That's the great thing about this country. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
As long as it conforms to government-approved standards and doesn't land you on any watch lists.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
And he went on to make a great beer. 
(And a great country.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Self-determination is a pretty basic right, and if a significant majority exists to support it, then I see no moral grounds on which to deny it.
Well good. What about: Would you also oppose the use of violence by the federal government of the US in attempting to prevent it?
Absolutely. I would not support intervention of any kind provided that the process were defensible and the majority established.
Does that not follow from my previous answer?
That's the great thing about this country. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
True.
Setting aside motives and probabilities: Do you believe people are entitled to secede? Would you support people peacefully acting on their opinions and values in this way? Would oppose anyone's use of violence to stop them?
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
No, of course not, but I was just observing that the existence of the seed is a poor indicator of whether it will ever flourish.
I'm not sure I'd say that. The existence alone? Yes. The existence of the seed actually suggests the possibility of something bigger, later, further down the road.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Absolutely. I would not support intervention of any kind provided that the process were defensible and the majority established.
Good.
Does that not follow from my previous answer?
I didn't want to assume anything.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
No, of course not, but I was just observing that the existence of the seed is a poor indicator of whether it will ever flourish.
I'm not sure I'd say that. The existence alone? Yes. The existence of the seed actually suggests the possibility of something bigger, later, further down the road.
Admits the possibility, but does not indicate likelihood.
Admits the possibility, but does not indicate likelihood.
Sure. I never made such a claim. But, in point of fact, it certainly can't grow if there's no seed at all.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
What's up with all these unpatriotic idiots threatening secession? Just because they're against one tiny little tax they want to kick the central government out! If they don't like this country, they can leave. I, for one, am a patriotic supporter of the central government, and I have no problem with the new tax. I firmly support the troops, and I firmly support King George.
(Borrowed from here.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
That's the great thing about this country. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
True.
Setting aside motives and probabilities: Do you believe people are entitled to secede? Would you support people peacefully acting on their opinions and values in this way? Would oppose anyone's use of violence to stop them?
Do you believe people are entitled to secede?
Sure given just cause. This really isn't otherwise they've have more supporters almost immediately. This is more the nature of a football game and the other team won.
Would you support people peacefully acting on their opinions and values in this way?
Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
It really depends on the nature of the situation. If it's say a small band trying to seize power by force no.
However this will never go anywhere. Even in Texas. They've have too much to lose.
Sure given just cause. This really isn't otherwise they've have more supporters almost immediately. This is more the nature of a football game and the other team won.
Are you saying the justness of a cause is indicated by how many people support it?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Sure given just cause.
Who would determine what "just cause" is?
This really isn't otherwise they've have more supporters almost immediately.
I understand that it only currently appears to have a couple hundred thousand supporters (there may be more silent supporters of course).
But that side, you're determining how just the cause is by the number of people that support it? That sound fallacious to me.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Sure given just cause.
Who would determine what "just cause" is?
This really isn't otherwise they've have more supporters almost immediately.
I understand that it only currently appears to have a couple hundred thousand supporters (there may be more silent supporters of course).
But that side, you're determining how just the cause is by the number of people that support it? That sound fallacious to me.
Who would determine what "just cause" is?
The voting majority. This is a country run by voting after all. It prevents a small band of malcontents from trying to seize power and force their values on the whole. Now if you could prove that someone's rigging all of the voting that's another issue because it would misrepresent the values of the whole. You'd have to prove that however.
The voting majority. This a country run by voting after all. It prevents a small band of malcontents from trying to seize power and force their values on the whole. Now if you could prove that someone's rigging all of the voting that's another issue because it would represent the values of the whole. You'd have to prove that however.
So, for example, if the voting majority believe it's okay to have race segregation laws, then that cause is just?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
The voting majority.
Interesting. So, according to you, a "just cause" is determined by majority vote?
In this country that's the way it's done. Yup! For the reasons I've already stated for you.
The voting majority. This a country run by voting after all. It prevents a small band of malcontents from trying to seize power and force their values on the whole. Now if you could prove that someone's rigging all of the voting that's another issue because it would represent the values of the whole. You'd have to prove that however.
So, for example, if the voting majority believe it's okay to have race segregation laws, then that cause is just?
Now you're getting into basic human rights values of what's right vs. wrong. and that's not really what we're talking about here and you know it. We used to have laws like that. They were changed through voting.
Now you're getting into basic human rights values of what's right vs. wrong. and that's not really what we're talking about here and you know it. We used to have laws like that. They were changed through voting.
So there are exceptions to your "majority rule" doctrine?
Are you now saying that a cause can be just even if the majority don't support it?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
In this country that's the way it's done. Yup! For the reasons I've already stated for you.
Wow. That's actually a rather frightening viewpoint. What's more frightening is that you don't seem to see why.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Now you're getting into basic human rights values of what's right vs. wrong. and that's not really what we're talking about here and you know it. We used to have laws like that. They were changed through voting.
Interesting. So there are some things that are right or just whether the majority votes for it or not? And, presumably, there are things that are wrong or unjust even if the majority supports it?
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Now you're getting into basic human rights values of what's right vs. wrong. and that's not really what we're talking about here and you know it. We used to have laws like that. They were changed through voting.
So there are exceptions to your "majority rule" doctrine?
Are you now saying that a cause can be just even if the majority don't support it?
There are exceptions to every rule.
Sure there can be a case of resisting majority rule being justified. That's not the case here. Otherwise they've have more on the bandwagon almost immediately ( as I've already stated ). This is a small group that didn't like the outcome ( how many times do I have to say this? ). When they get to 50% of the country wanting to do this let me know.
Sure there can be a case of resisting majority rule being justified.
Okay. You seem to want it both ways here. Or you haven't thought through your worldview very carefully.
That's not the case here. Otherwise they've have more on the bandwagon almost immediately ( as I'v e already stated ).
I see. So we're back to you claiming that this isn't a just cause because not enough people support it (yet). But that sometimes it is justified to resist a majority.
Quite interesting.
You may want to take some time to untangle yourself there.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Now you're getting into basic human rights values of what's right vs. wrong. and that's not really what we're talking about here and you know it. We used to have laws like that. They were changed through voting.
Interesting. So there are some things that are right or just whether the majority votes for it or not? And, presumably, there are things that are wrong or unjust even if the majority supports it?
It sounds like you're looking for absolutes. When you deal with people that's never the case. I'm guessing you haven't figured that out yet. Otherwise you would being trying to put it in such a simple framework. People aren't just black or white, on or off, absolutely right or absolutely wrong in all cases. It doesn't work that way ( thank God! ).
It sounds like you're looking for absolutes. When you deal with people that's never the case.
Fair enough. So there are no absolutes?
I'm guessing you didn't get it the first time so let me restate :
It sounds like you're looking for absolutes. When you deal with people that's never the case.
I'm guessing you didn't get it the first time so let me restate :
I simply "no, there aren't any absolutes." would be fine. I was trying to make sure I understood your statement clearly.
Okay. So no absolutes. Got it.
So, if someone comes over to your house and steals your money, there's nothing to complain about?
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
There are exceptions to every rule.
Sure there can be a case of resisting majority rule being justified. That's not the case here. Otherwise they've have more on the bandwagon almost immediately ( as I've already stated ). This is a small group that didn't like the outcome ( how many times do I have to say this? ). When they get to 50% of the country wanting to do this let me know.
It is estimated that, leading up to the Revolutionary War, only about one third of the New England colonists wanted independence from Great Britain. Some estimates put that number even lower.
Can you please explain what made their call for secession from Great Britain a just cause even though it contradicts your "majority rule" doctrine?
I'm assuming, of course, that you believe it was a just cause. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
You're saying that because the US$ is the reserve currency of the world, the US can get away with basically cheating its creditors by monetizing (inflating the money supply) away the debt.
You're damn right the crap storm will begin. Wait until the US isn't the biggest kid on the block anymore and others don't need to take its shit.
1. Correct.
2. Also correct. How long we remain the big kid is up for debate.
decisions that made them feel confident? how is that different than a strategy?
No, you misinterpreted. They made decisions based on their confidence in their turnout predictions. This is what caused them to focus like a laser on independents.
That's an exaggeration. Romney's positions were consistent for the most part. The one issue he changed on was abortion. The etch-a-sketch comment was taken out of context, and I think you know it.
I really don't see why you care about 10 years of tax returns. In fact, I suspect you really don't. Most candidates release a few years worth, so it's somewhat unprecedented to ask for that many years. My real problem is that people who make this request never ask Obama for a similar level of documentation about his past.
1. Nor is trickle down. I feel the taxes now are unfair, but not overly so.ont and center. It wasn't, so it is very much questionable.
"Trickle-down" is a derisive term that Democrats rediscovered to oppose Reagan's tax policies. It's a misused term, because those policies were not "trickle down" at all, nor were Bush's. Under the latter, the rich paid a greater share of the total tax bill than they did before. I'm not proposing trickle-down solutions, but I also think that cutting taxes means cutting them for the people who actually pay taxes. This includes the upper brackets, business, etc.
The key issue is swearing your allegiance to Grover Norquist, to God, or to the American people... I pick the 3rd. They have spoken.
If your household budget is underwater, you need to both raise revenue and cut spending.
Many have used that analogy, but it's flawed in one respect: Your household budget is zero sum. That is, "raising revenue" might cost you time and effort, but that's about all. With taxes, "raising revenue" means higher rates, which means less growth. Taxation affects behavior. This is why we never get what we think we will when taxes are raised. It causes people to try to avoid those taxes, even if those choices involve less productivity. The answer is GROWTH, and that is not helped by higher taxes.
More poor analogies there. I don't think comparing personal health insurance with Medicaid and Homeowners with FEMA is valid...unless you are calling them Constitutional necessities, which they are clearly not. Secondly, I'd like to you know what you mean by "tax breaks." People who favor higher taxes always seem to deride not raising taxes a "tax break." Which ones do you mean? I'm also not sure where you are going with the education piece. Is someone proposing cutting education spending? Are you even aware of how much of a school district's budget the Feds contribute? Hint: It's not a lot.
2. you are correct. The key thing is the US has to be a 'partner' and not a 'taker' anymore. We can't live in a world of economic colonialism.
I don't really understand what you mean by any of that. How are we a "taker? What is a world of economic colonialism?
3. your opinion on who can correct the problem... If they were, their 'math' would have been front and center.
Was Obama's math front and center? He provided far fewer details than Romney/Ryan.
Oh my god!
What do we have to expect next? A threat on our president's life? It's pretty pathetic when people who are on the losing side ( and are in the minority ) try to force the issue. Sheesh!
How do you get from a petition to a threat? And why are you assuming it's all due to sour grapes over "their guy" losing?
The results of a vote in a national election. They didn't like the results so a small minority is trying to show their dislike of the results. It won't go anywhere.
It's obviously not going to go anywhere. But I don't think you can assume you know their motivation. Many people are way beyond "dislike" of the results.
It happens every cycle: people threatening to secede or leave the country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/petition-to-secede-states_n_2120410.html
This one is a gem:
"I'm moving to Australia, because their president is a Christian and actually supports what he says."
Problem: Australia has a prime minister, not a president.
Problem: Australia's PM is a woman.
Problem: Australia's PM is an atheist.
Problem: is this teen for real?
Brings back memories of that contestant from South Carolina or where was it?
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
What happened to formatting?
- - - - -
fixed it
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
There is only one state on that list that could possibly support itself as an independent country. New York, and that would never happen. The rest of the states on the list are net recipients of Federal funding, in other words they can't even support themselves now let alone if they seceded. They would have no armed forces for one. Where would they get the money to fund international diplomacy or would they just forego embassies around the world. Sure, they could secede but they would become a third world nation. Well, come to think of it, being a third world country would be the only way to survive as it would probably entitle them to receive generous financial aid from the US.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
There is only one state on that list that could possibly support itself as an independent country. New York, and that would never happen.
Actually, there are a couple: Texas and Florida.
The rest of the states on the list are net recipients of Federal funding, in other words they can't even support themselves now let alone if they seceded.
Oh, delightful, we have a non sequitur fallacy right off the bat!
They would have no armed forces for one.
Most states have national guards. But you're right, they'd likely need an army to defend themselves against the aggression of the US federal government.
Where would they get the money to fund international diplomacy
The same place every other sovereign nation does?
would they just forego embassies around the world.
Sure. Why not?
Sure, they could secede but they would become a third world nation.
Great! Another non sequitur. You're on a role!
Well, come to think of it, being a third world country would be the only way to survive as it would probably entitle them to receive generous financial aid from the US.
There are 50,000 comedians out of work in this country and you're telling jokes. You should be ashamed.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I've always thought that America is a very segregated country, socially, politically and idealogically, and that it would make sense and be more functional if it was at least two countries. The differences were so great that even a war was fought over them, and though the military conflict ended, the cultural and idealogical divide lingered and appears to be as strong as ever.
The majority of US states are very stable in their support for one side of politics or the other so they're always going to be unhappy when the federal government has the opposing affiliation. This contrasts to most other federal democracies like Canada or Australia, where the provinces and states are culturally very similar and all swing between two sides of politics.
Further, with the cultural and political divide being so great, the federal political system is unable to cater to or satisfy either side without becoming watered down and ineffective. A Democratic president is unable to (or has great difficulty in) enacting the sorts of changes that stable Democratic states want for fear of losing support in key swing states, while the converse is true for a Republican federal government.
So it makes some sense that the Republican states should secede and form their own country and the Democratic states do likewise...or join Canada since they're culturally much closer, not that Canada would want them. This doesn't really answer the question of what the swing states should do, however.
Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century
Maybe it's a discussion worth having. That is if those who have knee-jerk and un-constructive reactions can hold their tongues and have a civilized discussion on the topic.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century
Maybe it's a discussion worth having. That is if those who have knee-jerk and un-constructive reactions can hold their tongues and have a civilized discussion on the topic.
I don't really think, for that matter, that most of your one liners count as civilized discussion, but that aside, have you read it and, if so, is it worth reading?
I'm guessing you didn't get it the first time so let me restate :
I simply "no, there aren't any absolutes." would be fine. I was trying to make sure I understood your statement clearly.
Okay. So no absolutes. Got it.
So, if someone comes over to your house and steals your money, there's nothing to complain about?
Okay. So no absolutes
When dealing with people.
Good.
There are exceptions to every rule.
Sure there can be a case of resisting majority rule being justified. That's not the case here. Otherwise they've have more on the bandwagon almost immediately ( as I've already stated ). This is a small group that didn't like the outcome ( how many times do I have to say this? ). When they get to 50% of the country wanting to do this let me know.
It is estimated that, leading up to the Revolutionary War, only about one third of the New England colonists wanted independence from Great Britain. Some estimates put that number even lower.
Can you please explain what made their call for secession from Great Britain a just cause even though it contradicts your "majority rule" doctrine?
I'm assuming, of course, that you believe it was a just cause. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Well the differences here are for one thing they're on a different continent from the Government.
So now you're advocating that they leave yet another government on the same continent because they feel oppressed. Well when it even gets to a third of the country let me know. And hey if they're unhappy nothing's stopping this small band from leaving and setting up camp somewhere else just like those colonists did.
