Wow, that's huge. Ironic that Canada would end up more free than the country that revolted.ReZerO said:Here in Canada any Province has the right to leave the Dominion, it has to be voted on in a referendum.
Wow, that's huge. Ironic that Canada would end up more free than the country that revolted.ReZerO said:Here in Canada any Province has the right to leave the Dominion, it has to be voted on in a referendum.
Obama's already spent more than Bush did in all his 8 years.SilentHunter7 said:First you have Palin making comments that Alaska is a sovereign government*, and now a week later we get this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html
So good ol' Governor Perry and his infinite wisdom is starting up secessionist feelings in the Lone Star state.
I just have to ask (and no offense meant to any Texans here). Is he fucking retarded? Not only did secession not work the first time (because of a Republican, ironically), but Texas gets about 80% of the money its citizens pay in taxes back in pork and government projects, so his argument is invalid. Also, it was a Texan in the white house the last 8 years that blew up the deficit in the first place.
I don't know, someone, anyone, please, tell me this is all just a bad joke.
* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion
Can I have proof on that? I'm not say "ur teh wro0ng3st" but I'd be interested in seeing that.Grand_Poohbah said:Obama's already spent more than Bush did in all his 8 years.
Hmmm seems I've made an error. Bush added 4 trillion in his 8 years. Obama has added 2 trillion so far in his 3 months.pantsoffdanceoff said:Can I have proof on that? I'm not say "ur teh wro0ng3st" but I'd be interested in seeing that.Grand_Poohbah said:Obama's already spent more than Bush did in all his 8 years.
Bush is a Neoconservative, which is basically a Liberal who hates drugs and gays. Both parties are big spenders now, but it appears Republicans remember their principles when they no longer stand to gain by abandoning them.Grand_Poohbah said:Hmmm seems I've made an error. Bush added 4 trillion in his 8 years. Obama has added 2 trillion so far in his 3 months.pantsoffdanceoff said:Can I have proof on that? I'm not say "ur teh wro0ng3st" but I'd be interested in seeing that.Grand_Poohbah said:Obama's already spent more than Bush did in all his 8 years.
If you ain't first yer last.Rooster Cogburn said:Bush is a Neoconservative, which is basically a Liberal who hates drugs and gays. Both parties are big spenders now, but it appears Republicans remember their principles when they no longer stand to gain by abandoning them.Grand_Poohbah said:Hmmm seems I've made an error. Bush added 4 trillion in his 8 years. Obama has added 2 trillion so far in his 3 months.pantsoffdanceoff said:Can I have proof on that? I'm not say "ur teh wro0ng3st" but I'd be interested in seeing that.Grand_Poohbah said:Obama's already spent more than Bush did in all his 8 years.
EDIT: It's worth noting that Obama is set to be the biggest spender in history- but that would make George W. Bush only the second biggest spender in history.
Governor Perry doesn't even know what he is talking about. There is NO get out clause for Texas to leave the government and armed rebelion would be his only option to leave. THat would work real well, about 3000 people against the US armySilentHunter7 said:First you have Palin making comments that Alaska is a sovereign government*, and now a week later we get this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html
So good ol' Governor Perry and his infinite wisdom is starting up secessionist feelings in the Lone Star state.
I just have to ask (and no offense meant to any Texans here). Is he fucking retarded? Not only did secession not work the first time (because of a Republican, ironically), but Texas gets about 80% of the money its citizens pay in taxes back in pork and government projects, so his argument is invalid. Also, it was a Texan in the white house the last 8 years that blew up the deficit in the first place.
I don't know, someone, anyone, please, tell me this is all just a bad joke.
* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion
Because Texas only has 3000 people in it? http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1266.shtmlcaptainordo said:Governor Perry doesn't even know what he is talking about. There is NO get out clause for Texas and armed rebelion would be his only option to leave. THat would work real well, about 3000 people against the US armySilentHunter7 said:First you have Palin making comments that Alaska is a sovereign government*, and now a week later we get this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html
So good ol' Governor Perry and his infinite wisdom is starting up secessionist feelings in the Lone Star state.
I just have to ask (and no offense meant to any Texans here). Is he fucking retarded? Not only did secession not work the first time (because of a Republican, ironically), but Texas gets about 80% of the money its citizens pay in taxes back in pork and government projects, so his argument is invalid. Also, it was a Texan in the white house the last 8 years that blew up the deficit in the first place.
I don't know, someone, anyone, please, tell me this is all just a bad joke.
* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion
Again, I think we've run out of things to dispute. Let me say that I'm perhaps a bit more socialist and for big government than may be the American ideal; socialism or maybe even a command economy don't seem so bad as long as they are made to work. But of course that doesn't mean I think capitalism or anything America does is wrong; I think it's just as fine, I'm glad it has worked out for this country, and I'm happy to live under it. So I think I'm a bit more for control, while you seem to be about absolute freedom. I'm fine with that, and I don't really want to get into a debate over those things (which seems to be where we are headed).Rooster Cogburn said:I only quoted this portion to avoid huge quote towers, but I mean to address your entire post.
Whether secession is prudent or the right thing in any given case considering factors like war, death and taxes is not what I mean to debate at this point. Before we can consider extraneous factors, we must first decide the underlying issue. We must differentiate between being right about something, and having the right to something. I believe Neo-Nazis are wrong to promote the ideology of white supremacy. Likely, most would agree. This is a hateful ideology that would do society harm. Why does the government not stop them from assembling, then? Why does the government not tell everyone what to think and how to act, in every case? Wouldn't society function better if all of us submitted to one central authority with unlimited power over us?
The answer is yes- society would function better. Efficiency is the mark of every totalitarian regime.
But the American ideal is liberty- for its own sake. Neo-Nazis have the right to assemble even when they are wrong to do so. We do not deny them this because we consider it a right, and a right cannot be denied by subjectivity or the will of others.
Your question about Neo-Nazis making a new Holocaust is not without merit. But that is a Just War issue, not a secession issue. We should not permit the Holocaust to begin again, but it would be the Holocaust, not the act of secession, that we would be fighting. It is like asking, should we not stop a man who exercises his right to free speech and then punches a baby? Of course we should stop the baby punching, not the free speech.
It is true that men must be governed. And you could use this principle to justify any and all government authority. But the Washingtonian imperative is small government. Shrink it as much as possible, leaving only what skeletal structure of a government is necessary to secure liberty. The purpose of state and federal authorities existing parallel to each other is to create a union of willing partners for the benefit of all. If those partners are not willing, the word "union" hardly applies.
Controlling people's actions is a necessary evil, not a principle. It is to be reviled and feared. We limit freedom only when the freedoms of one person impose on the freedoms of another. If a federal government is telling a state what union they must belong to, that state's rights are being usurped.
I've had enough of these idiots who quote the Daily Show, and try to pass off John Stewart's teleprompted script as their own thoughts, to quote Todd Barry, "you narrow minded fake-liberal fuck." You're just as bad as fanatical, racist, conservative biggots.Cptn_Squishy said:Ive had enough of these whiney people who continue to confuse 'tyranny' with 'losing'. You guys want to secede? There's the door. All these teabaggers who are protesting today...ask any of them what constitutes fascism and they'll only be able to vomit out talking points they heard on the radio.
Economics and planned economy are only a small part of it. But I see what you mean- you and I are not going to agree on this issue. It is good we were able to disagree on such a fundamental level about something so important without becoming angry or even unfriendly.ElephantGuts said:Again, I think we've run out of things to dispute. Let me say that I'm perhaps a bit more socialist and for big government than may be the American ideal; socialism or maybe even a command economy don't seem so bad as long as they are made to work. But of course that doesn't mean I think capitalism or anything America does is wrong; I think it's just as fine, I'm glad it has worked out for this country, and I'm happy to live under it. So I think I'm a bit more for control, while you seem to be about absolute freedom. I'm fine with that, and I don't really want to get into a debate over those things (which seems to be where we are headed).
I agree that freedom is extremely important, I guess the most important thing on Earth, besides maybe life. But I think there's room for that and for the government to control people, because without government society would almost surely descend into chaos.
Quebec has had the vote I know at least once... it may have been twice. The political party Bloc Quebecois (federal) and Party Quebecois (provincial) have the political aim of sovereignty for Quebec from Canada.Rooster Cogburn said:Wow, that's huge. Ironic that Canada would end up more free than the country that revolted.ReZerO said:Here in Canada any Province has the right to leave the Dominion, it has to be voted on in a referendum.
Yeah usually it's too much to hope to have a conversation such as this without atleast one party becoming irate. In fact I'm (pleasantly) surprised it did happen and ended so civilly. A prime example of how two mature people can have a civilized political discussion with opposing viewpoints. It was a pleasure.Rooster Cogburn said:Economics and planned economy are only a small part of it. But I see what you mean- you and I are not going to agree on this issue. It is good we were able to disagree on such a fundamental level about something so important without becoming angry or even unfriendly.ElephantGuts said:Again, I think we've run out of things to dispute. Let me say that I'm perhaps a bit more socialist and for big government than may be the American ideal; socialism or maybe even a command economy don't seem so bad as long as they are made to work. But of course that doesn't mean I think capitalism or anything America does is wrong; I think it's just as fine, I'm glad it has worked out for this country, and I'm happy to live under it. So I think I'm a bit more for control, while you seem to be about absolute freedom. I'm fine with that, and I don't really want to get into a debate over those things (which seems to be where we are headed).
I agree that freedom is extremely important, I guess the most important thing on Earth, besides maybe life. But I think there's room for that and for the government to control people, because without government society would almost surely descend into chaos.
And I must say I was somewhat surprised to hear this. Good for Canada for giving its citizens so much freedom. Though if I was a country's leader I couldn't imagine being so loose with my territories; but then again that may be because I've been playing too much Empire: Total War.ReZerO said:Here in Canada any Province has the right to leave the Dominion, it has to be voted on in a referendum.
No what I ment was that Texas had about that many people at the Tea Party where Governor Perry made this statement. I was estimating that would be about the number of people that would follow him in rebelion. I know Texas has a lot more people than 3000Grand_Poohbah said:Because Texas only has 3000 people in it? http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1266.shtmlcaptainordo said:Governor Perry doesn't even know what he is talking about. There is NO get out clause for Texas and armed rebelion would be his only option to leave. THat would work real well, about 3000 people against the US armySilentHunter7 said:First you have Palin making comments that Alaska is a sovereign government*, and now a week later we get this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html
So good ol' Governor Perry and his infinite wisdom is starting up secessionist feelings in the Lone Star state.
I just have to ask (and no offense meant to any Texans here). Is he fucking retarded? Not only did secession not work the first time (because of a Republican, ironically), but Texas gets about 80% of the money its citizens pay in taxes back in pork and government projects, so his argument is invalid. Also, it was a Texan in the white house the last 8 years that blew up the deficit in the first place.
I don't know, someone, anyone, please, tell me this is all just a bad joke.
* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion
Well, if you think about it it keeps the leader in check by making sure he isn't a controlling dictator person, and it gives the territories a sense of safety that they can leave if there's a major problem, and therefor less chance of violent rebellionElephantGuts said:And I must say I was somewhat surprised to hear this. Good for Canada for giving its citizens so much freedom. Though if I was a country's leader I couldn't imagine being so loose with my territories; but then again that may be because I've been playing too much Empire: Total War.ReZerO said:Here in Canada any Province has the right to leave the Dominion, it has to be voted on in a referendum.
Lol, you've got that right. They aren't likely to secede any time soon either.Grand_Poohbah said:Texas isn't succeeding.
I think he meant out of all Texans that only 3000 would be willing to rise up in armsGrand_Poohbah said:Because Texas only has 3000 people in it? http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1266.shtmlcaptainordo said:Governor Perry doesn't even know what he is talking about. There is NO get out clause for Texas and armed rebelion would be his only option to leave. THat would work real well, about 3000 people against the US armySilentHunter7 said:First you have Palin making comments that Alaska is a sovereign government*, and now a week later we get this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html
So good ol' Governor Perry and his infinite wisdom is starting up secessionist feelings in the Lone Star state.
I just have to ask (and no offense meant to any Texans here). Is he fucking retarded? Not only did secession not work the first time (because of a Republican, ironically), but Texas gets about 80% of the money its citizens pay in taxes back in pork and government projects, so his argument is invalid. Also, it was a Texan in the white house the last 8 years that blew up the deficit in the first place.
I don't know, someone, anyone, please, tell me this is all just a bad joke.
* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion
Quebec nearly left awhile ago. Stayed by about .6%. Not like us West people want em, all they do is make us learn french.Rooster Cogburn said:Wow, that's huge. Ironic that Canada would end up more free than the country that revolted.ReZerO said:Here in Canada any Province has the right to leave the Dominion, it has to be voted on in a referendum.