The Scottish independence vote brings to mind the secession of the Confederacy, which unleashed the American Civil War, 1861-1865.
Should we let the Southern states, or any state for that matter, secede today if they so choose?
Printable View
The Scottish independence vote brings to mind the secession of the Confederacy, which unleashed the American Civil War, 1861-1865.
Should we let the Southern states, or any state for that matter, secede today if they so choose?
Should not be taken seriously unless the rest of USA has complete control of and/or removes all or which ever ones of the military bases, personnel and equipment we chose to if not all of them from that "new" country... ...Or of course if that "new country" wants to give us the boot we as stated below would treat that "new country" the same as we would any other foreign country based on "strategic national security".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Furthermore if any of our bases, personnel or equipment is attacked, we would treat that act of aggression same as we would any other foreign country that is so close to our "back Yard"... ...extremely harshly I would think.:puteranger::hammer::stormcloud:
I would suggest a reading (or rereading) of Ernest Callenbach's book ECOTOPIA, a fictional account of Washington, Oregon and Northern California seceding from the Union. Now, if only we could move Vermont to California...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:
You might want to check and see which side has most of the military bases are, where the vast majority of the military officers and enlisted persons come from and where most of America's food and our remaining industry is located before making such statements.
It is not the 1860's anymore and that is not a war that we could have any hope of winning in 2014, they would roll over us and take control in less than a week. That is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the US Command and General Staff School as "re-fighting" the Civil War is not only the single most popular graduation thesis, the class on it is a graduation requirement.
Anybody that has spent a good amount of time studying the Civil War, of which there are many of us, would also warn you that contrary to common belief, the War was not fought over slavery, in fact Lincoln stated just that on several occasions: "If we must allow slavery to continue in order to save the Union, I am not opposed", but the usual causes: Money and control in the form of taxes. Slavery was on the way out regardless because it had become uneconomical given advances in both technology and population. It was cheaper in most cases to pay an adult male a wage and be able to fire them if they didn't perform rather than to support a family and deal with all the politics as the whip only went so far, an unhappy worker could easily cost one a lot of money and who was going to tell on him if they were all pissed off?
But let's be specific, what do you mean by "The South"? Most of the South now leans Left. What I think you mean is people who are not Progressives. Well that is an even un-prettier scenario, now you are including not only the Right, but half the Democrats too. Now you can include just about everybody that lives more than 30 miles inland of the West coast and the East Coast North of South Carolina and South of Maine and the area around Chicago, virtually every military base and member of the military and most people working in the very few industries left in those Coastal enclaves. Now you have opposing you virtually every single person military or civilian who either knows how to shoot a gun or owns one, and you are opposing them with paper. Lead always beats paper in the end.
That is how precarious things really are right now, and yet the Progressives keep pushing harder and harder, and I am afraid you are about to stir up a huge hornet's nest and I don't want me and my loved one's to become innocent bystanders when the shit goes down because we were accidentally in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If you think that can't and won't happen then you are very deluded as to human nature. PLEASE, don't keep pissing the Conservatives off, there are a lot more of them than you think there are, you are not going to win that one by any stretch of the imagination, and a lot of us who don't really support either party and just want to live peaceful lives are going to get hurt over things that are not worth anybody's life. A lot of neutral innocents will get hurt and I don't want my family and myself to be among the statistics.
Don't be fooled into thinking that political power translates into physical power at a 1 to 1 ratio. Paper only has meaning as long as more agree than not. Just because people are not directly opposing something and allow it to happen, does not mean they support or even agree with it. It's easy to sit in West County with the media pushing and covering for Jerry Brown, Reid, Holder and Obama and think: "Well we are in charge now and we can do whatever we want", but that power only extends as far as the people with the actual physical power (the people who are armed) agree that it does. Just because they have been silent until lately does not mean they support your cause, they are just rather quiet people by nature. When they start speaking up in the numbers they have been lately it's time to re-evaluate how much support you really have, and whether it's worth losing what you have gained while hurting a lot of innocent people who don't agree with the Left or the Right.
Extremists are the bane of the common people I don't care if you are Progressives or Neo-Cons, you both mistake the silence of the common people as agreement with your cause and we are always the ones who get hurt in your little wars. You both need to grow up and stop trying to save humanity, we don't need your hindrance disguised as help. The most closed minded people I have ever met are Progressives and Neo-Cons, they both can't see beyond their own nose and are sure they see the clearest.
Karen the KAT, I agree with the gist of most of what you said except the divisiveness of the. I think that there is really one side when it comes to succession and it is not on the “side” of the secessionists who are a loud minority in actual numbers and have little if any real military backup If push were to come to shove.Quote:
...which side has most of the military bases are...
That is why I think that succession of any state is very unlikely here in the US.
What is more likely is a division of an existing state into more states than the one state that it is now for the exact reasons as you give relating more specific to money, politics and power.
However, what I said is what would literally have to be considered if a state were to succeed, there is no way around deciding how to deal with the military resources in that state or treaties regarding “national security” etc. regardless of if the powers that be agree with the gist of what I said or not.
Military personnel are from all parts of the country and that is reason that there is cohesiveness in the armed services and is precisely why I think that a successful succession of any state is very unlikely.
Some blowhards try to use succession as a political ploy to achieve a particular agenda and rally particular groups who feel they are being disenfranchised by the direction national politics are going but an actual succession movement would as it has been historically; some talk by some and then it fizzles out.
Oh and another thing, as you said......there are “extremists” on either “side” in whatever direction you want to look for them at but you did not mention the extreme centrists who, IMHO, have on numerous occasions sold out the most of us to the monied robber-barons and as a result the closed minded extreme centrists are the ones in the majority of high political position who actually have real power that have as of late misguided many into thinking the "other" left or right are each others "enemy" (politically) which in actuality are not.Quote:
Extremists are the bane of the common people I don't care if you are Progressives or Neo-Cons, you both mistake the silence of the common people as agreement with your cause and we are always the ones who get hurt in your little wars. You both need to grow up and stop trying to save humanity, we don't need your hindrance disguised as help. The most closed minded people I have ever met are Progressives and Neo-Cons, they both can't see beyond their own nose and are sure they see the clearest.
:2cents: It is the extreme centrist politics that are grinding most everybody else, right or left into a mood of succession.
sure it was.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Karen the KAT:
I think your definition of 'center' is probably a strong factor in that statement. Just to be mathematical about it, you've just implied there's another region of this country that leans Right. If that's not the South, where is it? Are you implying the West is more right-leaning than the South? (remember how small Arizona is relative to, say a leftist hotbed like Georgia - even if you're claiming Georgia as one of your lefty centers and Arizona as right-wing).Quote:
Most of the South now leans Left.
not to be overly snarky, but 'extreme centrists' ???Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:
of course I know what you mean but my geometry and english teachers' voices are screaming in my head. Because of course, you can't by definition avoid having extremists - they're the ones at the end of the spectrum. By definition they're atypical of the majority. So treating their positions as representative of a big group is, also by definition, incorrect. They're outliers.
I do agree with your thesis, though - I think the group you're calling centrists are the group I think is better defined as valuing stability and fearing disruption. It sounds to me like that's the group Kat's associating herself with, so unless I completely misunderstand your definitions I think you've just disagreed, not agreed, with her gist.
Personally, I think that group's the problem.
Podfish, Re:Yes, I mean the ones that play “both sides” and sell the majority of the rest of us out to favor the “interests” of the ones that have the most money/power/media, lobby influence; that like you said...Quote:
not to be overly snarky, but 'extreme centrists' ???
...Only I would put a caveat on that and say:Quote:
the group you're calling centrists are the group I think is better defined as valuing stability and fearing disruption.
...defined as valuing stability and fearing disruption of themselves pertaining to their beliefs, and their personal interests which is a form of extremism in and of it's own...
...Whereas they (the “extreme centrists” as I am defining it) use “politics” as a tool and by using their public speaking and media skills to trick people into thinking that they, (the “extreme centrists”) are “middle of the road folks”; which the vast majority of the ones in power are not...
...So Yes I do call them “extreme centrists” because they can say something extreme in one direction one day and on another say something that would seem to go 180° the other way about another topic or even an aspect of the same topic, depending witch way the wind blows, so to speak...
...Unfortunately the real calamity is that the actual “middle of the road folks” are the ones that get ran over on that “road” whilst the empowered “extreme centrists” go on with their what are mostly concealed agendas.
That's understandable because your “geometry and english teachers'” (and likely their influence on you) are (is) in the field of mathematics and not in the field of political science which is more like quantum theory and there are quarks involved and “centrism” can be defined in relative terms, but only to a point then:Firework1:.Quote:
of course I know what you mean but my geometry and english teachers' voices are screaming in my head.
IMHO, By definition Majority is not necessarily “center” within a “group” politically speaking...Quote:
Because of course, you can't by definition avoid having extremists - they're the ones at the end of the spectrum. By definition they're atypical of the majority. So treating their positions as representative of a big group is, also by definition, incorrect. They're outliers.
...But what about an actual “black hole”?...
...The “center” of one of those seems like it would be extreme wouldn’t you think?
I would say, figuratively speaking, that some “extreme centrist” politicians are like a black hole in that they gravitate (so to speak) to pull us into their central core and in doing so, it has a tendency of tearing things apart, or at least in theory, “spegetifing” (stretching) them by doing so.
podfish, I see your point.Quote:
... It sounds to me like that's the group Kat's associating herself with, so unless I completely misunderstand your definitions I think you've just disagreed, not agreed, with her gist.
I thought I was agreeing with Kat's view ofBut after further analyzing it, I would have to limit that a bit more than I have already done when I qualified where I do have differences;Quote:
Karen the KAT wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.pngExtremists are the bane of the common people I don't care if you are Progressives or Neo-Cons, you both mistake the silence of the common people as agreement with your cause and we are always the ones who get hurt in your little wars. You both need to grow up and stop trying to save humanity, we don't need your hindrance disguised as help. The most closed minded people I have ever met are Progressives and Neo-Cons, they both can't see beyond their own nose and are sure they see the clearest.
...So far by saying how my agreements' is:
I contend that; the gist of: "Extremists are the bane of the common people I don't care if you are Progressives or Neo-Cons, you both mistake the silence of the common people as agreement with your cause and we are always the ones who get hurt in your little wars."
...Furthermore, I go on to say: some people who call themselves “progressive” really do have “some” or a particular extreme view/s on something/s or another and there are those who are really "closed-minded" on that/those particular subject/s; so much so that they will not even consider anything any other way, seemingly no matter what.
Furthermore the term "common people" is a relative term and could be interpreted as being a majority within a defined parameter....
...IOW, The meaning of the term "common people" would be dependent on the basis of the particular population of the subject matter.
On the other hand, the majority of “extreme” “Neo-Cons”, it seems to me don't even consider themselves as being a 'Neo-Con' and yet a person that identifies themselves as a “progressive” is more likely to state that they consider themselves to be a 'progressive' (not necessarily a "liberal" but most often gets labeled as such) whereas a person that would qualify as a 'Neo-Con' would consider that 'qualification' as a prejudice label; whereas that difference between the two so-called 'extremes' (if you have to call it that) in this case does as far as this conversation goes have a propensity of making a lopsided view of where (and who in this case) the “center” is.:dunno:
...Therefore I am saying that what seems to me happens is that “progressives, more so than 'Neo-Cons', get the blame for being the “bane" of society ("bane of the common people") based on a lopsided interpretation of where the center actually is...
...I tend to compensate for that lopsidedness on my own and in doing so I neglected to consider that when I posted that ("I agree with the gist of"...) reply that others don't compensate the same as I do.
To fog things up some more; it seems that there are no real numbers to count here, only 'relatively' educated guesses as far as I can tell.... ...But, that being said...
...You don't have to have all the mathematics numbers to tell which direction the river is flowing but some will insist on it for "proof" and even then there will be someone that will deny that "proof", but numbers and remote 'proof' aside there is the obvious and most people can tell when they are there and actually bother to look and see for themselves; what is obvious.
What do you mean by "group's"... ...are you referring to... ...the “extreme centrists” or the concept of "group's" in general... ...or something else:hmmm:?Quote:
Personally, I think that group's the problem.