That was fast. It was just one year ago that right-wing martial arts guru Chuck Norris was a sought-after "get" for the GOP presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee, who paraded the star of "Walker, Texas Ranger" around the nation after the anti-abortion actor endorsed him in the primaries.
But now it's 2009, Barack Obama is in the White House, and the inventor of chun kuk do is preaching the martial art of insurrection against the U.S. government. He also wants to run for -- and no, I'm not making this up -- "the president of Texas.":
The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.
Norris really comes close to crossing a line with this:
Norris claims that; “Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation.” The right wing cells will meet during a live telecast, "We Surround Them," on Friday March 13 at 5 p.m.
He closes with the words of Sam Houston followed by a plug for his next martial arts event.
“We view ourselves on the eve of battle."
You really have to almost laugh at some of this. For eight years, progressives were lambasted -- in the face of the most unpopular and arguably the worst American president since the Civil War -- as victims of "Bush derangement syndrome" or as "Kos Kooks." That was largely because in the face of a government that invaded another nation on bogus pretenses and violated laws on core issues like torture and domestic spying, a few people advocated impeachment, a deliberative process under the U.S. Constitution, and a tiny handful talked about things like moving to Canada.
Meanwhile, less than two months into the Obama administration, right-wingers are stocking the basement pantry, piling up the shotguns and organizing "cells," all with the help of a talk-show host who coincidentially became unhinged after he drove down the ratings at CNN Headline News, something that most people didn't think was possible. There's a lot to hash out in this country over the next few years but it's becoming more and more clear who respects the Constitution, and who does not
Maybe Chuck thinks the jokes we make about him are true. If only we'd known.
Wow. I know he was something of right wing nut job but armed rebellion, less than 3 months into the presidency? Nice to see a healthy respect for democracy from you there Chuck!
In all honestly I imagine these were comments taken out of context. At least I hope they were. I really don't want to find out if that rumor about whats under his beard is true!
Whoever wins, I think Britain should reassert our soveriegncy straight after. Strike whilst the iron is hot and that.
Though, perhaps a split in the US is exactly what it needs? It's a massive country, and to my knowledge, the largest democracy in the world, in terms of sheer popultion.
The larger the population, the harder it is to please everyone. Now, armed rebellion is frankly pathetic and just a bunch of extreme right arseholes acting the big man. However well equipped they think they might, they are no match for the US army who will spank them like little redhead stepchildren in extremely short order.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Though, perhaps a split in the US is exactly what it needs? It's a massive country, and to my knowledge, the largest democracy in the world, in terms of sheer popultion.
That and you have to remember something...
If the US did splinter... the military is going to do the exact same thing. So whatever military survives the first 24 hours of shooting/splitting is going to be alot weaker then it currently is.
I highly doubt the likely-hood of such an occurrence. The problem with the assumption of this whole "sovereign texas" thing, is that everything is based on the unfounded assumption that Texans will flock to chuck norris' banner... should he even do such a thing.
It's not like all texan's agree wth Chuck, and even if they did, it is unlikely that there are as many of these "cells" as he suggested that are willing to take up arms against O'bama's administration.
Rebellion movements require popular support more than anything, and I don't see them getting the kind of support that they would need with the o'bama administration's style of diplomacy. The popular sympathy would be relatively easy to garner if Military forces just nuked everything... but that would only really happen if we were still under the bush administration. Nowadays we nuke everything... but nicely.
And as to the military splitting: I'm sure that the same kind of mental retooling that turns citizens into soldiers could make them turn their guns on whatever republic of texas Chuck norris runs for
Well, perhaps it would be for the best. All of the different republics would be too busy skirmishing with each other, then the Russian/Chinese war machine would take over and then finally we would have a world government. It's gonna happen eventually, what does it really matter who's in charge?
warpcrafter wrote:Well, perhaps it would be for the best. All of the different republics would be too busy skirmishing with each other, then the Russian/Chinese war machine would take over and then finally we would have a world government. It's gonna happen eventually, what does it really matter who's in charge?
All of what different republics?
I don't think that China is ready to make a move like that quite yet... and definitely not Russia. I'm not sure it's still recovered from it's deficits after the cold war
The united states military has such a mix of people, that no one unit could turn-coat without tearing it's self apart. Everybody is shipped to another part of the country/world and mixed up that it's impossible. Say a wing went rogue, they support staff would not. and even if they did, the supply base they get gas and parts wouldn't. The military, being citizen-soldiers, would be loathed to fire on their familiy and friends. Things are not split north and south like before. An uprising would have to deal with a majority of the country not agreeing with, and activly fighting them. If push came to shove, the world would help out the Democrat side, seeing as the Right-wing side(under bush) has piss off the whole world. Hell the Legal Administration would be able to draw on large sums of money. Who would the Right wingers depend on, The job stealing Mexicans below them? The evil socialist Europeans? The Axis of Evil, Cummunist Asia? The All of them are terrorest Middle east?
When you burn your bridges you find, yourself really friendless. I'd Love to see them get the pick up trucks shotguns and Texas rangers, Fight for 2 weeks, and run out of bullets, food, medical supplies, maps, clothing, and the 1,000 other things you need to run a uprising when you don't have the majority of the country on your side. I actually want Chuck to try.
warpcrafter wrote:Well, perhaps it would be for the best. All of the different republics would be too busy skirmishing with each other, then the Russian/Chinese war machine would take over and then finally we would have a world government. It's gonna happen eventually, what does it really matter who's in charge?
All of what different republics?
I don't think that China is ready to make a move like that quite yet... and definitely not Russia. I'm not sure it's still recovered from it's deficits after the cold war
The remnants of a second American civil war. I believe it would result in at least three separate smaller nations being formed. The Republic of Texas, the eastern US and the western US. The Texans would probably take over part of southern Mexico and some of the southern and southwestern state as well.
warpcrafter wrote:
The remnants of a second American civil war. I believe it would result in at least three separate smaller nations being formed. The Republic of Texas, the eastern US and the western US. The Texans would probably take over part of southern Mexico and some of the southern and southwestern state as well.
What, the Jericho scenario?
Which, by the way, even assuming that the west coast is out of the picture entirely, is Epic Failure for Cheyanne, as all the important military bases are east of the Mississippi.
warpcrafter wrote:Well, perhaps it would be for the best. All of the different republics would be too busy skirmishing with each other, then the Russian/Chinese war machine would take over and then finally we would have a world government. It's gonna happen eventually, what does it really matter who's in charge?
All of what different republics?
I don't think that China is ready to make a move like that quite yet... and definitely not Russia. I'm not sure it's still recovered from it's deficits after the cold war
The remnants of a second American civil war. I believe it would result in at least three separate smaller nations being formed. The Republic of Texas, the eastern US and the western US. The Texans would probably take over part of southern Mexico and some of the southern and southwestern state as well.
What scenarios would cause a split like that? I don't see anything that could lead one to believe that the U.S. would split along those lines.
The texans can't take mexico. It does have a military, and ruthless drug cartels. Not to mention the mexicans and other minorities in texas would work aginst them. texas doesn't make enough food to feed itself or steel to fix it's war machines. the states rely to much on good from other states, and they in turn rely on imports. What military could they raise, or better yet how would they be in any position to invade after a war of sesseion. Even if they took over every military base. The goverment would just Un link them from the main informatin system, reducing them to trying to use the normal web to send, resive orders. then the Internet would be locked down in texas, cell phone satillites would be ordered not send or recieve signals, the gulf would be blockaded. The biggest cities with huge minority populations would be uncontrolable, with riots and food running out and all roads into or out of Texas guarded. I'd give a Texas rebellion 6 months tops, with fighting the first week, and people just suffering the rest of the time.
Texas trying to Invade mexico would lead to a sad fate as Mexico is part of the UN, And had more than 15 Mutual protection pacts.
And on top of all of this, With 62% on the Administration's side and 22% on the Right wings side, they don't have anywere near the support.
I don't think that China is ready to make a move like that quite yet... and definitely not Russia. I'm not sure it's still recovered from it's deficits after the cold war
Uh, the USSR didn't accrue debt during the Cold War. Faced between accruing debt and letting some peasants starve, the Soviets chose the latter. Debt did explode post-Cold War, when all this money flooded in from the IMF, which was then mismanaged and shifted into the private hands of well connected Russians. But even that debt was paid off, I think 2006 or 2007.
The bigger problem with Russia is that their GDP is smaller than Spain. To the extent that Spain is a middle-tier player, so is Russia.
China... well you can start with the problem that the US at the height of its power lacked the dominance to rule the world, and China is nowhere near the US' present capability, let alone the US at it's most dominant. Then you can add that China's utter lack of force projection capability.
Meanwhile, this thread is crazy. Exactly what would cause part of the US to fight another part? And forget wondering how Texas would invade Mexico, ask yourself why? Mexico barely wants Mexico, what would Texas do with it?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Though, perhaps a split in the US is exactly what it needs? It's a massive country, and to my knowledge, the largest democracy in the world, in terms of sheer popultion.
India.
That's also a good example of a country where partition worked out really well... Really! </sarcasm>
Anyways, why is this surprising. Before 9/11 when somebody said "terrorist" most people thought of right wing militias. Things are just returning to the way they were in the Clinton years.
Edit: sarcasm tag in case the point didn't come across right.
Whoever wins, I think Britain should reassert our soveriegncy straight after. Strike whilst the iron is hot and that.
Though, perhaps a split in the US is exactly what it needs? It's a massive country, and to my knowledge, the largest democracy in the world, in terms of sheer popultion.
The larger the population, the harder it is to please everyone. Now, armed rebellion is frankly pathetic and just a bunch of extreme right arseholes acting the big man. However well equipped they think they might, they are no match for the US army who will spank them like little redhead stepchildren in extremely short order.
I feel another thread coming on...
Bring it MDG.
Can't be. I didn't get the memo. Oh wait thats the night the second to last episode of Battlestar Galactica is on. Call it off boys, Olmos getting ready to kick Cylon butt!
This is a nonstarter. There have been weirdo militias claiming Texas will secede ever since it, well seceded... Usually three or four tax evaders eventually rounded up by the local sheriff. Nothing like Montana or Pennsylvania militia types. And our neighborhood militia will only be activated in case of Smurf or Zombie attack
Interestingly, Texas has the right to secede written at the time of the merger with the USA. It was a condition.
Texas trying to Invade mexico would lead to a sad fate as Mexico is part of the UN, And had more than 15 Mutual protection pacts.
Why does that statement not especially scare anyone except Latvia?
This is a nonstarter. There have been weirdo militias claiming Texas will secede ever since it, well seceded... Usually three or four tax evaders eventually rounded up by the local sheriff.
All I know is if Texas ever does try to secede, I will be on the first bus out. I am American before Texan even though I was born in Texas. The wing nuts can have it.
Fallen668 wrote:All I know is if Texas ever does try to secede, I will be on the first bus out. I am American before Texan even though I was born in Texas. The wing nuts can have it.
No way Texas is let out of the Union. Substantially higher federal tax revenues are given to the Feds then received.
Frazzled wrote:This is a nonstarter. There have been weirdo militias claiming Texas will secede ever since it, well seceded... Usually three or four tax evaders eventually rounded up by the local sheriff. Nothing like Montana or Pennsylvania militia types. And our neighborhood militia will only be activated in case of Smurf or Zombie attack
Yeah, these guys are recycled. In the '80s, they were all "survivalists" and wanna-be "mercenaries." In the '90s they became "militias." Then in this decade they started calling themselves "border patrols" and such.
In any era you can just call them the reddest of the rednecks. They're so right-wing, they go straight past fascism and Nazi, take a perpendicular turn, spin a few times aimlessly, do a triple salchow and land firmly on "nut."
These are the people you ignore because they're very, very stupid. And it's *hilarious* that Norris is one of them.
Meh, we had our chance in the 1800's and look how well that turned out. Secession is one thing - ARMED secession is another more deadly animal. All the 'zealots' out there only want to cause trouble not realizing that if they got in charge some other zealots would try to overthrow them in turn.
I read in our local paper last year that there was a meeting in Tennessee of groups from different states that favored secession from the union. Southern and Western states usually get all the press on such things (as we are stereotyped as ignorant po-dunks anyway), but there were quite a few Northern states represented as well - the New England ones suprised me.
Anyway, I guess Chuck got caught up in his Walker - Texas Ranger roll. The thousands of rounds shot at him in that movie and not even a scratch. Guess he thinks that will work when the real bullets start flying.
One, you're forgetting the crazy-wacko-math. Divide by a hundred. So, Chuck is really talking about groups in the tens, not thousands. Replace groups with 'my drinking buddies'. So, Chuck and 10-20 of his drinking buddies think Texas should secede.
Also realize, that the key to seccession is getting someone else to recognize you as a soverign state as soon as you secede. If no other foreign power recognizes you, then it's just an internal civil war. I could see someone like Iran or Libya recognizing a soverign nation of Texas (or Tennessee or any other state), but not the UN. And with the UN in play, it makes it a lot harder than it was for the Confederates, who only had to convince a couple countries in Europe.
There's always people who think they'd be better off without the federal government. They forget about things like mail delivery, interstate commerce and utilities, currency, and -oh yeah- a standing military. The fed does a lot of things wrong, but they do a lot of things right.
What someone like Norris should do, instead of preaching secession, is realize that every 2 years, America can have a bloodless coup - it's call elections. Either run for office and look to make changes, or form a PAC (Political Action Committee) and either go after politicians you don't like (which might be all of them) or just look to support ones you do. Or don't even mess with the politics, find some pet causes and push them. Then get Geraldo to show up with a camera. Something like border security. I can see it now, Norris and Geraldo with night vision cameras watching people sneak accross the border - then cut to Chuck saying how that could be Al Qaeda smuggling a dirty bomb into the country, and why aren't our politicians securing the borders?
Holy crap, how did I miss this? Norris needs to sit down and STFU. The last thing we Texans need is someone who is little more than an Internet joke trying to represent us.
/edit: Not that we haven't had similar leaders like that before, or anything...*cough*
Since the USA has a veto from its permanent seat on the UN security council, it seems unlikely that a resolution by the UN recognising an independent Texas would get approved.
Wait are you guys taking the ramblings of an "entertainer" seriously?
Uh... no different than the incoherent babblings of the dixie chix or streisand or any of those idiots.
Ya know I heard Spongebob Squarepants is off in a bunker somewhere plotting to kill free enterprise.
And raise the cost of figs and dates,
And wreck our compound interest rates.
And shut our schools,
And steal our jewels,
And even change our football rules.
Take away our garden tools,
And lock us up in vestibules...
utan wrote:Wait are you guys taking the ramblings of an "entertainer" seriously?
Whether or not you take them seriously actors like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood and above all Ronald Reagan did manage to find time in their busy entertainment schedules for politics.
They're so right-wing, they go straight past fascism and Nazi, take a perpendicular turn, spin a few times aimlessly, do a triple salchow and land firmly on "nut."
I like that line. May I use that as a quote, gorgon?
Kilkrazy wrote:Did you see him with Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine?
LOL. Michael Moore is such a useless waste of flesh. Did you see the documentary where they attempted to simply interview Michael Moore and he did everything he could to avoid them because he knew he would make a fat fool of himself because he actually doesn't know what he's talking about?
I'd get up an walk out myself if he asked for an interview then ambushed me with a question about why an organization about guns held an already scheduled meeting after a shooting just to get a rise out of me to see me explode on camera and use it to enforce a point.
I'm sorry, but Michael Moore doesn't point out what's wrong with America, he IS what's wrong with America.
Kilkrazy wrote:Charlton Heston was an entertainer and a lot of people took his ramblings seriously.
Did they?
I just think it is amusing that the first half of this thread was seriously discussing chuck norris running an underground resistance to the US gov't. and becoming the new president of the Confederate American States!
'Tis akin to the Dr. Seuss conspiracy theories I quoted above...
Kilkrazy wrote:Did you see him with Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine?
LOL. Michael Moore is such a useless waste of flesh. Did you see the documentary where they attempted to simply interview Michael Moore and he did everything he could to avoid them because he knew he would make a fat fool of himself because he actually doesn't know what he's talking about?
I'd get up an walk out myself if he asked for an interview then ambushed me with a question about why an organization about guns held an already scheduled meeting after a shooting just to get a rise out of me to see me explode on camera and use it to enforce a point.
I'm sorry, but Michael Moore doesn't point out what's wrong with America, he IS what's wrong with America.
We have our own TV journalists who act like that. The one that comes to mind most is John Sweeney. He isnt a journalist, but an ambush predator only effective if he gets a swoop in.
I'm loving all of the well thought out responses to this.
My favorite so far is where someone whom is considering taking up arms against an overly powerful, world dominating, non-democratic, one party government is viewed as being beyond Nazi.
The next is that anyone who is passionate enough to work towards a new or different governmental structure through any means necessary has to be an uneducated redneck.
Then, there are the uneducated speculative statements on how Texas would fair if it became a sovriegn nation. Hint, Texas is a part of the U.S. because the U.S. needs Texas more than Texas needs the U.S.(Where would the U.S. send all of its convicts)
Seriously, The tone is coming across as if someone isn't happy with the direction of this government then they are either:
A) Stupid B) Redneck C) Nazi D) All of the above
There is no consideration or interest in finding out if there are valid grievances. Whats funny is that you can have a complete whack job say something but it doesn't make the statement any less true if it is indeed true.
The attitudes I'm seeing here remind me of the arrogance that left Pearl Harbor wide open. There was credible evidece of a problem but because we believed no one would be dumb enough to attack directly we americans left ourselves wide open.
Someone bragged of the Obama adimins diplomacy yet all I've seen is exactly what the previous 2 adiministrations did. Lip service to diplomacy while ramming their agenda down the throats of any dissenters(Yes this is a bi-lateral/bi-partisan but if you suggest something other than whats on the table we'll just ignore you while we still call it bi-partisan). IMHO Everything that I've heard so far from this admin is business as usual in D.C.. Doesn't mean that I agree with extremist inflammatory comments, just that their complaints can be just as valid and as deserving of consideration.
Kilkrazy wrote:Did you see him with Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine?
LOL. Michael Moore is such a useless waste of flesh. Did you see the documentary where they attempted to simply interview Michael Moore and he did everything he could to avoid them because he knew he would make a fat fool of himself because he actually doesn't know what he's talking about?
I'd get up an walk out myself if he asked for an interview then ambushed me with a question about why an organization about guns held an already scheduled meeting after a shooting just to get a rise out of me to see me explode on camera and use it to enforce a point.
I'm sorry, but Michael Moore doesn't point out what's wrong with America, he IS what's wrong with America.
Whoever wins, I think Britain should reassert our soveriegncy straight after. Strike whilst the iron is hot and that.
We should put in a claim for Virginia at least.
Only if you pay every resident of the Old Dominion with $3k worth of GW figures of their choosing
Fine only if the appicable lines consist entirely of different poses of good loyal Redcoats, we will try and fit Made in England on the slottabase.
Then at least we get to indoctinate you and get our monies worth.
Do you have any oil in Virginia, it would be nice to know what we are getting?
focusedfire wrote:My favorite so far is where someone whom is considering taking up arms against an overly powerful, world dominating, non-democratic, one party government is viewed as being beyond Nazi.
Glad you liked it, but get the quote right. I said "so right-wing, they go straight past fascism and Nazi, take a perpendicular turn, spin a few times aimlessly, do a triple salchow and land firmly on 'nut.'"
The implication, of course, is that anyone cooking up schemes to secede from the U.S. while in the comfort of their double-wide parked in a flood plain is impossible to categorize as either left- or right-wing. And that's because they're likely lacking in any real political philosophy other than "Red Dawn was a cool movie." Although I suppose "potential domestic terrorist" would be a pretty good label.
Ther next is that anyone who is passionate enough to work towards a new or different governmental structure through any means necessary has to be an uneducated redneck.
No, I still prefer "potential domestic terrorist." Timothy McVey had the exact same passion.
I disagree, but won't go into it, I think I've derailed the thread on that subject enough. Besides, I completely respect your right to have a differing opinion.
On subject, I think Chuck may have finally lost it(or is finally letting it out in public).
LoL. First, Chuck is talking about using "cells" to undermine the Government,and set himself up as Pres of texas... We have to take it as a joke(because it is). Otherwise It sounds like simply like what the terrorist are trying to do.
Second Just because you don't like the way China does things, is no reason to war with them, So yes it is being beyond nazi, because that what Hitler did.
3rd If your passionate enough to fight for a new government, then build a coalition and every four, six, or two years, vote for the person you want to win. Simply wanting to overthrow the goverment because the guys you wanted to win lost, is a spit in the face to every thing the country stands for, and means you just want to be a TYRANT, so you can make all the rules you want unopposed. It's worse than being an uneducated redneck.
4th, I've been in the military for 9 years, I am hardly uneducated about military matters. Texas would starve, Phone cell phone and Internet service would be shut off. powerplants will be bombed, roads and rivers blockaded. Not even Iran or syria would help, seeing as Bush would be there, Who would lead, Bush or Chuck, What would they use for money, how would they handle the big, minority filled, cities? How could you defend the flat open ground. How would you command troops out of earshot? These questions are not uneducated, any general worth the skin he is made out of would have to aswer them and a whole host of others.
Lastly nobody said don't have any issues with Obama, He messes up like every other person that has ever lived. Saying that you cant wait 4 years to replace him and must try a bloody civil war that ends in Chuck Norris being the president of texas, is uneducated. Oh, What the hell does pearl harbur have to do with anything, it's like saying "This is what killed the dinosaurs."
@Killkrazy- Pls remember that this is all IMO and based upon personal perception of what seperate parties should be. So in these ways:
In the same way that the debates are run by the debate corporation. A Corp founded by former heads of both national comitees and funded by the major Corps. The Debate Corp decides on who will get national exposure as a credible candidate and refuses to allow the candidates from outside the 2 established parties to be represented. The only exception was right after the corp was founded Ross Perot was allowed but only after great personal expense to get the same media coverage.
The same way that both parties are lobbied and accept money from the same sources to make sure the same laws are passed no matter what.
The same way that both established parties and the corporationswork in concert to keep any other/new parties from having equal time in the national media. When both parties work in concert to maintain there supremacy over newer organizations they in effect become one party.
The same way that the U.S. is a republic that pays lip service to democracy but not an actual democracy except on the most basic local levels.
Whoever wins, I think Britain should reassert our soveriegncy straight after. Strike whilst the iron is hot and that.
We should put in a claim for Virginia at least.
Only if you pay every resident of the Old Dominion with $3k worth of GW figures of their choosing
Fine only if the appicable lines consist entirely of different poses of good loyal Redcoats, we will try and fit Made in England on the slottabase.
Then at least we get to indoctinate you and get our monies worth.
Do you have any oil in Virginia, it would be nice to know what we are getting?
No, its better. Virginia has coal, lots of coal.
We came from the West Virginia coal mines, and the Rocky Mountains and the Western Skies...
@ Sexiest- being in the military is a false claim to authority. I served in the military, doesn't mean that your a genius. Matter of fact, the first experience I had with why other Nations don't care for us came from watching these geniuses in europe and their arrogance toward local customes and culture. I think it was at least once a week I'd hear some American idiot say to a german national "Speak English, This is our F*****G country"
At the second point. Hitler just went to war without warning. These people are saying that they feel pushed and if something doesn't change they're gonna take action. Two very different approachs. Actually the approach of demonizing then dismissing an opposing point of view was a hallmark of Hitlers Totalitarianism. Thats why name calling is bad in a debate.
Third point sounds great until you realize that under tthe patriot act that those attempts to create functioning alternative parties is technically subversion. Even if the government doesn't shut you down on that point you have a corporate controlled media that refuses to follow federal equal time guidelines for the smaller parties.
Fourth, as either first or second largest food producing state Texas would not starve. There are 3 power grids in the U.S.. West coast, East Coast, and Texas.
Now I was pointing out if Texas seceeded without a war but if you want to examine that.
How would the army get its troops and tanks seeing as a disproportionat amount of the bases are in Texas and the Rail systems that are used to transport them have there hubs there. What happens if Texas shuts off and destroys the natural gas&oil lines going to the rest of the country? What if they did this in the heart of winter?
Doubtful that if it went that far that Texas would be the only state to do so. How does America handle such with the majority of its combat forces deployed overseas?This is why Clinton violated the Constitution and signed an agreement guaranteeing U.N. intervention in such a case and allowing the U.N. the right to station foriegn troops on amercan soil.
No, these things should not be dismissed lightly and instead of arrogantly dismissing these peoples concerns maybe we should try to work to solve these differences.
Whoever wins, I think Britain should reassert our soveriegncy straight after. Strike whilst the iron is hot and that.
We should put in a claim for Virginia at least.
Only if you pay every resident of the Old Dominion with $3k worth of GW figures of their choosing
Fine only if the appicable lines consist entirely of different poses of good loyal Redcoats, we will try and fit Made in England on the slottabase.
Then at least we get to indoctinate you and get our monies worth.
Do you have any oil in Virginia, it would be nice to know what we are getting?
No, its better. Virginia has coal, lots of coal.
We came from the West Virginia coal mines, and the Rocky Mountains and the Western Skies...
Don't need coal. We've got plenty of coal. Anthracite.
Natural gas might be useful. We're running out of that.
And then there are folks out there who (gasp!) don't think a democracy is the perfect form of government at all. Escpecially what we have today as opposed to what was set up when the USA was founded. These people believe that your average citizen isn't educated (or smart) enough to be depended upon to make the correct decisions to run a country. Having taken a look at our educational system through the eyes of my roomate's nephew, who couldn't tell you who Theodore Roosevelt is, or Winston Churchill for that matter, (Or even Bill Clinton!), I have to say that I don't entirely disagree with them. The kid will be old enough to vote soon, and I wouldn't trust him to decide how to boil water. I'm not offering up alternatives, because thruthfully I don't know of any that are better. I'd just like to point out that democracy isn't the only form of government that's viable, and it definitely isn't the most efficient.
Whoever wins, I think Britain should reassert our soveriegncy straight after. Strike whilst the iron is hot and that.
We should put in a claim for Virginia at least.
Only if you pay every resident of the Old Dominion with $3k worth of GW figures of their choosing
Fine only if the appicable lines consist entirely of different poses of good loyal Redcoats, we will try and fit Made in England on the slottabase.
Then at least we get to indoctinate you and get our monies worth.
Do you have any oil in Virginia, it would be nice to know what we are getting?
No, its better. Virginia has coal, lots of coal.
We came from the West Virginia coal mines, and the Rocky Mountains and the Western Skies...
Don't need coal. We've got plenty of coal. Anthracite.
Natural gas might be useful. We're running out of that.
You can turn coal into petroleum products.
I'm not offering up alternatives, because thruthfully I don't know of any that are better. I'd just like to point out that democracy isn't the only form of government that's viable, and it definitely isn't the most efficient.
The USA like all modern democracies is a representative democracy, in which the electorate choose representatives who actually do the voting and make the decisions about governing the country.
In theory, the elected representatives are supported in the decision making process by expert groups such as scientists and statisticians who offer scientific advice on what decisions to make. Unfortunately, as in the UK recently, the representatives may totally disregard the evidence and vote on the basis of the latest Daily Mail headline.
Wow, this topic got red hot since yesterday.
I'm not really sure if I could add anything substential to that, but I think it would be quite interesting if Texas actually did split from the U.S.
I mean, no one said it would have to be a violent decision.
Here in germany, there's actually a (pretty small) political party whose goal is the independence of the state of Bavaria (Bayern), so I guess it's not really a new idea.
The one thing that bugs me about this discussion right now, is that some people talked about China and Russia taking over, which actually makes me a little paranoid since I've been playing Fallout 3 a lot in the last 3 weeks
Quick question. Who do you think influnces national policy more? The people or the owners of the Federal Reserve?
I ask because I don't know anymore and am looking for outside perspective.
When I was young I remember individuals actually coming up with ideas and getting those ideas pushed through. These days it seems that almost all of the laws are corporate sponsored.
VP Nominee Sarah Palin was criticized for attending the annual convention of a group of Alaska sepratists, for serveral years, iirc.
My guess is that about 48 states have some group that wants to secede. And the two outliers being California and Flordia. There was/is a group that wants Cali split into North Cali and South Cali, but I don't think they want to secede from the Union. And in Florida, I think the population is too old to support the idea. And people would need passports to go to Disney World, so Disney won't support it either.
VP Nominee Sarah Palin was criticized for attending the annual convention of a group of Alaska sepratists, for serveral years, iirc.
My guess is that about 48 states have some group that wants to secede. And the two outliers being California and Flordia. There was/is a group that wants Cali split into North Cali and South Cali, but I don't think they want to secede from the Union. And in Florida, I think the population is too old to support the idea. And people would need passports to go to Disney World, so Disney won't support it either.
Surely it doesn't matter that the guy who is doing the "shouting" is an "actor" who is little more than an internet joke in many people's eyes. Hitler was a short, failed artist with a silly mustache. It doesn't matter who it is, only that people will listen and there are always people willing to listen. Ignoring them only makes them want to shout louder.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Though, perhaps a split in the US is exactly what it needs? It's a massive country, and to my knowledge, the largest democracy in the world, in terms of sheer popultion.
India.
To be honest, If the states were divied up by party both parties would be significantly happier. The democrats and the republicans want completely polar opposites when it comes to the future of the country. People talk about a lack of bi partison efforts... It's because there is almost no middle ground on the most prominent of the political issues, so what happens is the people swing back and forth like a pendulum trying both systems for a few years not liking it and then changing the government.. Leaving more and more people increasingly unsatisfied with the results.
I wouldn't say they want polar opposites.
I reckon America would be a lot better off if some of the smaller parties ( the libertarians, the Greens and the like) got more airtime. Seems really unfair and undemocratic the way things are set up at the moment.
GreaterGood? wrote:To be honest, If the states were divied up by party both parties would be significantly happier. The democrats and the republicans want completely polar opposites when it comes to the future of the country. People talk about a lack of bi partison efforts... It's because there is almost no middle ground on the most prominent of the political issues, so what happens is the people swing back and forth like a pendulum trying both systems for a few years not liking it and then changing the government.. Leaving more and more people increasingly unsatisfied with the results.
I think you miss the point that both parties want exactly the same future but are going about accomplishing their goals from opposite ends. There is no real rancor between professional politicians, only rhetoric.
The end goal of both parties is to leave the individual with as few rights as possible and to put the average person so far into debt that they will be obedient wage slaves for their corporate masters. Evil laughter is heard from somewhere
Now back on-topic, maybe we should put it to a vote. Who wants Texas out of the Union?
Just remember if you vote Texas out, You yankees have to take George W. Bush back to his Connecticut home state.
How about this, Let Texas go and give Michigan to Canada. Then we let California split into what they really are and thats Northern and Southern. Then we bring in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Once Texas is on its own it will merge with mexico and become the Corporate State of Texaco.
GreaterGood? wrote:To be honest, If the states were divied up by party both parties would be significantly happier. The democrats and the republicans want completely polar opposites when it comes to the future of the country. People talk about a lack of bi partison efforts... It's because there is almost no middle ground on the most prominent of the political issues, so what happens is the people swing back and forth like a pendulum trying both systems for a few years not liking it and then changing the government.. Leaving more and more people increasingly unsatisfied with the results.
There as an interesting article on fivethirtyeight, which looked at a range of political questions relevant today, and compared the answers of self-identified liberals and conservatives. The conclusion was that there was a weak pattern of correlation. So people who say that you're all Americans and that's there's no big differences are wrong. But the people who claim there's a clear divide and that means culture war are also wrong. The truth lies in the big murky middle ground beneath those two positions.
As for bipartisanship, just give it a while. US politics and it's weak party control has a lot more bipartisanship than most countries, until you start looking into proportionately represented governments and they operate on a whole different level. Just the Republican party is having a bit of fit right now, it built itself up around the fantasy of permanent majority and got tied up in some very idealistic positions, and now it's fallen out of office and gone a little insane. Give it an election cycle or two and it'll be back to the somewhat reasonable, somewhat nutty, slightly corrupt standard that's the norm for the two parties in US politics.
warpcrafter wrote:Well, perhaps it would be for the best. All of the different republics would be too busy skirmishing with each other, then the Russian/Chinese war machine would take over and then finally we would have a world government. It's gonna happen eventually, what does it really matter who's in charge?
All of what different republics?
I don't think that China is ready to make a move like that quite yet... and definitely not Russia. I'm not sure it's still recovered from it's deficits after the cold war
The remnants of a second American civil war. I believe it would result in at least three separate smaller nations being formed. The Republic of Texas, the eastern US and the western US. The Texans would probably take over part of southern Mexico and some of the southern and southwestern state as well.
Well gee I think that if Texas wanted southern Mexico they would need northern mexico as well.
Ha! So much for me checking my posts before hitting the button. We should take over northern Mexico and in exchange give them California. "Here you go, YOU fix it, and by the way, Hollywood is moving to Australia!"
I don't see anything that could lead one to believe that the U.S. would split along those lines.
