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
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: It's not a superiority complex when you really are superior

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:

Another take is we need to find common ground, which to me is what the Democrats are doing: Crony Capitalism for the top 1% and social programs for the bottom 50% (maybe this could be enlarged).

(I mean this is not the Democratic Pary of my parents generation; it was much, much more economically liberal, even in the 1980s then it is now.)

Anyway, if anyone has any idea either why the fundamental difference is good for the country or how to bridge it, I am personally more than willing to listen and I think it would make a much more interesting discussion.


Common ground is not always the best policy though. Obstructionism is a problem...but so is "reflexive bipartisanship" as the below link makes clear.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/reflexive-bipartisanship-is-just-as-problematic-as-obstruction/256628/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
comm wrote:
In any case, I fully support your proposition. It would be much easier to simply give power to the States from the Federal government so that NY can do its thing and Maine can do its thing and Texas can do its thing without having a war... but that's not good enough for you.
So lets break it all up, it would have very nearly the same effect in most States anyway.


It's hilariously ironic that someone like Ya-ta Boy would love to make fun of one group's aversion to too much power accumulated by a central government yet has come to essentially the same conclusion himself... only his involves murdering hundreds of thousands directly and probably much more indirectly by gelding our ability to create a functional national defense. Amazing.

Yeah, I think Ya-ta boy just plain confused about most things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Texas Judge Suggests He Will Join ‘Civil Unrest, Civil Disobedience, Civil War Maybe’ If Obama Is Reelected

Quote:
[Obama] is going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN. Okay, what’s going to happen when that happens? I’m thinking worst case scenario here. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. We’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations. We’re talking Lexington-Concord take up arms and get rid of the guy.


Note Ya-Ta Boy's chosen candidate is already in position as President and he too wants to secede.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fun with Dave's archives

Quote:
600,000 dead in the Civil War beg to differ. A referendum on the possibility of secession is not on the table. Under any circumstances.


Quote:
[T]he citizens of a state are just a minority of the people, and do not have the right to take their neighborhood out of the union at their will.


Quote:
[S]mall-government people have always had an incestuous relationship with secessionists. There isn't even a solid line between them, more of a dotted line that lets them scurry back and forth between the ideas. We haven't had a serious secessionist movement since 1865, so most people don't even think about it. The ones who do are the far right survivalist types who infest the Rocky Mountain West.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fun with Hypocrisy

Ya-Ta Boy wrote:

Quote:
If Texas left the USA they would...



...be invaded just like they were the last time idiots in office mislead the public about what their legal rights are. Secession is treason. It was treason in 1861 and it is treason in 2009. As long as discussions of secession are limited to sweaty little groups of wingnuts it can be ignored. When governors (and governor's husbands) start flirting with it openly, it may be time for a show trial or two to make the point that the question was settled in the middle of the 19th Century. We are one nation, indivisible. End of discussion.


Ya-Ta Boy wrote:

Quote:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!"..."There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." (from Canukistan's link)





To nip this in the bud, I recommend one, just one, bunker buster bomb be dropped on the Congressional 14th District, south and southwest of Houston, including Galveston. That might quiet some of this treasonous talk of secession.


Ya-Ta Boy wrote:

Quote:
Which is why, if the governor is serious about "standing up for the sovereignty of Texas", he ought to avoid uttering the "S" word altogether and go to work making Texas a passive-aggressive pain it the ass for Washington. Play the gray area



There is no gray area.

He has a right and a responsibility to defend the perogatives of states vs federal government. He has no right whatsoever to threaten secession. That is flirting with treason, plain and simple.

What he has done is very serious. By not speaking out in defense of the Constitution he has brought discussion of secession into the mainstream political discourse. He has also branded the Republican Party as the party that is open to the idea of secession as a solution to disagreements within the Union. Mr. Lincoln must be sick at his stomach. Fellow Texan Lyndon B. Johnson, arguably the most liberal president in our history, must be rolling over in his grave.




Ya-Ta Boy wrote:
Quote:
why are you so adamant in telling us we can't secede?
Seems you'd be encouraging us and saying, "Good riddance."



And reward a minority for whining? I have too much respect for the country and constitution for that. It's a double insult to the country to wave the flag and shout, "Secede!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hats off to the Urban Myth for at least trying to address the question.

I read the article but to be honest I didn't find it all that interesting.

First of all, except for those who helped support military action in the Middle East (more about that later), most of the Democrats who supported that legislation were fairly conservative to begin with in fairly conservative districts, and are not really examples of common ground.

Second, the article's conclusion that some of the worst legislation ever (their conclusion even though they only use evidence from the Bush Jr era) are bi-partisan. But, they don't tell us how much legislation isn't bi-partisan. I bet there has been few Federal laws past that didn't have at least one member of the opposition to support it. And, that is really what we are talking about in some of the worst in the Bush era, a handful of Democrats. So, I am just not buying their conclusion, at least not unless they make their argument more clear. To be honest, it seems weakly thought-out and purposesively obscure.

Now, the point that there was some concensus around the military endeavors after 9/11 is more about what I am thinking - common ground. The U.S. really did rally against a common enemy.

Now, there are more than our fair share of problems in the U.S. But, there seems to be no concensus on how to deal with them. In my opinion, these problems have been festering until they have become quite serious.

But, because there doesn't seem to be any common ground on them, there is a tendency to ignore, and just say, oh well, it is up to the individual; there is nothing we can do.

Again, in my opinion, that is not good enough. They are being paid good money and all that happens is they fight each other. Imagine what could be done with the money they spend on the presidential election alone?

So, I will ask again: how are we going to get this done? Where is the common ground to bring the country back together again?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So ya-ta, you're pissy that there exists organized opposition to MSNBC's prime time agenda? Is that an accurate summary? You're looking for a two party system where the two groups agree to accept msnbc's ideas?

The Republicans are not at all a serious force of opposition against liberalism. If one appears, I'll be sure to let you know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus,

I don't know you; you are probably a nice guy, but the rhetoric in your last post is exactly what I am talking about. Is there some way we can be nice and discuss issues rather than get into all these ad-hominem attacks?

To the silence of the thread, where is the common ground?

Or, why don't we need common ground?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The solution is caked into the Constitution. States are assigned xyz and DC abc. It's really simple.

Ya-ta demands a compromise. He demands the whole nation compromise and accept MSNBC's latest pogrom against middle America. Middle America doesn't agree, so Ya-ta wants to take his ball and go home.

Other than making fun of him, how do you have a civilized conversation with that? Even the most far-right reactionary blowhards (like me) I know are completely willing to let Vermont teach their kids ABC's by Trotsky, provided they're left alone at home.

Let's have a test. Hey Ya-ta, I believe in states rights. What do you think of that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
The solution is caked into the Constitution. States are assigned xyz and DC abc. It's really simple.


Hasn't all this, "States rights can magically resolve all our problems!" rhetoric gotten old yet? Many of the matters dividing the nation are issues which are, constitutionally, federal issues. International trade policy, military policy, federal income tax levels, tax & spend programs for the common good (e.g. food stamps), the specifics of how interstate commerce will be regulated, a variety of civil rights issues (certain states are freaking out about the lack of necessity of the Voting Rights Act while simultaneously actively and obviously trying to violate it to the detriment of certain groups), intellectual property rights issues, etc. These are federal issues.

Moreover, there are a host of issues which are ostensibly state issues, but which cannot be coherently handled by the states. Abortion and gun control are two examples; states could hypothetically ban either, but because they aren't able to erect travel or trade boundaries between themselves, their citizens can just border jump to buy a gun/get an abortion, meaning that they are effectively bound not simply by their own laws, but by the lowest common denominator among their neighboring states. That's not a tension which can be reduced simply by "dialing it back to the states."

I'm not an advocate of secession for reasons I've already mentioned, but everyone in this thread is coming down on Ya-ta, so I'm switching sides, because otherwise there's no conversation. Let's do a thought experiment. Wisconsin is a net contributor to federal coffers; we don't get federal money, we give it. Wisconsin can get by just fine without federal help on national defense, and if it were genuinely at risk, could surely make do via a regional alliance with the other, culturally-similar Great Lakes States (which are also, incidentally, all net federal contributors). If we're going to double down on a heavy states-rights approach, why should Wisconsin stick with the union? To keep paying the way for the dysfunctional southern states? To keep funding a ridiculously large army it has no use for? So our citizens can keep being exposed to unregulateable anti-union, pro-capitalistic-elite propaganda, funded by the wealthy elite from other states, eroding an otherwise beautiful culture for the sake of their profits?

Imagine a Great Lakes Union. Cut off from the cultural cancer of the South, freed from the economic burden of funding dystopias like Tennessee and Missouri, freed from the burden of maintaining a pointlessly huge army, freed from the burden of military adventurism, able to erect reasonable trade barriers and effectively regulate the economy for the sake of the common man, and directly south of Canada, which is loaded with oil and resources? I would not be afraid of facing the future as a citizen of a Great Lakes Union. So if we're going to double down on states rights -- if we're going to stop the natural, historic process of unification and instead reverse the trend, reducing federal power to some bare-bones minimum because we simply cannot agree on things -- why not just break the nation apart? If we're going to give up on being one people, if we're going to give up on trying to form a more perfect union, then why bother at all? The circumstances laid out in the Federalist Papers no longer obtain; the (quite sound) rationales given for why a Union was necessary in the first place are no longer anywhere near as substantial. You talk about him taking his ball and going home, but an excessive focus on States Rights is what is really tantamount to taking your ball and going home, only with the added proviso of demanding on the way out that the rich states you refuse to compromise with have to keep paying your rent.

Now don't mistake me, I'm not really taking a stand against the Union here. But a return to excessive focus on state individuality is not the way forward here. Either we're one people, or we aren't. If we are, then let's work this out in a reasonable fashion within the bounds of the Constitution, which mandates a substantial federal role in handling many challenges the nation faces. If we aren't? Then play by your own rules, fund your own lifestyle, and the test of time will show what our disparate philosophies result in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Titus wrote:
The solution is caked into the Constitution. States are assigned xyz and DC abc. It's really simple.


Hasn't all this, "States rights can magically resolve all our problems!" rhetoric gotten old yet?


Federalism (states don't have rights, people do) isn't usually presented as solutionism. Its presented as administrative decentralization over a governmentally centralized area.

I know you've got a quasi-Marxist and standard social liberal bias against Federalism. But its simply a straightforward way to allow a country as diverse as America to remain one entity and one people while reflecting regional and local differences. Even if a country the size of America were uniform in character, climate, and demography, it would find local administration practical and convenient.

Fox wrote:
Imagine a Great Lakes Union. Cut off from the cultural cancer of the South, freed from the economic burden of funding dystopias like Tennessee and Missouri, freed from the burden of maintaining a pointlessly huge army, freed from the burden of military adventurism, able to erect reasonable trade barriers and effectively regulate the economy for the sake of the common man, and directly south of Canada, which is loaded with oil and resources? I would not be afraid of facing the future as a citizen of a Great Lakes Union. So if we're going to double down on states rights -- if we're going to stop the natural, historic process of unification and instead reverse the trend, reducing federal power to some bare-bones minimum because we simply cannot agree on things -- why not just break the nation apart? If we're going to give up on being one people, if we're going to give up on trying to form a more perfect union, then why bother at all?


Because having two or three or four countries would mean splitting the military into two or three or four. And then having them point weapons at each other.

There's a reason everyone is coming down hard on Ya-Ta. This Secession idea is awful (even the Salon link he provided was rambling). Also, Ya-Ta has been busting everyone's balls lately, so the push back is really strong.

If you don't want Wisconsin to fund Mississippi, then vote Republican on the Federal level and Democrat at the State level. The funds transfer union is part of Federalism; the Federal power has very little Constitutional restriction on the power to tax.

By the way, Federalism is the best way to emphasize individual rights. The Federal power provides a floor for rights, and the States provide a ceiling. For example, Wyoming was way ahead of the Union in allowing women to vote. The Federal power could not suppress that right because of Federalism. Likewise for gay marriage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:

Because having two or three or four countries would mean splitting the military into two or three or four. And then having them point weapons at each other.


Right, this is straight from Hamilton, but I am no where as worried about it in the modern day as he (legitimately) was in the past. The Great Lakes Union can peacefully coexist with its neighbors for much the same reason Canada and Mexico are at no risk of being invaded by the USA. The social forces at work have to some extent shifted, and wealthy nations (which would include the fragmented states and new unions) have both far too much to lose and far too little to gain through open conflict with their peers.

Kuros wrote:
There's a reason everyone is coming down hard on Ya-Ta. This Secession idea is awful (even the Salon link he provided was rambling).


I agree it is awful, but evidently not for the same reasons certain other parties here seem to think so.

Kuros wrote:
If you don't want Wisconsin to fund Mississippi, then vote Republican on the Federal level and Democrat at the State level. The funds transfer union is part of Federalism; the Federal power has very little Constitutional restriction on the power to tax.


Well first of all, I do want Wisconsin funding Mississippi; Mississippi devolving into a full blown third world country in our midst is unconscionable, and given the culture of its denizens, that is only avoidable through funds-transfer. Perhaps more salient to the discussion, though, is that letting states like Mississippi or Tennessee go to Hell has direct economic consequences for other participants in the Union. International labor markets and innovation are already devaluing the labor of our citizens, and domestic third world "nation," with no trade barriers to insulate against its effects, would only exacerbate that. Thus, econonomically, there can be no question of cutting the southern states off: either we pay their way, let them drag us down (unacceptable), or break up. If we reject Ya-ta's national break up, then yes, Wisconsin (and California, and New York, and even Texas) is effectively stuck paying for Mississippi.

Purely as an aside, Republicans are also strong supporters of these kinds of state-to-state transfers, they just tend to have different preferred means. Defense, for example, is a jobs program to them (which is why Paul Ryan is screaming about the economic effects of defense-budger sequestration: its a jobs program his party can support).

Kuros wrote:
By the way, Federalism is the best way to emphasize individual rights. The Federal power provides a floor for rights, and the States provide a ceiling. For example, Wyoming was way ahead of the Union in allowing women to vote. The Federal power could not suppress that right because of Federalism. Likewise for gay marriage.


I agree with this. I am not here saying, "Let us ditch Federalism out of hand," (after all, even my thought experiment's Great Lakes Union is federalist in form, though consisting of fewer constituent parts) but rather, "Our current cultural divide -- and the political problems it brings -- are not genuinely amenable to solution via appeal to states' rights. States have a role, and a big one -- I like your floor and ceiling analogy -- but most current federal-level problems are regarding matters which are legitimately federal matters, so to move forward, we need to accept that. But if we cannot do that as a nation, well, I bet the Great Lakes Union could, and unlike Wisonsin as a part of the USA, the GLU would have trade barriers and borders to insulate it against the circumstances in other states.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox,

The only problem with your Great Lakes Union is I would join it in a heart-beat! The best part would be we wouldn't have to worry about America's debt because America wouldn't exist. With little to minimal military spending, the GLU has a very good chance to have a strong economy, as well.

Maybe, it is time to succede from the Union. Maybe, Ya-ta is far from eloquent in his voicing of his idea, but there might be a kernal of interest there, if we suppress are supposed annoyance that it came from Ya-ta (interesting and honest take Kuros), and consider it with a more open mind.

Maybe, it is time to just say the union is less than desireable and go our own way. I mean we are already doing it on a personal level. I got mine, let X (choose your favorite) rot. It is time we take the next step and just throw all the bathwater out. This is what we Americans are good at (ignor the common ground); consume everything than move on and consume that too. Just keep moving, destroying and re-building.

And, thanks Fox and Kuros for your envigorating discussion; it is rare to see so much intelligence (seriously) in the current-events forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alright, Fox. Let's game your Great Lakes Federation. Since you're from Wisconsin, you'll become Governor of Wisconsin during the Great Secession.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here's the scenario:

An economic crash in Europe in mid-September sends shock waves throughout the U.S. economy throughout October. As a result, turnout in the Presidential election hits just over 50% of the adult population. Independents turn against Obama in Ohio and Florida. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, voter ID laws, combined with partisan management of state elections, turn these states red. In the November, 2012 election, Mitt Romney manages to win the Electoral vote. However, Barack Obama wins the popular vote by just over 1 million votes. The electoral map looks like this.

Barack Obama does not immediately concede. Lawyers appeal to the Supreme Court, citing fraud in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and also challenging voter ID laws. The Supreme Court, this time, refuses to adjudicate the case in a way that would allow it to overturn the election results. It declines to intervene in the results of the 2012 Presidential election (although it feebly agrees to hear a voter ID law challenge in a few months).

By the end of November, Barack Obama works out a compromise that would allow Mitt Romney to take office in 2013. As part of that deal, Barack Obama tolerates and ignores peaceful secessionist organization. Special elections occur in various blue states, and this is how Governor Fox comes to power in Wisconsin. Constitutional Conventions convene in Hartford, Connecticut, San Francisco, California, and Chicago, Illinois.

The Second Hartford Convention forms a government by January 1, 2013, called the Atlantic States of America (ASA). See the dark green states in this map. Representatives from Northern Virginia and Eastern Pennsylvania attend as observers, but lack authority to join the ASA. The ASA adopts a Constitution much like the present U.S. Constitution, except the Electoral College is abandoned, and various substantive rights are added (notably the right to privacy, which explicitly empowers women to have abortions until the feotus is viable).

The Chicago and San Fran Conventions squabble over various provisions of the Constitution. In San Fran, there is reluctance to secede. The Convention sputters on through January.

In Chicago, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan agree to secede under the title [insert your chosen name of Federation here], but delegates are unable to agree on alterations to the U.S. Constitution. They agree to set up a provisional government to assume power in February, and to reconvene a Second Chicago Convention in March. Delegates from Indiana, Northern Ohio, Erie, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Iowa promise to hold special elections and come to a final decision on secession during the March convention.

Governor Fox becomes interim President of the Great Lakes, but polls project he will beat Rahm Emmanuel handily in the next election.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cast of characters:

I'll need volunteers from Dave's posters to play the roles of various 'border' states and a volunteer to play the ASA, and another volunteer to play Mitt Romney, President of the USA.

Border states:

Ohio
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Minnesota
Iowa (reserved for Ya-Ta)
California
Arizona
Colorado
New Mexico
Washington and Oregon (they go together)
Texas
Kentucky (reserved for me)
Posters must play the state of current or last residence, unless the poster hails from none of the border states. In that case, poster may apply for a chosen state (although an actual resident gets privilege). This assures some realism, as a player has some familiarity with the State he/she plays.

We'll also need a gamemaster. Preferably a non-American regular Dave's poster.

PM me if you're interested (be sure to include info on state of current/last residence and availability). I want to have this set up and ready for play under a GM by Sept 1, if possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we are going for realism here, Canada ought to be represented: it would be a major player in these circumstances, and we have Canadians here.
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 5 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