs of un-anaesthetised mothers, eat them, then sacrifice them to Allah?

If there's anything the Civil War proved, it's that states do not have the legal right to secede from the United States. Even if they did, they'd get their asses handed to them after losing another war.

If there's anything the Civil War proved, it's that states do not have the legal right to secede from the United States. Even if they did, they'd get their asses handed to them after losing another war.

why would there be a war?

What is so wrong with secession?

For the sake of argument, take out the specific factors with Georgia. Conservativism etc.

One of the pillars of modern government is that the government must have the consent of the people. At the same time, another pillar is self determination. Self determination is still a big issue in the world, from Western Sahara to South Ossetia. After World War II, the UN devoted many resources to bringing self determination to colonies all over the world.

Hypothetically, if the people of a peticular place do not feel that the government is properly representing them or their interests, why should they not have the right to remove themselves from that government? Its pretty much what the 13 Colonies did during the American Revolution. Were they wrong in demanding a proper government that functioned with the consent of the people?

That being said, nothing would please me more than to see states start seceding left and right, bringing about the long-overdue and richly-deserved demise of the U.S.
Um, why? Why would you call for the destruction of America?

why would there be a war?

Because I'd create one.

I've got a list in life, and starting a war is on it.

In response to this thread; ENOUGH. Nobody is going to leave the union, seriously. It's part of American (southern) politics to talk about secession and bitch and complain and so . . . . and Americans (for the past few years) have been highly partisan because our parties have branched out so much and have puten up such awful fucking candidates. Once an intelligent, respectable and experienced candidate comes along that will be more economically conservative and more socially open with a strong stance on foreign policy, Americans will unite regardless of party. The reason why there is so much division right now is because there has been no such candidate for over a decade.

SNIP

Who did you vote for, out of interest?

What is so wrong with secession?

...

Hypothetically, if the people of a peticular place do not feel that the government is properly representing them or their interests, why should they not have the right to remove themselves from that government? Its pretty much what the 13 Colonies did during the American Revolution. Were they wrong in demanding a proper government that functioned with the consent of the people?
Well said, sir.

Nowt wrong with free association.

What is so wrong with secession?

For the sake of argument, take out the specific factors with Georgia. Conservativism etc.

One of the pillars of modern government is that the government must have the consent of the people. At the same time, another pillar is self determination. Self determination is still a big issue in the world, from Western Sahara to South Ossetia. After World War II, the UN devoted many resources to bringing self determination to colonies all over the world.

Hypothetically, if the people of a peticular place do not feel that the government is properly representing them or their interests, why should they not have the right to remove themselves from that government? Its pretty much what the 13 Colonies did during the American Revolution. Were they wrong in demanding a proper government that functioned with the consent of the people?

What you said..

I doubt there is enough support for seccession in Georgia for it to happen. How much support would you need anyway? 60%? 70% of the population? What happens to those people who don't want to succeed? I think these are more important issues than the childish whining of those who's party lost..

What happens to those people who don't want to succeed?

They fail. You spelt secede wrong, I was making a joke...

They fail. You spelt secede wrong, I was making a joke...

Don't we all?

I'd curse my bad spelling but I think that would porbably make it worse..

They fail. You spelt secede wrong, I was making a joke...

But, if one tries to fail and does, is that a fail?

OMG Paradox!

(Head explodes)

Who did you vote for, out of interest?
Here's what I said on November 5th, 2008. Though the times are a bit different, I think the point I made still is relevant, especially in regards to the people discussing secession in this thread. I still stand by this post to this day:


Because John McCain is a Senator and is required to at least go through the motions. I, on the other hand, have no such obligation to even pretend to respect Hussein.

I wish him nothing but ill and disgrace. I hope these next 4 years are a complete and utter disaster for him and that he is revealed as the corrupt, incompetent, America-hating, racist fraud that he is. And, I hope the American people, through the pain they are about to endure over the next 4 years, actually learn a lesson.

What the fuck man. I hated the leftists that wished the U.S. ill, harm and misfortune during the Bush years. That said "he's your President, not mine" and that said "I don't feel ashamed to be an American anymore" when Obama won.

That caused us nothing but disunity and projected nothing but the image of a fractured nation to the world. What fucking good did that bring? An election has happend and the Commander in Chief will be so until the next one comes along.

It's time to start a new. Obama has done nothing yet in his job as President that should make us doubt him. Instead, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. He's actually already restored global pride in America and has lifted the spirits of literally more than half our nation, while not really hurting THAT many McCain voters. I mean, let's face it. McCain was not a strong candidate. I voted for him only for some political moderation between Dems and Repubs in Washington.

Watching this, Obama's victory play out, watching the reaction of our nation, I realize that it shouldn't have happend any othe way. So what if McCain would have won? Then the Republicans would have wasted their victory on a weak candidate. Now the Republicans can re-build their party while Obama has a chance. And you know what? If McCain would have won, this country would have become so divided, perhaps even to the point of no recovery.

So let's just relax, and look at the good in this. We stand, once again, united. Not just internally where Obama most certainly has the potential to bring our nation together and heal our divisive wounds from the last 8 years, but to the world and that's even more important. A united America is a strong America. A strong America is a stronger force for good in this world.

So you're right, we can't force you to respect President Obama. But we can tell you this. If you hold yourself to be a proud American, who in his heart knows that unity, strength and national pride are much more important than holding a grudge that will bring you literally nothing, then you will know in your heart and in your mind that it would be honorable for you, as a citizen who can see beyond petty politics but rather into the success or failure of our people and nation, to stand by our new President and give him the respect he deserves.

Wishing ill, harm and failure on your fellow countrymen and country, simply because your representative didn't get elected, compares to treachery in my book. He is your President. He is my President. He is now our President. Let's try him out. We have literally nothing to lose.

Hail to the Chief.
Stand by President Obama.
God Bless the USA.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14175054#post14175054

But, if one tries to fail and does, is that a fail?

OMG Paradox!

(Head explodes)

No. From the point of view of the person attempting to fail and anyone who knows that they're trying to fail they have succeeded. From everyone elses point of view they've failed.

Here's what I said on November 5th, 2008. Though the times are a bit different, I think the point I made still is relevant, especially in regards to the people discussing secession in this thread. I still stand by this post to this day:




http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14175054#post14175054

I whole-heartedly agree with you. As a conservative, I find it repulsive when people say "Oh, I hope Obama fails." What good would that do the U.S.? These people would rather win a political argument than participate in the improvement and betterment of their nation. It's disgusting.

If there's anything the Civil War proved, it's that states do not have the legal right to secede from the United States. Even if they did, they'd get their asses handed to them after losing another war.

Do you oppose the U.S.'s Declaration of Independence from Great Britain? Why or why not?

Um, why? Why would you call for the destruction of America?

I would rather see the U.S. be dissolved and replaced by an association of free and independent states, or better still, by nothing at all.

I would rather see the U.S. be dissolved and replaced by an association of free and independent states, or better still, by nothing at all.
Oh, because you are an anarcho-capitalist, right?

why would there be a war?

Because the federal government worships the precious "Union" above all else, liberty and human life be damned. It would forcefully destroy any attempt to break it up. And sadly, most U.S.Americans would support that.

Oh, because you are an anarcho-capitalist, right?

Yes. But I wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. in its current form break up, and reform as an extremely decentralized confederation with a very weak central government (limited only to national defense and foreign affairs).

Do you oppose the U.S.'s Declaration of Independence from Great Britain? Why or why not?

Yes, they were not Democratically represented by the government that was forcing their will upon them. This government is giving these people the right to govern themselves, through Democracy.

Yes, they were not Democratically represented by the government that was forcing their will upon them. This government is giving these people the right to govern themselves, through Democracy.

And neither were Manchester, Liverpool, and quite a few other cities in England itself, not to mention the rest of Great Britain and Ireland. The settlers in the 13 Colonies probably had it better than a lot of people in the home islands.

And neither were Manchester, Liverpool, and quite a few other cities in England itself, not to mention the rest of Great Britain and Ireland. The settlers in the 13 Colonies probably had it better than a lot of people in the home islands.
So we had more sense then them. Point?:p

I whole-heartedly agree with you. As a conservative, I find it repulsive when people say "Oh, I hope Obama fails." What good would that do the U.S.? These people would rather win a political argument than participate in the improvement and betterment of their nation. It's disgusting.
Indeed. Any true right-winger knows that the unity, strength and well-being of our nation are more important than pretty-political differences. And it's not like we are talking about a reactionary and radical Fascist and Communist parties! We are talking about two parties that, for their differences, can find common ground in the middle.

This government is giving these people the right to govern themselves, through Democracy.
One could argue this is not the case.

So we had more sense then them. Point?:p

Point being, the revolutionaries couldn't exactly whine about no taxation without representation when, even if they had had representation, which would be unfair on all those English people who didn't, then loads of them wouldn't be eligible to vote anyway, and it was all just a big excuse to rebel.

One could argue this is not the case.

How come you don't have your self-portrait as your avatar anymore? :(

One could argue this is not the case.
How so?
Point being, the revolutionaries couldn't exactly whine about no taxation without representation when, even if they had had representation, which would be unfair on all those English people who didn't, then loads of them wouldn't be eligible to vote anyway, and it was all just a big excuse to rebel.
Two wrongs does not make a right. Just because we were fighting for freedom, and the folks across the pond weren't, does not make them right, and us wrong. We had tasted freedom (more or less) from the time when the Crown wasn't trying to bully us into submission, and once tasted, we would not surrender it.

Two wrongs does not make a right. Just because we were fighting for freedom, and the folks across the pond weren't, does not make them right, and us wrong. We had tasted freedom (more or less) from the time when the Crown wasn't trying to bully us into submission, and once tasted, we would not surrender it.

Someone's clearly been learning their history from The Patriot.

Someone's clearly been learning their history from The Patriot.

And the other is clearly British. ;)

Someone's clearly been learning their history from The Patriot.

Honestly, I've never seen the movie. :tongue:

And the other is clearly British. ;)

I despise that term, because it crams 3 nationalities together. Anyway, my English bias is very slight, because I'm quite pro self-determination.

Honestly, I've never seen the movie. :tongue:

What's funny about that movie is that it managed to be even more Anglophobic and ridiculously inaccurate than Braveheart.

How come you don't have your self-portrait as your avatar anymore? :(
I've simply had a new one commissioned.


How so?
Well, an argument can be made that the US system is neither truly representative nor truly democratic.

Though I see this becoming a threadjack.

I've simply had a new one commissioned.

:(

Well, an argument can be made that the US system is neither truly representative nor truly democratic.

You should make a new thread. This will be interesting to discuss. ;)

What's funny about that movie is that it managed to be even more Anglophobic and ridiculously inaccurate than Braveheart.

I think youre both looney, I get my history straight from the source, ;) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANpnPSlwm1M)

Yes. But I wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. in its current form break up, and reform as an extremely decentralized confederation with a very weak central government (limited only to national defense and foreign affairs).

Dude, the Articles of Confederation failed already. We don't need to repeat that experiment.

Dude, the Articles of Confederation failed already. We don't need to repeat that experiment.

Seriously, and the decentralized nature of the CSA hastened its downfall, as many states were unwilling to relinquish troops to the main Armies...

Dude, the Articles of Confederation failed already. We don't need to repeat that experiment.

If what we have now is "success," I would welcome failure with open arms.

If what we have now is "success," I would welcome failure with open arms.

Success comparatively speaking...

There are improvements to be made, but, the Articles were a spectacular failure...

Nothing could get done under them...

Nothing could get done under them...

That's what made them so great. :)

That's what made them so great. :)

Not when things actually needed to get done, I mean, you say that now, but when a Crisis hits you want the government to actually do things, like, respond to an attack (nearly impossible when the states wont give up troops), or respond to a credit crisis (nearly impossible when the states wont give up money), pass laws to defend people's rights (Impossible in a Confederacy if, say, Massachusetts and Texas disagree), etc...

Fact is we cant have a decentralized government work in a nation of our size, and population...

Not when things actually needed to get done, I mean, you say that now, but when a Crisis hits you want the government to actually do things, like, respond to an attack (nearly impossible when the states wont give up troops), or respond to a credit crisis (nearly impossible when the states wont give up money), pass laws to defend people's rights (Impossible in a Confederacy if, say, Massachusetts and Texas disagree), etc...

Fact is we cant have a decentralized government work in a nation of our size, and population...

But I don't want the government to get things done. Generally, when the government tries to "solve" problems, it fails miserably.

Also, if we had a decentralized, limited government, the likelihood of being attacked would be much lower. Notice that neutral, peaceful countries like Costa Rica, Sweden, Switzerland, Botswana, Ireland, Bhutan, Liechtenstein, and Turkmenistan never get attacked, while hyper-interventionist, neo-imperial countries like the U.S. and the U.K. do.

But I don't want the government to get things done. Generally, when the government tries to "solve" problems, it fails miserably.

Also, if we had a decentralized, limited government, the likelihood of being attacked would be much lower. Notice that neutral, peaceful countries like Costa Rica, Sweden, Switzerland, Botswana, Ireland, Bhutan, Liechtenstein, and Turkmenistan never get attacked, while hyper-interventionist, neo-imperial countries like the U.S. and the U.K. do.

Yeah, but those nations are nowhere near the size and influence of our current nation, or even the UK..

They can get away with heavy decentralization because they dont have the numbers of people to govern, defend, and provide for that we do...

Yeah, but those nations are nowhere near the size and influence of our current nation, or even the UK..

So? That's not why they're never attacked. They're never attacked because they don't run around bombing other countries, implementing "regime change," murdering hundreds of thousands with crippling sanctions, backing death squads, attempting to impose their version of "democracy" on weaker countries, etc. They leave other countries alone.

They can get away with heavy decentralization because they dont have the numbers of people to govern, defend, and provide for that we do...

I didn't say they were decentralized (of those I listed, Switzerland is arguably the only decentralized one), only that they were peaceful.

So? That's not why they're never attacked. They're never attacked because they don't run around bombing other countries, implementing "regime change," murdering hundreds of thousands with crippling sanctions, backing death squads, attempting to impose their version of "democracy" on weaker countries, etc. They leave other countries alone.
True, but thats not a problem with the system, but with its leaders, Fortunately, Bush was not allowed to be a lifetime ruler like most other despots...

Obama is working to rectify his mistakes, which would actually be more difficult to do in a decentralized system...



I didn't say they were decentralized (of those I listed, Switzerland is arguably the only decentralized one), only that they were peaceful.
Well, Ill give you that Id rather have a peaceful, neutral nation, however, decentralization for a nation as late in the game, so to speak, as the US would be suicidal...

True, but thats not a problem with the system, but with its leaders, Fortunately, Bush was not allowed to be a lifetime ruler like most other despots...

Obama is working to rectify his mistakes, which would actually be more difficult to do in a decentralized system...

Obama's made a few improvements, but these are mostly marginal. The U.S. continues to have bases in over 150 countries, flush billions of dollars in "aid" down the toilet, and wage aggression in other countries (Afghanistan, etc.). Obama's simply giving us imperialism with a human face.

If the nation was decentralized, it would be far more difficult for monkeys like Bush to inflict so much damage.

Well, Ill give you that Id rather have a peaceful, neutral nation, however, decentralization for a nation as late in the game, so to speak, as the US would be suicidal...

Why?

Obama's made a few improvements, but these are mostly marginal. The U.S. continues to have bases in over 150 countries, flush billions of dollars in "aid" down the toilet, and wage aggression in other countries (Afghanistan, etc.). Obama's simply giving us imperialism with a human face.

If the nation was decentralized, it would be far more difficult for monkeys like Bush to inflict so much damage.

Well, the majority of those 150 want us there for the most part, as we share intelligence, personnel, and equipment...

Ill give you that we flush all that aid, as alot of that goes to thugs who indoctrinate their people anyway...

And, We have to continue in Afghanistan, if we picked up and left tomorrow, alot of nations are going to be pissed at us, because all that money and all those lives theyve pooled into the project would be all for naught...

Beyond that, the ramifications of leaving it in an essentially lawless state could be disastrous, itd be a landlocked version of Somalia, or worse...

Why?

For the aforementioned, its nearly impossible to respond to crises, which, when youve reached this size, happens alot...

Well, the majority of those 150 want us there for the most part, as we share intelligence, personnel, and equipment...

Their governments want us there. That doesn't necessarily mean that their people want us there.

Ill give you that we flush all that aid, as alot of that goes to thugs who indoctrinate their people anyway...

True.

And, We have to continue in Afghanistan, if we picked up and left tomorrow, alot of nations are going to be pissed at us, because all that money and all those lives theyve pooled into the project would be all for naught...

Too many Afghanis have died already. There's no reason more should be killed.

Beyond that, the ramifications of leaving it in an essentially lawless state could be disastrous, itd be a landlocked version of Somalia, or worse...

Afghanistan isn't called the graveyard of empires for nothing. The Afghani people cannot and will not be subdued.

For the aforementioned, its nearly impossible to respond to crises, which, when youve reached this size, happens alot...

Even though most crises are either created by, or exacerbated by, the government?

Their governments want us there. That doesn't necessarily mean that their people want us there.


True, it doesnt necessarily mean it, but, It also doesnt necessarily mean they dont either...




Too many Afghanis have died already. There's no reason more should be killed.



Afghanistan isn't called the graveyard of empires for nothing. The Afghani people cannot and will not be subdued.
Well, its not about them being subdued, we're not trying to conquer the place like the Soviets, we just have to stay until the government gets on its feet, itll probably be awhile, but itll be worth it in the long run when groups like the Taliban, Al Queda, etc., are no longer able to flourish there...



Even though most crises are either created by, or exacerbated by, the government?
I would disagree, The Credit Crises wasnt created or exacerbated by the government, but rather by Corporate Greed...

Natural Disasters, like Katrina, arent created by the government, and at least in MS wasnt exacerbated by it, in fact, the situation in New Orleans was actually mostly the fault of poor local government in the area, as Louisiana has a long history of corruption behind it...

Civil Rights abuses like the Jim Crow era, and whats currently being done to Homosexuals arent created by the government, but rather by society at large...

And they would be nearly impossible to deal with in a decentralized set up...

True, it doesnt necessarily mean it, but, It also doesnt necessarily mean they dont either...

Even if they do want us there, who cares? We don't belong there, period.

Well, its not about them being subdued, we're not trying to conquer the place like the Soviets, we just have to stay until the government gets on its feet, itll probably be awhile, but itll be worth it in the long run when groups like the Taliban, Al Queda, etc., are no longer able to flourish there...

The "government" in Afghanistan is little more than a U.S. puppet, corrupt as hell, and widely unpopular.

I would disagree, The Credit Crises wasnt created or exacerbated by the government

Yes, it was. But that's another subject for another thread.

Natural Disasters, like Katrina, arent created by the government, and at least in MS wasnt exacerbated by it, in fact, the situation in New Orleans was actually mostly the fault of poor local government in the area, as Louisiana has a long history of corruption behind it...

Natural disasters aren't caused by governments, true, but they pale in comparison to disasters caused by governments.

Civil Rights abuses like the Jim Crow era, and whats currently being done to Homosexuals arent created by the government, but rather by society at large...

The government implemented Jim Crow laws as well as "anti-sodomy" laws.

And they would be nearly impossible to deal with in a decentralized set up...

What is "they?"

Even if they do want us there, who cares? We don't belong there, period.
I disagree, I would go so far as to say, they should have bases here as well, to make the sharing more efficient...



The "government" in Afghanistan is little more than a U.S. puppet, corrupt as hell, and widely unpopular.
Yes, but which is more unpopular, it, or the Taliban, Al Queda, and Anarchy?



Yes, it was. But that's another subject for another thread.
If you say so, regardless it would be much more difficult to deal with if, California didnt want to share funds with Mississippi, which could be for any number of reasons (tax burden, social problems, etc.)



Natural disasters aren't caused by governments, true, but they pale in comparison to disasters caused by governments.
Im not so sure I can agree with you there, having been through one, The Governments never come in and turned my house to a slab, only provided me with money to fix it...



The government implemented Jim Crow laws as well as "anti-sodomy" laws.
Not the Federal Government...the State government implements those, thats why they didnt exist north of the Mason-Dixon line...

and without Federal Intervention, its unlikely they wouldve ended either...





What is "they?"

the issues I stated, I suppose I shouldve said "those" but I have a tendency to type the same way I talk...

I disagree, I would go so far as to say, they should have bases here as well, to make the sharing more efficient...

Why should we have bases in other countries?

Yes, but which is more unpopular, it, or the Taliban, Al Queda, and Anarchy?

I honestly don't know the answer to that.

If you say so, regardless it would be much more difficult to deal with if, California didnt want to share funds with Mississippi, which could be for any number of reasons (tax burden, social problems, etc.)

And?

Im not so sure I can agree with you there, having been through one, The Governments never come in and turned my house to a slab, only provided me with money to fix it...

Wars (created by governments) are far more destructive.

Not the Federal Government...the State government implements those, thats why they didnt exist north of the Mason-Dixon line...

Several northern states had "black codes" long before the South did.

and without Federal Intervention, its unlikely they wouldve ended either...

Debateable. But regardless of why they ended, the fact that they did end is a good thing, as we can both agree on.

the issues I stated, I suppose I shouldve said "those" but I have a tendency to type the same way I talk...

Ah, okay.

. After World War II, the UN devoted many resources to bringing self determination to colonies all over the world.


And look how marvelously that has gone.

And look how marvelously that has gone.

Look at the history of colonialism and de-colonization. In nearly all cases, colonial subjects were provided only the sparsest education and vocational skills, artifically reduced to conditions little better than serfdom, and hindered from advancement in almost every way possible, and also had their individual liberties severely restricted. They were never given the chance to advance on their own merits and reach their full potential. Then they were quickly granted independence without being prepared for it, and a lot of the problems exacerbated by colonialism blew up into civil war, despotism, etc. Only a few countries were exceptions to this rule. Colonialism was evil and immoral on all levels, and de-colonization was handled sloppily.

No country ever has the right to colonize anyone else. Period. And regardless of how "well" a colonial power may run its colony, that's never an excuse for removing peoples' rights to self-determination.

And look how marvelously that has gone.

Are you saying that the challenges faced by newly decolonized nations somehow mitigates their right to self determination?

Are you saying that the challenges faced by newly decolonized nations somehow mitigates their right to self determination?

Well, I wouldnt say that, I think alot of them wouldve done well to learn from their previous government, similar to India...

But, no, everyone has a right to self determination...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28559

Don't argue with this anarchy nonsense. It doesn't work, we all know this, let them have their utopian fantasies.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28559

Don't argue with this anarchy nonsense. It doesn't work, we all know this, let them have their utopian fantasies.

If people want anarchy, why not let them have it? If you people want government, go for it, but don't force it on everyone else.

I was just in Georgia

If you people want government, go for it, but don't force it on everyone else.
It doesn't work like that. Government cannot co-exist with non-government, because non-governmental zones (unless deemed otherwise) are seen as open land.

Also, a government must be forced on the people in the sent that it monopolizes the use of violence in order to create order and law. Government exists to counter disorder, and disorder is the enemy of any kind of stability, whether economic, political or social.

Now what TYPE of government must be forced on the people is where people should be able to choose for themselves.

If people want anarchy, why not let them have it? If you people want government, go for it, but don't force it on everyone else.

There's no such thing as anarchy. It is a hypothetical state. People always exist in society, and society always has some form of government.

I was just in Georgia

Idk if Id let that spread....unless youre into waterboarding anyway, http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-whistling.gif

Idk if Id let that spread....unless youre into waterboarding anyway, http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-whistling.gif

Its ok it was work related ... either way got to stay in the upscale part of Atlanta (buckland)

Nice place ... lots of stuff to do ... fucking insane drivers

Its ok it was work related ... either way got to stay in the upscale part of Atlanta (buckland)

Nice place ... lots of stuff to do ... fucking insane drivers

Atlanta's not so bad, I wouldnt recommend the rest, although, yeah, driving through sucks balls, lol...

I prefer Pensacola or Tampa myself...

There's no such thing as anarchy. It is a hypothetical state. People always exist in society, and society always has some form of government.
As there has been at least one instance of a large amount of people living in anarchy, the above is necessarily false.

And if you succeed you'd secede? Or you think you'd succeed AFTER seceding? :p

Texas would. of the large states our economy hasn't been hit nearly as bad as the other economies. Oil and a decent technology sector give Texas stand alone ability. Also we are a tax donor state so the average Texan would see taxes go down from the federal level.


The answer being neocons.

Thats not really the ones involved.
NeoCons are a foreign policy based differential.
this is a domestic issue so not really a NeoCon issue.

Re: the article in the OP, anyone who thinks this is a recent development or a late-breaking news story has clearly never been to GA or TX in say, the last hundred years. People always talk about this sort of thing and it never amounts to anything. It's like the safety valve on a steamer, it lets off a little pressure so the whole thing doesn't explode.

The guy who wrote this is probably one of those clowns who thinks that there is some kind of black hole between Manhattan and Mulholland Dr. and is pandering to an audience of the same.

As there has been at least one instance of a large amount of people living in anarchy, the above is necessarily false.

Do tell.

Texas would. of the large states our economy hasn't been hit nearly as bad as the other economies. Oil and a decent technology sector give Texas stand alone ability. Also we are a tax donor state so the average Texan would see taxes go down from the federal level.
If Texas seceded, it would have to take no small amount of effort to retain its technology sector. There's been a growing political gap in the ranks of the most highly educated individuals, who are also more mobile than most.

Texas would have an easier time of it than some states, but even in the most peaceful secession, we would see a lot of volatility within the first few years as people move into or out of Texas in large numbers.

Do tell.

Somalia.

It sounds all rebellious and cool but when you actually sit down and try to figure it out. It is really not a good idea. I think we have a good thing going and we should just see where it takes us. No rush to get out.

If people want anarchy, why not let them have it? If you people want government, go for it, but don't force it on everyone else.

This kind of opinion drives me crazy. The very idea we would even entertain such a thought is bewildering.

Obviously even if they do secede the State government would become the Federal government?

Anarchy is waste of everyone's time, why do we even talk about like it is a viable alternative? ANARCHY IS NEVER A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.

If you want to do your own thing move to a remote location and setup your own little cabin in the woods by a stream. You can fish and hunt until your hearts content. There will be no one to bug you except bears and deer.

For people who like to live in society. Anarchy is not an option and will never be an option. Roving bike gangs and punk rock hairdos just don't do it for me. At least in the Road warrior they had an excuse, they just went through a nuclear war. Just plain not helpful.

This kind of opinion drives me crazy. The very idea we would even entertain such a thought is bewildering.

Obviously even if they do secede the State government would become the Federal government?

Anarchy is waste of everyone's time, why do we even talk about like it is a viable alternative? ANARCHY IS NEVER A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.

If you want to do your own thing move to a remote location and setup your own little cabin in the woods by a stream. You can fish and hunt until your hearts content. There will be no one to bug you except bears and deer.

For people who like to live in society. Anarchy is not an option and will never be an option. Roving bike gangs and punk rock hairdos just don't do it for me. At least in the Road warrior they had an excuse, they just went through a nuclear war. Just plain not helpful.

Worked out well under the Althing.

Worked out well under the Althing.

I have no idea about Iceland although I somehow doubt it. I had to look up Althing? Isn't that the bump in the Atlantic before you hit Europe? Yeah it worked out great in Somalia as well. I suppose if you grow up and seriously want to be a pirate it is a good place to start. No more peg legs and eye patches though.

I have no idea about Iceland although I somehow doubt it. I had to look up Althing? Isn't that the bump in the Atlantic before you hit Europe? Yeah it worked out great in Somalia as well. I suppose if you grow up and seriously want to be a pirate it is a good place to start. No more peg legs and eye patches though.

Warlords are not anarchy, they are just totalitarians that are too small in scope to claim the whole country.

Warlords are not anarchy, they are just totalitarians that are too small in scope to claim the whole country.
Warlords may not be anarchy in Somalia, but they are the direct result of there being anarchy in Somalia. Which was the point.

Warlords may not be anarchy in Somalia, but they are the direct result of there being anarchy in Somalia. Which was the point.

They are a direct result of chaos in Somalia. Not that I'm in favor of Anarchism, but some of the posts in this thread show a distinct lack of political understanding of Anarchism. Somalia is a set of autonomous regions that suffered from interventionist ignorance and poor policy decisions along with a failed and failing attempt at restoring some semblance of governmental control--it is not Anarchic in the political science meaning of the word.

They are a direct result of chaos in Somalia. Not that I'm in favor of Anarchism, but some of the posts in this thread show a distinct lack of political understanding of Anarchism. Somalia is a set of autonomous regions that suffered from interventionist ignorance and poor policy decisions along with a failed and failing attempt at restoring some semblance of governmental control--it is not Anarchic in the political science meaning of the word.

See this is the whole thing that makes me laugh.

Failed in a government sense mean anarchy? I mean doesn't it? Very few place start off with absolutely no government of any kind. When you hear the philosophers talk it like there is the special place where there has never been any government and people always do the right thing....Then they look at you all strange why do you need a government?

Well just off the top of my head...

Schools, roads, police, and firefighters. Public works such as clean water and sewers. A military is fairly useful and difficult to maintain without a government. Garbage removal. There are just so many places it boggles the mind how they think they can do without all that. So you put the question to them. Who is going to maintain the roads and how will you maintain them? Usually they say "Well about toll roads?" Great so we have toll roads everywhere. They slow down traffic as it is. Okay how about police then? Private security companies? It just doesn't work.

Warlords are not anarchy, they are just totalitarians that are too small in scope to claim the whole country.

That is the basis of feudalism. So long as my boss is as strong as your your boss everything remain stable. Warlords = Barons. So now all they have to is get serfs to work the land. Grant them fancy titles: Earl, Duke, Knights, ETC and you are all set . No doubt at the point of a gun. Then you could have pirates and knights in the same country.

See this is the whole thing that makes me laugh.

Failed in a government sense mean anarchy? I mean doesn't it? Very few place start off with absolutely no government of any kind. When you hear the philosophers talk it like there is the special place where there has never been any government and people always do the right thing....Then they look at you all strange why do you need a government?

Like I said, I am no Anarchist--I think that all iterations of it inevitably lead to corporatism--but a failed state is in chaos, it is not an example of applied Anarchism. To use Somalia as an example of anarchism is somewhat intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.

To answer your question: failed in a government sense means chaos, not anarchy in any useful meaning of the word. Furthermore, most anarchists that I've read do not believe in a complete destruction of government, any more than communists want a new Soviet state. It is a question of shrinking it down to an extremely local level with maximized liberties, or at least a system of law that is applicable at such a local level as to make it incongruent with the traditional understanding of government.

Also, for what it's worth, early Mesopotamian city-states always struck me as a good example of early anarchic states. Minimal real governmental power or authority, relative mobility should a citizen choose and a centralized distribution of resources in order simply to prioritize it for maximum efficiency. The temple corporations eventually ceased functioning as resource distributors independent of political control and began to serve as extensions of the current ruler's control. This creates a kind of local hydraulic despotism, I guess (I don't really know what other term to use...as it isn't technically the right term, but it seems the best approximation I can come up with), and simply results your run-of-the-mill primitive fascist state before it turns into a monarchy thanks to time.

Then you could have pirates and knights in the same country.

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2281554/MontyPython-main_Full.jpg

vs.

http://filmonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/pirates-of-the-caribbean-at-worlds-end-20070524005814522.jpg


Could be interesting.

Do tell.
The anarchist communes of Aragon and Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War are an obvious example.

Also, we can point to religious groups such as the Diggers, Anabaptists, certain Mennonite groups, and suchlike, who lived in what could be described as anarchist communes.

Some still live that way today, in the US and elsewhere.

EDIT: There are further descriptions here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism#Historical_examples_of_societies_successfully_organized_according_to_anarchist_ principles) of large groups or societies organised along anarchist principles.


Warlords may not be anarchy in Somalia, but they are the direct result of there being anarchy in Somalia. Which was the point.
The point is that no serious political theorist would describe what is currently going on in Somalia as akin to what anarchists propose, or the only possible real-life formulation of anarchism.

What's holding them back? The US militatry is stretched out with two wars in the Middle East. What's Obama going to do, call the troops back to fight another civil war? *psh*

If North Carolina secedes, I'm moving up North.

If North Carolina secedes, I'm moving up North.
To north North Carolina?

To north North Carolina?

I dunno, maybe move up and west to San Fransisco, CA.

What's holding them back? The US militatry is stretched out with two wars in the Middle East. What's Obama going to do, call the troops back to fight another civil war? *psh*

If North Carolina secedes, I'm moving up North.
Last time, North Carolina didn't secede until after Tennesee, Georgia, Virginia, and South Carolina seceded - i.e., until after NC was completely surrounded by seceding states. Given NC's large and politically active voting black population, low numbers of self-identified Republicans, and the recent upsurge in liberal educated types within the white population, NC is really unlikely to vote in favor of secession.

OK, so I just saw a TV advertisement for Texas tourism... it said "It's just like a whole another country" at the end or something like that on the screen.

Pre-positioning?

To north North Carolina?

sometimes, i like to threaten to move to even more northerly dakota

Somalia.

The Somalian government might not have power over its territories, but I find it hard to believe that warlords or somesuch haven't taken over their own little fiefdoms. But, we probably have about the same amount of knowledge of what the power structures in Somalia look like.

Somalia.

I actually would live in Somalia, but not the reason you think.

I actually would live in Somalia, but not the reason you think.

Why??

WHY???

The point is that no serious political theorist would describe what is currently going on in Somalia as akin to what anarchists propose, or the only possible real-life formulation of anarchism.
When I meant Somalia I didn't mean an anarchic form of governance. I meant the total absence of centralised, effective and stable governance - i.e in a state of anarchy, as opposed to being run by anarchists - but I see what you mean when you're describing, and giving examples of Anarchist communities.

The Somalian government might not have power over its territories, but I find it hard to believe that warlords or somesuch haven't taken over their own little fiefdoms. But, we probably have about the same amount of knowledge of what the power structures in Somalia look like.

See above.

Why??

WHY???

Simple. I wouldn't survive long there. :p

GO DAWGS!!!

And take the Falcons with you! :p

As to the OP, my guess is these right wing hardliners will all get drunk at a KKK rally and forget the whole thing.

sometimes, i like to threaten to move to even more northerly dakota
Or, as it's more commonly known, Canada.

OK, so I just saw a TV advertisement for Texas tourism... it said "It's just like a whole another country" at the end or something like that on the screen. Pre-positioning?

It's a tourism slogan referencing the fact that TX was actually a separate country. Sometimes a cigar...is just a cigar.

It's a tourism slogan referencing the fact that TX was actually a separate country. Sometimes a cigar...is just a cigar.

Not when it's been shoved up your pooper. Then it becomes a chocolate cigar.

Not when it's been shoved up your pooper. Then it becomes a Monica cigar.

fixed

It's a tourism slogan referencing the fact that TX was actually a separate country. Sometimes a cigar...is just a cigar.

What happens if you stick that cigar in an intern vagina and smoke it though?

What happens if you stick that cigar in an intern vagina and smoke it though?

Then it is a Grand Reserve Gurkha.

What happens if you stick that cigar in an intern vagina and smoke it though?

You'll have to ask Slick Willie about that one, I wouldn't know. I think it's safe to say the man has left a...mark on history, or given the subject, maybe that should be 'herstory.'