Wow, that's huge. Ironic that Canada would end up more free than the country that revolted.ReZerO said:
Texas wants to secede from the Union?
- Thread starter SilentHunter7
- Start date
Obama's already spent more than Bush did in all his 8 years.SilentHunter7 said:
Also Texas isn't succeeding. It's just demanding it's constitution given rights that the current government is trying to take away.
Can I have proof on that? I'm not say "ur teh wro0ng3st" but I'd be interested in seeing that.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:
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:
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:
Because Texas only has 3000 people in it? http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1266.shtmlcaptainordo 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).Rooster Cogburn said:
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.
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:
Try coming up with your own opinions for a change. Believe it or not, Rick Perry doesn't speak for the majority of Texans. His approval rating is at around 20%. Secondly, the south is not the crazy fanatical christian concentration camp you people seem to think we are. Stop generalizing based on things you've heard/seen on comedy central.
Also to clear up some other misconceptions I've heard on comedy central about Texas.
Our state motto is "Friendship" not "Don't Mess With Texas" which was our anti-litter add campaign slogan from back in the 80s. And second, this one will blow your mind, Bush is actually from New Haven, Connecticut. Not only was he born there, but he returned there to attend Yale for his college education.
[/rant]
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:
People are missing the point here. Turn off the liberal rhetoric for a second.
The nation is divided about 50-50. A lot of people went accross party lines for Obama for a number of reasons, however the first thing Obama did in office was to alienate a lot of his cross party supporters, losing that scant few percentage points he had as a lead. The nation is pretty much back to being 50-50.
Now, the media would have you believe that Obama has an overwhelming amount of support. He does not, he never did. That is all BS. He had enough to win the election, and even then it was hardly a "landslide" victory except when compared to some of the photo-finish "OMG there must be a recount" victories of the last few elections since he clearly had a handfull of percentage points.
Being a Democrat Obama wants a very strong federal goverment, and is pretty much leading a "Boo yah, go go Socialism" charge. Needless to say a lot of states with strong independance like Alaska and Texas are not happy about this trend. This is why a bigger point than usual is being made about state Sovreingty in such a direct fashion because right now a lot of people are opposing a highly liberal goverment which has ALWAYS had the objective of creating ONE goverment, as opposed to an alliance of United States.
I have been saying for a while now that our nation was dangerously close to a civil war. When a nation is so heavily polarized down the middle it is NEVER healthy since any action is going to upset an overwhelming number of people. If we had a Republican in The White House we'd be hearing the same kind of crud from the other direction.
... and yeah, your seeing some signs of things breaking. Right now it's just BS and rhetoric, but eventually if people on one side or the other keep pushing you will see things break. You probably won't see a North/South divide, but rather a coastal regions vs. middle regions divide (ie East and West Coasts Vs. almost Everything else, although the coasts have as much of a population as the rest. Not a perfect break down but a simplistic one).
The media does NOT help matters because effectively half the population has had it's opinions quashed and ridiculed. The very fact that most liberals THINK there is an overwhelming liberal majority is part of the problem.
As far as the economy goes, again blaming Bush is another point of divide. People seem to think Bush was almost universally hated because the polls in the media said so. This is far from the truth, as is the fact that he was single handedly responsible for the economic crisis and other things.
People tend to forget about Bill Clinton and what HE did because he's a "popular" liberal (with the media) and also lead the country during one of it's most prosperous times. However that prosperity came at the cost of him doing things like downsizing our military and pretty much shutting down our intelligence services. People assumed that somehow we still had all of this stuff (super secret agentz! who needs the CIA) I think, when such is pretty much the stuff of fantasy.
9/11 happened, we don't know who is responsible because all of our bloody intelligences agencies are downsized, and so tied up with red tape they can't do anything. Some idiot thought we could get by just with Satellites (even if China has been able to blind them), now we learn that if you don't have a man inside/on the ground you have nothing. Just as certain people warned us. Bush has to turn around and pretty much rebuild the entire US intelligence infrastructure from the ground up. Hence all the discussions about it's new forms and the theory of "Intelligence Czars". We suddenly need the military, but oh gee, someone downsized that too. So now we have to send out the reserves which were never intended for this kind of initial deployment, and especially not for the long term.
Then we have issues like body armor, armored hummers, etc... and despite who argued each end, the question arises as to why our troops didn't have these things. Easy, the military was downsizing, not upgrading and re-arming.
So yeah, people think back to the last liberal president as a "Good" time because of the relative prosperity. They forget that the prosperity came at an expense, and Bush is the one that had the unpopular job of handing us our check. Rebuilding was probably more expensive than the money gained from 8 years or so of downsizing.
The point here isn't that Bush is a saint, and that Clinton is a devil, or anything so obtuse. I'm just pointing out some of the realities of the economic crisis.
Plus people can say that Bush and Clinton lead even if they had differant philsophies. Obama has so far proven himself to be nothing but a naive, grandstander, who figures he can bluff through the next 4-8 years with diplomatic pretensions. By this I mean he has done very little except increase the troops going into Afghanistan, and set up some showy international meetings (oh let's tell South/Central America we're their friends...). Obama's biggest claim to fame right now is coming into the White House in a time of economic crisis, throwing the most expensive Inaugeration possible, and buying himself a new Caddy outfitted to presidential specs (rolling bunker).
I have yet to see any NOTICABLE effects of the Obama economic plan. Not saying they aren't there, just that I'm not seeing them. I personally always thought the money in his plan was insufficient given the number of things it was supposed to cover, and was going to be spread way too thin. So far that seems to be the case.
Disagree with me if you want, but a lot of people think like I do, and given the socialist rhetoric THAT is why a lot of states are countering with their own rhetoric and basically saying "if you go socialist, we're going to leave the country and start a civil war before we give up our rights as s state". Right now it's all talk, and nothing more than a warning sign, but something to keep in mind.
Hopefully Obama is smart enough to stop pushing, because the more he pushes, the worse it's going to get, and eventually it might all come apart. In a polarized society like this one, he seems to be saying/promoting the kinds of thiungs that are pushing too hard and too fast.
>>>----Therumancer--->
The nation is divided about 50-50. A lot of people went accross party lines for Obama for a number of reasons, however the first thing Obama did in office was to alienate a lot of his cross party supporters, losing that scant few percentage points he had as a lead. The nation is pretty much back to being 50-50.
Now, the media would have you believe that Obama has an overwhelming amount of support. He does not, he never did. That is all BS. He had enough to win the election, and even then it was hardly a "landslide" victory except when compared to some of the photo-finish "OMG there must be a recount" victories of the last few elections since he clearly had a handfull of percentage points.
Being a Democrat Obama wants a very strong federal goverment, and is pretty much leading a "Boo yah, go go Socialism" charge. Needless to say a lot of states with strong independance like Alaska and Texas are not happy about this trend. This is why a bigger point than usual is being made about state Sovreingty in such a direct fashion because right now a lot of people are opposing a highly liberal goverment which has ALWAYS had the objective of creating ONE goverment, as opposed to an alliance of United States.
I have been saying for a while now that our nation was dangerously close to a civil war. When a nation is so heavily polarized down the middle it is NEVER healthy since any action is going to upset an overwhelming number of people. If we had a Republican in The White House we'd be hearing the same kind of crud from the other direction.
... and yeah, your seeing some signs of things breaking. Right now it's just BS and rhetoric, but eventually if people on one side or the other keep pushing you will see things break. You probably won't see a North/South divide, but rather a coastal regions vs. middle regions divide (ie East and West Coasts Vs. almost Everything else, although the coasts have as much of a population as the rest. Not a perfect break down but a simplistic one).
The media does NOT help matters because effectively half the population has had it's opinions quashed and ridiculed. The very fact that most liberals THINK there is an overwhelming liberal majority is part of the problem.
As far as the economy goes, again blaming Bush is another point of divide. People seem to think Bush was almost universally hated because the polls in the media said so. This is far from the truth, as is the fact that he was single handedly responsible for the economic crisis and other things.
People tend to forget about Bill Clinton and what HE did because he's a "popular" liberal (with the media) and also lead the country during one of it's most prosperous times. However that prosperity came at the cost of him doing things like downsizing our military and pretty much shutting down our intelligence services. People assumed that somehow we still had all of this stuff (super secret agentz! who needs the CIA) I think, when such is pretty much the stuff of fantasy.
9/11 happened, we don't know who is responsible because all of our bloody intelligences agencies are downsized, and so tied up with red tape they can't do anything. Some idiot thought we could get by just with Satellites (even if China has been able to blind them), now we learn that if you don't have a man inside/on the ground you have nothing. Just as certain people warned us. Bush has to turn around and pretty much rebuild the entire US intelligence infrastructure from the ground up. Hence all the discussions about it's new forms and the theory of "Intelligence Czars". We suddenly need the military, but oh gee, someone downsized that too. So now we have to send out the reserves which were never intended for this kind of initial deployment, and especially not for the long term.
Then we have issues like body armor, armored hummers, etc... and despite who argued each end, the question arises as to why our troops didn't have these things. Easy, the military was downsizing, not upgrading and re-arming.
So yeah, people think back to the last liberal president as a "Good" time because of the relative prosperity. They forget that the prosperity came at an expense, and Bush is the one that had the unpopular job of handing us our check. Rebuilding was probably more expensive than the money gained from 8 years or so of downsizing.
The point here isn't that Bush is a saint, and that Clinton is a devil, or anything so obtuse. I'm just pointing out some of the realities of the economic crisis.
Plus people can say that Bush and Clinton lead even if they had differant philsophies. Obama has so far proven himself to be nothing but a naive, grandstander, who figures he can bluff through the next 4-8 years with diplomatic pretensions. By this I mean he has done very little except increase the troops going into Afghanistan, and set up some showy international meetings (oh let's tell South/Central America we're their friends...). Obama's biggest claim to fame right now is coming into the White House in a time of economic crisis, throwing the most expensive Inaugeration possible, and buying himself a new Caddy outfitted to presidential specs (rolling bunker).
I have yet to see any NOTICABLE effects of the Obama economic plan. Not saying they aren't there, just that I'm not seeing them. I personally always thought the money in his plan was insufficient given the number of things it was supposed to cover, and was going to be spread way too thin. So far that seems to be the case.
Disagree with me if you want, but a lot of people think like I do, and given the socialist rhetoric THAT is why a lot of states are countering with their own rhetoric and basically saying "if you go socialist, we're going to leave the country and start a civil war before we give up our rights as s state". Right now it's all talk, and nothing more than a warning sign, but something to keep in mind.
Hopefully Obama is smart enough to stop pushing, because the more he pushes, the worse it's going to get, and eventually it might all come apart. In a polarized society like this one, he seems to be saying/promoting the kinds of thiungs that are pushing too hard and too fast.
>>>----Therumancer--->
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:
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:
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:
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:
Lol, you've got that right. They aren't likely to secede any time soon either.Grand_Poohbah said:
