A Right of Secession?

24

Comments

  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    gue_barium wrote:
    Fuckin' A. Thought my memory was playing tricks on me. I'd love to see it again. Thanks for the info.

    Another great animated feature from back in that day that I won't forget is...shit, I forget the name of it. "American Rock". Is that the name of it?
    I don't recognize that one....sorry. :(
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    tybird wrote:
    You mean the party of Lincoln??? The South did not move to the Republican side until the Reagan years. In fact, most of our state-wide offices are still held by Democrats.....legislature is still majority Democrat. How the myth got started that the movement of the Republicans to the far right is a Southern thing is beyond me.......and George Wallace was a life-long Democrat.

    But he never said "Republican".

    The party of Lincoln was left of the Democrats. I am not well versed in why that flip-flopped, but early in the 20th century, they did. The south stayed Democrat for longer, possibly because of antagonism toward the idea of the party of Lincoln. But those old-school southern democrats were not generally liberal.

    He simply implied that the South is a conservative part of the country. And that is what is meant when you call yourselves "the REAL America" right?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    tybird wrote:
    I don't recognize that one....sorry. :(

    "American Pop"

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082009/
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    tybird wrote:
    You mean the party of Lincoln??? The South did not move to the Republican side until the Reagan years. In fact, most of our state-wide offices are still held by Democrats.....legislature is still majority Democrat. How the myth got started that the movement of the Republicans to the far right is a Southern thing is beyond me.......and George Wallace was a life-long Democrat.

    i was not talking about political parties, i was talking about falwell and jenkins and the christian coalition and the moral majority and the bloc-solid evangelical pro-life christian right vote that has dominated the south for the last 30 years.

    im well aware of the old solid democratic south and the realignment that began with nixon and became set in stone with reagan. a large part of that realignment was due to the southern evangelism i mentioned. nixon played to it (the great silent majority) and reagan owned it and gingrich (contract with america) institutionalized it. and this country's been spiraling downward ever since. :)
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    gue_barium wrote:
    I remember a very good animated feature back in the late '70's called, (if I remember right) "The World According to NIMH".

    that related to the secret of nimh or the rats of nimh or whatever? watership down is separate i believe.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    soulsinging wrote:
    that related to the secret of nimh or the rats of nimh or whatever? watership down is separate i believe.

    Yeah, I see that. For a moment I thought they may be the same.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    soulsinging wrote:
    i was not talking about political parties, i was talking about falwell and jenkins and the christian coalition and the moral majority and the bloc-solid evangelical pro-life christian right vote that has dominated the south for the last 30 years.

    im well aware of the old solid democratic south and the realignment that began with nixon and became set in stone with reagan. a large part of that realignment was due to the southern evangelism i mentioned. nixon played to it (the great silent majority) and reagan owned it and gingrich (contract with america) institutionalized it. and this country's been spiraling downward ever since. :)
    Well........there's more of y'all.....so why haven't y'all fixed it???? ;)
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    tybird wrote:
    Well........there's more of y'all.....so why haven't y'all fixed it???? ;)

    cos we're inept and incompetent and too diverse to have a singular vision. that's the trouble with accepting others' way of life... not so easy to get consensus. so much easier when yuo have one book telling you the way everyone has to live and the arrogance and fanaticism to vote en masse to enforce it ;)
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    soulsinging wrote:
    cos we're inept and incompetent and too diverse to have a singular vision. that's the trouble with accepting others' way of life... not so easy to get consensus. so much easier when yuo have one book telling you the way everyone has to live and the arrogance and fanaticism to vote en masse to enforce it ;)
    Let us know when you find that book.......... because believe it or not, the Solid South is a myth.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    tybird wrote:
    Let us know when you find that book.......... because believe it or not, the Solid South is a myth.

    i never said it was solid, but they do have enough numbers to dominate the political agenda of the entire country. what's the matter with kansas is a pretty good book about the phenomenon.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    soulsinging wrote:
    cos we're inept and incompetent and too diverse to have a singular vision. that's the trouble with accepting others' way of life... not so easy to get consensus. so much easier when yuo have one book telling you the way everyone has to live and the arrogance and fanaticism to vote en masse to enforce it ;)

    So you're saying that liberalism can only fail because of its inherent diversity? Spectacular!
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    So you're saying that liberalism can only fail because of its inherent diversity? Spectacular!

    Hey Rush. The reason we can't get good people into Washington is because of the inherent dishonesty people like you love to espouse.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    So you're saying that liberalism can only fail because of its inherent diversity? Spectacular!

    im saying liberalism will inevitably seem less "productive" becos consensus is harder to find and thus takes more time and thought and discussion. progress is slow. but ill take that over wrong-headed action any day. better not to move at all than to move backwards into the medieval (called, appropriately, the dark ages) society where churches rule our lives.
  • Mr. Cateeto
    Mr. Cateeto Posts: 31
    I, for one, am glad to see that Vermont is starting to cry for secession. I completely agree with their reasoning: "The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable -- it's too big, it's too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens. Congress and the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war."

    I don't think anyone disagrees with that. My only fear is that the US would bully its way back into the state and reconquer it.
    "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

    http://www.myspace.com/jonjenkins
    http://thelandofoz.us
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Mr. Cateeto wrote:
    I, for one, am glad to see that Vermont is starting to cry for secession. I completely agree with their reasoning: "The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable -- it's too big, it's too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens. Congress and the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war."

    I don't think anyone disagrees with that. My only fear is that the US would bully its way back into the state and reconquer it.

    might be enough to unravel it though. michigan and montana wouldn't be far behind if the feds invaded vermont. they'd have mass exodus. texas would bolt cos they never liked being part of anything but texas anyway.
  • Mr. Cateeto
    Mr. Cateeto Posts: 31
    I think it might be good to have states without the government as an entity on the federal level. I mean, the dollar's time is coming rapidly, and economy is the only reason I can see to have a federal government. I'm in favor of a (dare I say) confederation of independent, sovereign, autonomous states.
    "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

    http://www.myspace.com/jonjenkins
    http://thelandofoz.us
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Mr. Cateeto wrote:
    I think it might be good to have states without the government as an entity on the federal level. I mean, the dollar's time is coming rapidly, and economy is the only reason I can see to have a federal government. I'm in favor of a (dare I say) confederation of independent, sovereign, autonomous states.

    as am i. the only people benefitting from the federal government anymore are monolithic multinationals.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    soulsinging wrote:
    as am i. the only people benefitting from the federal government anymore are monolithic multinationals.

    You need a federal government for the common defense. Of course, you could just have an army for each state.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • Bu2
    Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    It starts off with a hugely intriguing thought about US state secession, and a reply that offers us a glimpse of it in action in Vermont, and then all hell breaks loose and several big posters here start a conversation that increasingly loses sense, not to mention an inkling of the main thought.

    And then, just as I start to completely lose interest and my right finger literally itches to click my mouse on the "Back" button, the thread takes a complete turnaround via U-turn and starts to make sense again.

    So now that we're all back to secession as a NEW thought, in TODAY'S times and with TODAY'S circumstances...

    ....I'm thinking of moving to Vermont, pronto.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,822
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    I did not hear of that.

    Economically, not a whole lot would change if states seceded. If they built tarriff walls though, that might hurt trade.

    If the non-seceding states refused to buy goods from the seceded state, the seceded state would have a difficult time surviving...imagine their huge trade deficit!

    Also, the seceded state would bear economic hardships due to the fact that it would be difficult to attain economies of scale. They would have to start their own army!

    Imagine the high income tax rates that would be necessary to start-up the new systems, etc. After a while, people would emigrate back to the USA!

Categories