Secession Talk...

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:21 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:But only illegally, and they'd be made to work shit jobs. Then all of the "Americans" would bitch about the Southerners, saying "Dey took ur jaaaawbs". There would be a lot of back-and-forth about immigration reform, and lots of American citizens with southern accents would be illegally deported or held by the INS.

So, poetic justice?

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:21 am

Ganbare Gincun wrote: Seeing as how Tina Fey can see Russia from her house and all, this is practically a given.

Palin is stupid, but technically she didn't say that.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:27 am

No, but what she actually said was only marginally less stupid.

And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:35 am

Yeah, we don't need to attribute stupid things that others said while imitating her, as the things she's said are stupid enough already. That's all I'm saying.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:01 pm

Well, there was a Ramussen poll where only 18% of Texans said they'd vote to secede and 75% would vote against. Less than half thought the state even had the right to secede.

So while Chuck Norris may be President of Texas, he's going to have at least a 50% hostile, majority minority population.

-Crissa

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:23 am

Here in Australia, it's impossible to secede. Yes, there are all those guys with their own little kingdoms of one square kilometer, good for them, but they're part of Australia still. See, our constitution doesn't contain much in the way of rights (we have free speech by a gentleman's agreement it seems), but it DOES contain something saying no-one may secede.

One state (WA?) tried to do so, quite some time ago, before being told "Sorry, the constitution says you can't. So, um, suck it."

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:49 pm

Our constitution draws on the english experience much more than the american one.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:55 am

Actually our federal constitution is rather well known for drawing very heavily on BOTH.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:41 am

You know, I really feel like I have to point out:

A right to secede? I mean, come on, does everyone know what secession is? The folks who do it usually aren't concerned about whether the law of the land that they're seceding from tells them they're allowed to.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:54 am

PhoneLobster wrote:Actually our federal constitution is rather well known for drawing very heavily on BOTH.

I don't feel its particularly wrong to say it draws more heavily on the english experince than the America. For example, the centrepeice of the America is the bill of rights which we don't have and instead opt for the english method, the government is set in accordance to the english etc.

Of course the US constitution is an influence, just I don;t think it is as much as the english. I mean, we handle all the areas much more like the english than the Americans.

*The Parliament
* The Executive
* The Judicature
* Finance and Trade
* The States
* New States
* Miscellaneous
* Alteration of the Constitution

are handled very differently, though I guess the concept of states is very american.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:00 am

Gelare wrote:You know, I really feel like I have to point out:

A right to secede? I mean, come on, does everyone know what secession is? The folks who do it usually aren't concerned about whether the law of the land that they're seceding from tells them they're allowed to.

Is countries being able to quit big organisations they've signed up to actually a bad idea?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:28 am

Five seconds on google got this as the first result. And it calls the American constitution the "primary source" for ours.

If it's a matter you are interested in the third result was a nice little bite sized comparison.

But really any Australian historian talking about the subject will talk endlessly about the massive influence of the American system. Even those bits where we differ from them were based as much on examining and avoiding deficiencies of their system as any actual move towards a rival system.

That our system resembles the British system is unremarkable, we were, and ARE still a subject state of the British empire. Indeed the very idea of Australia as being anything but a subject state being held by any clear majority of the population is VERY much an idea of the last 50 or so years. Within living memory flying the Australian flag (which was actually RED) rather than the union jack was considered an unpatriotic act.

We took the British system because we were in fact British, and changed it. The majority of the changes came from the American system, which was very fashionable among Australian leaders of the period.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:57 am

I'd agree with that analysis - point I was making really.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:58 am

cthulhu wrote:
Gelare wrote:You know, I really feel like I have to point out:

A right to secede? I mean, come on, does everyone know what secession is? The folks who do it usually aren't concerned about whether the law of the land that they're seceding from tells them they're allowed to.
Is countries being able to quit big organisations they've signed up to actually a bad idea?

Yes. Having minority groups take their ball and go home obviates democracy and creates war and mistrust. The majority isn't always right, but some minority somewhere is always wrong.

-Username17

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:20 pm

At the same time Frank, sometimes the only way things get good things get done is by having a minority standing up, gumming up the works and insisting that their point be addressed. Protesters and those who advocate civil dissent are often the heroes of our nations.

If only so many of them wouldn't be such utter wankers in person.

Lich-Loved · Post by **Lich-Loved** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:15 pm

ckafrica wrote:At the same time Frank, sometimes the only way things get good things get done is by having a minority standing up, gumming up the works and insisting that their point be addressed. Protesters and those who advocate civil dissent are often the heroes of our nations.

While I agree on the "dissenters are often heroes", or perhaps I should say, many heroes were at first dissenters, I do not believe that a "minority standing up and gumming up the works and insisting things to bring about a good result" is a viable strategy. The problem is that it is rather difficult to decide what "good" is. What may be good for a minority is not always good for anyone else.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:14 pm

Look, modern democracies don't have such a thing as majorities. What they have is a collection of minorities who band together, even in two-party systems. You can see it in the Republican party, which is the party of Libertarians and reliepgious conservatives, even though the two groups are almost opposite in ideology. This is incidentally the reason why democracies work for human rights; we didn't get sweeping civil rights legislation in the 60's and 70's because black voters outnumbered white racists (because they didn't), but because they also got support from other minorities who saw their rights threatened/abused--women, Latinos, Jews, so-on. There's a reason why this time period saw an explosion in rights.

If you're a minority, the best way to get what you want is to enlist the help of other minority groups. This is why progress on gay rights have been accelerating in the past 10 years and in 10 years I expect same-sex marriage should be pretty much universal in the US--if not sooner.

The wrong way to do things is for the minority to decide that they should get a fair shake at the expense of the others because they're not gettng what they want.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:45 pm

Just in case I haven't beaten this point into the ground enough, that's exactly why Reconstruction failed. Minority groups in a democracy (which would be everyone who is not an upper-middle class/rich WASP, who are overrepresented in the USA) should be made to feel some connection between people of even opposite ideology no matter what.

The reason why politics seems so divisive nowadays in the USA is because of certain hatemongers like Beck and Gingrich and George W. Bush intentionally demonizing other political blocs and using the wedge strategy as often as possible. A disturbingly large number of people in this country honestly believe that their political rivals knowingly hate America. Hell, how many people characterized Obama's goodwill tour through Europe and the Americas as the 'Hate America Tour'?

If things weren't that much worse in the 20's-60's, I'd wonder if we reached the point of no return. But apparently we have to do this idiotic dance every now and then even though it benefits no one.

Because, really, what the shit is this? WHAT THE SHIT IS THIS? http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida ... 05547.html

tl;dr version: After six minutes of floor debate the Florida GOP passes legislation that puts severe restrictions on voter registration while also loosening restrictions on out-of-state PACs.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:43 pm

Speaking of hating America, I find it hilarious how quickly the conservative movement turned around with things like Texas secession and "tea parties". It's as though they're purely bimodal.

Lich-Loved · Post by **Lich-Loved** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:05 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:The reason why politics seems so divisive nowadays in the USA is because of certain hatemongers like Beck and Gingrich and George W. Bush intentionally demonizing other political blocs and using the wedge strategy as often as possible.

I am no fan of the Right, but to think this strategy is a right-wing only is naive in the extreme. Both parties try to drive wedges in the public, because that maintains the status quo. And the status I am talking about has nothing to do with the common guy and everything to do with getting rich as hell being a congressman or career bureaucrat. If the citizens on the Left and the Right are focused on destroying the other side, then they are not united about kicking the criminals in both parties out of Congress, cleaning up graft, reforming campaign finance and voter registration law and passing the laws we need to do the right things about energy, the environment, entitlements and reducing the debt.

Every ounce of energy common people on the Left put into hating the Right is wasted on solving the problems that need to get solved. If you remain afraid of the Other Side, whatever side it is you are on, then you are effectively working to keep these bastards in office. This is the reason behind class warfare, hatemongering and zealotry; it keeps those in power in power. As long as you buy into the liberal bullshit about "its not fair waaa waaa waaa" or buy the conservative bullshit about religious/moral issues and the Left's out of control spending you are playing into the hands of the people who are every day laughing their asses off on the way to the bank.

Our political process is like the Matrix; it is set up and run so that the common asshole is a battery designed to supply the insatiable greed that exists in Washington. Stop falling for this stupid trick. Eat the Red Pill.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:37 pm

Lich-Loved wrote:As long as you buy into the liberal bullshit about "its not fair waaa waaa waaa"

Nice, you're both "edgy" and "balanced". Seriously, though, who does the "it's not fair waaa waaa" thing?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:44 pm

So, yeah, what Liberals do what those Conservatives do? Which ones have as much money behind them?

It's not like Beck's program has high ratings - in fact, on CNN it was the lowest rated program, and now that he's been bought up by Fox his rating haven't improved. Yet he got a job at the bigger network for a headline show.

You can't say we whine 'it's not fair' and then say 'we also do it!' because the truth is, we don't. Either we whine it's not fair or we also do it. You can't have it both ways, at least not and keep your facts straight.

-Crissa

Lich-Loved · Post by **Lich-Loved** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:08 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Seriously, though, who does the "it's not fair waaa waaa" thing?

Anytime you hear Obama say something like "making everyone pay their fair share of taxes", you are listening to class warfare (aka "waa waa its not fair"). It is just as ridiculous as the Right's many asinine claims.

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:07 pm

Depends on context LL. Last I checked, Obama was talking tax changes that shifted our weird regressive-through-loopholes tax structure back towards the progressive one that we decided long ago that we wanted, and built our current system to be (but failed at). That's just a return to the capitalism that the country was built on, as espoused by Adam Smith, author of that silly "Wealth of Nations" treatise. If that counts as class warfare, I'm at a loss as to how, and doubly confused by the source of the idea.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:24 pm

Lich-Loved wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:Seriously, though, who does the "it's not fair waaa waaa" thing?
Anytime you hear Obama say something like "making everyone pay their fair share of taxes", you are listening to class warfare (aka "waa waa its not fair"). It is just as ridiculous as the Right's many asinine claims.

What's ridiculous about class warfare?

Last I checked, the ruling classes paid for think tanks to try to figure out ways to pass legislation that would drive more people into poverty such that there would be more competition for jobs and put competitive pressure to lower wages and increase profits. I don't find the prospect of engaging in class warfare at all asinine under the circumstances.

And "the circumstances" are "every set of circumstances since the dawn of civilization." Nothing wrong with engaging in "class warfare" against the Sun King or the Brahman. White people have more in common with Black people than they do with Rich people. Always have. Always will.

-Username17