Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Should the North Secede from the union?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
liveinkorea316



Joined: 20 Aug 2010
Location: South Korea

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure it's fair to split the USA into just North and South any more as if Religion is the only difference between peoples.

There are plenty of Northern States that Vote Republican too. You would need to have one Central Red State and four small 'Islands of Blue' centered around California, NY, Alaska and Hawaii.

The simplest answer is to merely devolve more power back into states which has been (wrongly?) usurped by Congress in the lust for power.

If Federal taxes were further reduced, and States given more freedom over human rights issues, then what would be the problem? The president would not threaten those things.

Your main issue is the pervasiveness of Federal power.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really do believe that this is what it must of felt like just before the U.S. Civil War. There is a casm (sp?) in beliefs.

The problem is the gap is not geographical; you can find it in just about every community.

I guess we could have some kind of India-style partition and just ask people to move willy-nilly to the region that best represents their beliefs but obviously that would just create wonderful new problems.

Personally, I don't have any suggestions on how to break this gridlock. I know people complain about Obama's "crony capitalism" (somewhat rightfully so) but I really think he is trying to find common ground with the Republicans; it is just that the Republicans really don't want to compromise and the legislation and governmental policies reflect this dysfunctionalism.

Of course, the Republicans blame Obama for not compromising enough, and maybe it is my bias, but I just don't see it that way.

But, it is annoying to me when people complain about Obama at least trying to compromise with the Republicans and then turning around and complaining about the lack of concensus in America. I really think Obama is trying to make government work and when you think about it, compared to other administrations, the corruption has been less (at least from my limited vantage point).

I guess divide really is American politics at its essence and I don't see it changing anytime soon. There is plenty of injustice and when things get bad enough, the complaints will be loud enough to create a modicum of change (if we haven't become so post-modern that we have become immune to the cries of serious injustice).

There is no utopia. Nothing will ever be perfect. But, some things can be more perfect than others. Is it really all that bad out there? Honestly?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:
I really do believe that this is what it must of felt like just before the U.S. Civil War. There is a casm (sp?) in beliefs.

The problem is the gap is not geographical; you can find it in just about every community.

I guess we could have some kind of India-style partition and just ask people to move willy-nilly to the region that best represents their beliefs but obviously that would just create wonderful new problems.

Personally, I don't have any suggestions on how to break this gridlock. I know people complain about Obama's "crony capitalism" (somewhat rightfully so) but I really think he is trying to find common ground with the Republicans; it is just that the Republicans really don't want to compromise and the legislation and governmental policies reflect this dysfunctionalism.

Of course, the Republicans blame Obama for not compromising enough, and maybe it is my bias, but I just don't see it that way.

But, it is annoying to me when people complain about Obama at least trying to compromise with the Republicans and then turning around and complaining about the lack of concensus in America. I really think Obama is trying to make government work and when you think about it, compared to other administrations, the corruption has been less (at least from my limited vantage point).

I guess divide really is American politics at its essence and I don't see it changing anytime soon. There is plenty of injustice and when things get bad enough, the complaints will be loud enough to create a modicum of change (if we haven't become so post-modern that we have become immune to the cries of serious injustice).

There is no utopia. Nothing will ever be perfect. But, some things can be more perfect than others. Is it really all that bad out there? Honestly?


I do think it is 'all that bad out there'.

I'm dismayed that most posters saw this idea in terms of 150 years ago. There is no particular reason it has to be North-South. It could just as well be East-West. As I see it, India-Pakistan is the model to follow. I would prefer that hundreds of thousands of people pulling off migrants from trains and crushing their skulls with rocks or hacking off limbs not be the method of separation (note that 'a' is separated by 'r'), but whatever. We have 314 million. A few hundred thousand corpses rotting by the road-side can be made up in a generation.

We have reached the point where approximately 50% of the population does not believe in government by, of, and for the people, as determined by popular election. The 'other side' believes that the minority (as determined by the losers of the last election) must have the power to legislate.

Law has become an artificial construct of the powerful to protect their interests (it pretty much always was in other countries, but has now become the policy of the US).

There are now so many voter suppression laws on the books that this next election will not be legitimate, not to mention the free-for-all of unlimited money. Corporations are not people.

I have no particular view on the idea of breaking up into many smaller political units. My point is that Lincoln's view of government of, by, and for, the people has died. The great experiment is on life support...and my feeling is that it is better for all to let the libertarian "movement" conservatives have their own space to do their own experiment and leave the rest of us to work out our own future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Only a vain fool would seek to break this Union over a dispute about tax breaks. Should we seek to emulate Europe?


And yet, this is what brought on the first revolt way back in 1775. You may call Washington etc. 'vain fools', but I would not.

I would argue that Washington etc had something bigger afoot: the creation of a larger polity with a strong central government.

Emulate Europe? European states are based on some sense of ethnic identity. We don't have that. We only have the idea of the Constitution...'We the people' and as far as I can see, conservatives read that as 'We the corporations'.

I see that as extraordinarily regressive. Your side reads that as progressive.

I see no point in continuing the debate beyond where to draw the international boundaries between those of us who agree with my view and those of us who agree with your view.

If it is not clear, I have no wish to live in a state based on your political philosophy, and I understand that you do not wish to live in a state based on mine. Fine.

It is time to separate. Peacefully if possible, violently if you wish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
I am elated to see that mainstream people are losing faith in the system.


So, in this situation, cynicism does not get you a free ride. Make your choice.

The country is going to split. Progressive or Conservative. Which is it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the sake of the safety of me, my family, my friends, and innocent people, I hope if someone seriously starts spouting off that nonsense that they are shouted down and exposed for being the escalating dimwits that they are.

If not and they start an armin and seceedin, I hope they get taken out before the thing boils over. The last thing we need is an America with nukes divided into two or more parts facing some sort of nasty separation and hostilities. I'd actually support a "strong" government if it seriously looked like it was about to come to that. Shoot their ringleaders and make it clear we're staying together no matter what, because if we go to war, all we'll have left are widows and orphans, and most of em will be dead too.

What good is freedom if the entire country is a radioactive wasteland?

Seriously, these secession nuts on both sides need some sense beaten into them. Divorcing because you can't agree on what TV show to watch. What a load of stupid shortsighted small-minded selfishness.

That being said, the logistics of it would just be ridiculous. What would you do for currency and reserves? Treaties? Diplomatic recognition? Postal Service and Highways? Armed Forces? Water usage treaties? Movement of people? Recognition of laws and prior rulings? Surely both would claim to be the "legitimate" descendant of the Original American Government. Title and claims of transportation? Cross-border commerce and recognition of vehicle and materials licenses?

All of this because someone wants to pray before a High School football game and two men want to get married. Reminds me of sending millions of young men to die because some Archduke from some 2nd rate power gets whacked. Or maybe some hillbilly feud. "That's my pig and the line is this side of the rock." "NO, that's MY pig, and the line is THAT side of the rock." Next thing you know your 12 year old son is dead and you've shot someone else's 13 year old boy all because of a pig.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The simplest answer is to merely devolve more power back into states which has been (wrongly?) usurped by Congress in the lust for power.

If Federal taxes were further reduced, and States given more freedom over human rights issues, then what would be the problem? The president would not threaten those things.

Your main issue is the pervasiveness of Federal power.


Ummm. No.

Um, no. No. No. No.

The Civil War cost 600,000 lives to demonstrate that you are wrong in your premises. The conclusion of that War was that we are ONE country.

I very VERY strongly believed that until a few months ago. History will support me.

However, one of our two parties (and we only have two real parties) has decided that compromise is unacceptable. Originally I was outraged. Our whole system is based on compromise.

However #2, it has become increasingly clear that the Right has moved into a position where compromise is not one of their ideals. Moreover, I am not interested in making a compromise with radicals who want to introduce a new and harmful (in my opinion) program, any more than I am interested in compromising with terrorists.

As a free man, I am not interested in seeking a compromise with the Church and the Corporation, which is what the Right says is on offer. I am not interested in surrendering the progress of the last couple of centuries.

I am not a radical. The only solution is to break the Union into pieces and let the various parts go their separate ways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
My point is that Lincoln's view of government of, by, and for, the people has died. The great experiment is on life support...and my feeling is that it is better for all to let the libertarian "movement" conservatives have their own space to do their own experiment and leave the rest of us to work out our own future.

Lincoln was the original corporatist president. He was a big-shot railroad lawyer. His view of government was that the federal regime is god. That's why at his memorial he's perched on a giant throne surround by fasces, symbolizing the apotheosis of the central government. He achieved his aims by brute force, pure and simple. His war-criminal generals waged total war against civilians. Grant later went on to be one of the most corrupt presidents ever.

And yet you have the gall to blame "libertarians" (as if you have even the slightest notion what the term means), while propping up the absurd Lincoln myth. In short, WE are the ones who want to be left alone. YOU and your brainwashed collectivist ilk are the ones who would like to use force to keep the nation state together. Your hypocrisy on this matter is off the charts...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
Ya-ta Boy wrote:
My point is that Lincoln's view of government of, by, and for, the people has died. The great experiment is on life support...and my feeling is that it is better for all to let the libertarian "movement" conservatives have their own space to do their own experiment and leave the rest of us to work out our own future.

Lincoln was the original corporatist president. He was a big-shot railroad lawyer. His view of government was that the federal regime is god. That's why at his memorial he's perched on a giant throne surround by fasces, symbolizing the apotheosis of the central government. He achieved his aims by brute force, pure and simple. His war-criminal generals waged total war against civilians. Grant later went on to be one of the most corrupt presidents ever.

And yet you have the gall to blame "libertarians" (as if you have even the slightest notion what the term means), while propping up the absurd Lincoln myth. In short, WE are the ones who want to be left alone. YOU and your brainwashed collectivist ilk are the ones who would like to use force to keep the nation state together. Your hypocrisy on this matter is off the charts...


I'll take his federal corporatist regime over a European-esqe manorialist aristocracy any day.

His generals seized property and left places cinders, but they did not seek to kill civilians so it was not total war, it was harsh war though. Whether or not this was necessary in order to achieve victory is debatable. It certainly was effective in helping to achieve victory.

The moral question is certainly debatable. On the one hand the civilians were providing material for war and often sheltered partisan bands. On the other hand there are rules on treatment of civilians. I for one think that if the Northern generals hadn't been completely inept on the battlefield, that they could have won the war without such measures as early as 1862-1863.

Of course that's not to say that the Confederates didn't wage war against civilians. From people like Bloody Bill Anderson and Paul Quantrill, to Confederate soldiers who would impress negroes to suit their tasks and often made little distinction between freedmen and runaways, there certainly were horror stories on both sides.

As for Grant's corruption, in his case it was largely through ineptitude and choosing the wrong men, than through malicious corruption. Grant was ill-suited to be President. The man was absolutely terrible with money (went bankrupt twice in his life, including post-presidency) and lacked insight into how it could be abused. The men around him like Benjamin F. Butler certainly knew how to make themselves rich and abused their positions in the government. The man was basically an inept, naive figurehead around which a thousand weasels fleeced the people.

If the South had won, we likely would not be standing here as most of our ancestors would have died in no man's land between 1914 and who knows when as it would have dragged out longer and longer. That's assuming we wouldn't have been insane enough to have the Northeast, the Midwest, the West, Trans-Mississippi, and Dixieland engage in atomic warfare against each other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
The simplest answer is to merely devolve more power back into states which has been (wrongly?) usurped by Congress in the lust for power.

If Federal taxes were further reduced, and States given more freedom over human rights issues, then what would be the problem? The president would not threaten those things.

Your main issue is the pervasiveness of Federal power.


Mostly right. Federalism and administrative decentralization directly answers Ya-Ta's complaints. But I don't understand why we would want to give States more freedom over human rights? The post-14th Amendment Constitution is a marked improvement that forbids States from oppressing individuals and denying them equal protection and due process of the laws.

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
I am not a radical. The only solution is to break the Union into pieces and let the various parts go their separate ways.


You're so nationalist you're a factionalist and separatist. I couldn't ask for a clearer example of how the nationalist principle corrupts. You extol FDR and his import of every little minute matter to D.C. and then complain when D.C. sets various nationalist policies with which you disagree. And you then lack the mental flexibility to reconsider your nationalist sympathies. No, rather than fall back to Federalism, you instead begin to speak of our population as surplusage:

Ya-Ta Boy wrote:
We have 314 million. A few hundred thousand corpses rotting by the road-side can be made up in a generation.


Ya-Ta Boy wrote:
It is time to separate. Peacefully if possible, violently if you wish.


You're a radical.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For what it is worth, I have read that current archaeological and historical analysis shows that during "Sherman's March to Atlanta," Union forces did not burn nor destroy anything - it was Southerners and Confederate forces. Sherman needed those farms for food; the Confederates were trying hard to keep that food away from Union forces; thus it was Confederate policy to destroy EVERYTHING in front of Sherman's forces. The Myth that Sherman burned Atlanta and other parts of the South was started by Southern historical reconstructionists who wanted to demonize the North. There were probably very few "war crimes" during the U.S. Civil War.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I am somewhat worried about the Republican Party's lust for power and their use fo no compromise as a political weapon.

If we use the Roman "Empire" as a model, are we nearing the end of the Republic?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:
Personally, I am somewhat worried about the Republican Party's lust for power and their use fo no compromise as a political weapon.

If we use the Roman "Empire" as a model, are we nearing the end of the Republic?


I'm pretty sure both parties lust for power and don't compromise unless they are forced too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slothrop



Joined: 03 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

edit

Last edited by slothrop on Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Ya-Ta Boy wrote:
It is time to separate. Peacefully if possible, violently if you wish.


You're a radical.

Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 2 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International