Secession?

[_Angus McAwesome]

How about you get the hell out of my side of the country. That's the problem with liberals. You think the entire country belongs to you, including the lives and labor of your fellow citizens. It's time for a war.

Wow... I love the Republitard mindset. Anyone that disagrees with you is automatically a "liberal" regardless of what their actual political leanings are. It's the ultimate political debate cop out. Can't make an actual point? Don't have a damned clue about what you're speaking on? Then just start tossing out moronic labels in a pathetically absurd ad hominem dodge so you can feel better about yourself for your parents being related BEFORE marriage.

At this point I'm not sure who's a more clueless douchebag on this board, you or Droopy. “F” it... I'll just call you Droopy Jr from now on.

Idiot.

[_ajax18]

If there's one good thing about Liberals, it's that they tend to use most of the money they confiscate in-house, where at least it gets circulated here at home, instead of sending it down the black hole of "nation-building" outside our own borders.

Nation building is a true black hole. You've got that right on the money. I felt better about President Bush when I thought we were in Iraq for oil. I thought he was just using the, "setting up democracy in Iraq," as the most politically acceptable statement he could findt. Now I'm starting to think he actually believed he could set up democracy in Iraq. I don't claim most voters to see things clearly, but surely most people understood that you can't set up democracy in a country like that. How many people really believed we could set up democracy in Iraq? I still say that setting up a better government is something people have to do for themselves, just like limiting their reproduction rate to avoid the lousy quality of life that occurs when your economic growth can't match your rate of reproduction.

But if you're not going to attempt to build a nation, you have to do a better job securing your border or it gets you either way.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Why do we need to be the most powerful country? Isn't that the very problem.

No it's not the problem. THe problem is how we use the power.

But splitting a country would weaken our power exponentially. Because American power is based in numerous things.

1) is military power of course..how would military forces be split up?
2) is economic power. Our economic power is built upon 200 plus years of economic legitimacy. Breaking the country up would weaken our economic legitimacy. Basically it's like building up reputation and a credit score which would be thrown out the window. Each country would start from zero or thereabouts. Same thing with our legal legitimacy. We have 200 years of legal precedents which could be thrown out the window by the creation of new countries.
3) The power we have united. As a united force we are a power. Divided we are two countries fighting over trade and resources rather than cooperating and growing stronger. Basically our infighing [not militarily {maybe!} but in terms of economic competition and political competition over various issues]

And on and on. Splitting this country doesn't mean getting a pair of scissors and cutting along the dotted line. You would have to take a needle and thread and then sew up the thousands and thousands of loose strands. It would not be easy and would be waste compared to just having internal conflict.

[_ajax18]

I see your point Bond. Do you think that it is as necessary that the U.S. be a federalist society as during the civil war? I still think the founding fathers saw more value in states rights than we currently see now, and even allowing more sovereignty down to the local level of government. It seems that this would give people more options on their choice of government. I've seen that they already do it to an extent with medicaid. Each state pretty much has to fund its own medicaid. Not surprisingly, in the state I live in currently some members have had to leave the state because they got pregnant without sufficient medical insurance. Too many poor people making bad family planning choices overwhelmed the system pretty quick.

I think each state should have the right to enforce its borders or impose significant penalties on employers hiring illegal aliens. Some people like illegal immigration, others don't. But with just one federal law, we're going to have a bunch of unhappy people. With our current two party, federalist system, it really narrows down our choices on the type of laws we want. It's a one size fits all system that simply doesn't fit.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I see your point Bond. Do you think that it is as necessary that the U.S. be a federalist society as during the civil war? I still think the founding fathers saw more value in states rights than we currently see now, and even allowing more sovereignty down to the local level of government. It seems that this would give people more options on their choice of government. I've seen that they already do it to an extent with medicaid. Each state pretty much has to fund its own medicaid. Not surprisingly, in the state I live in currently some members have had to leave the state because they got pregnant without sufficient medical insurance. Too many poor people making bad family planning choices overwhelmed the system pretty quick.

Well yeah. There was a significant change in the power of the Presidency and the Federal Government beginning around the time of Roosevelt [Teddy not Franklin] in which we moved from Whig government [governing driven by the Legislature] to government driven by the Executive branch. Not sure how to overcome that. Perhaps a change in government is the only way, I'm only saying that to make that omelette we'd have to break a hell of a lotta eggs.

I think each state should have the right to enforce its borders or impose significant penalties on employers hiring illegal aliens. Some people like illegal immigration, others don't. But with just one federal law, we're going to have a bunch of unhappy people. With our current two party, federalist system, it really narrows down our choices on the type of laws we want. It's a one size fits all system that simply doesn't fit.

Too true. It makes for a stable system with regular violent-less turnover, but it also makes for alot of people who are ostracized because neither of the major party adequately supports their views. Parliamentarian type systems where parties get legislative seats based on their percentage in elections are more representitive of the people's views, but are frought with uncertainty due to the need to build coalitions between parties. Election cycles aren't as clockwork either.

Yeah our system isn't perfect, but you have to decide what you want. Alot of people favor stability over true representation. Obviously you're in the latter, but alot of people aren't. Or perhaps they're just oblivious to the issues, and just sort of "exist" while they move through life.

[_ajax18]

But aren't parlimentarian seats in Europe concerned with national government. I understand the instability of multiparty systems at the national level. They don't always represent what the majority wants. Of course majorities can be just as evil as any king as pointed out in the Book of Mormon. Yet I'm not sure that can really be fixed. It's kind of like capitalism. It's the best alternative we have.

I'm talking about pushing things down to the state level. The only thing that really has to be national is the military. Can you think of anything else? Maybe the phone company or services that just don't work well in the free market. But social programs should all be state and that means the taxes that we have to pay to support these programs. You could even make citizenship a state issue, thus making people more accountable for the culture they breed. I don't see the problem with money. Many other countries use dollars even though they're not American. No real need to change the money itself, but I suppose you could if you wanted more autonomy over interest rates. As you rightly point out, that could be a disaster for everyone. It's interesting to me that the one thing Europe chooses to unite is their currency and NATO (military, granted they're still much less powerful than the U.S. military because the union in NATO is much weaker than our military union). Every other issue is pretty much up to the individual countries and even the territories within them.

I just see a level of communistic like thinking in the liberals. In other words, its not enough for many of them to be liberal and quietly live the liberal ideology and enjoy the wonderful fruits of liberalism. They think everyone should believe and act as they do, and if you don't, you're stupid. Therefore they see nothing wrong with coercing this train of thought by any means possible, just like the communist wanted global communism. This could hold true in the upper echelon of the Republican party as well. I sort of believe that some liberals wouldn't mind trying to set up their own utopia up in VT somewhere and shutting out the conservatives. I really think this could be good for everyone.

[_Bond...James Bond]

But aren't parlimentarian seats in Europe concerned with national government. I understand the instability of multiparty systems at the national level. They don't always represent what the majority wants. Of course majorities can be just as evil as any king as pointed out in the Book of Mormon. Yet I'm not sure that can really be fixed. It's kind of like capitalism. It's the best alternative we have.

Not really. Parlimentarian govt is most reported at the national level because national politics are what is most interesting to AMericans. National politics of France or England interest us...regional politics not so much. This is probably reciprocal. Euros probably are very interested American national politics but don't give a fig about regional politics because they're more interested in their own regional politics. We only have so much time to deal with these issues. But yes parlimentarian politics do exist at regional levels and there are occasionally very radical parties which gain power in Europe [whereas here in America the two main parties tend to exist at even the local level and are a mediating influence all the way down] which is certainly unsettling, but also more interesting I'd say. At least it means more views have to be considered than America where there are only two views which aren't that dissimilar.

I'm talking about pushing things down to the state level. The only thing that really has to be national is the military. Can you think of anything else? Maybe the phone company or services that just don't work well in the free market. But social programs should all be state and that means the taxes that we have to pay to support these programs. You could even make citizenship a state issue, thus making people more accountable for the culture they breed. I don't see the problem with money. Many other countries use dollars even though they're not American. No real need to change the money itself, but I suppose you could if you wanted more autonomy over interest rates. As you rightly point out, that could be a disaster for everyone. It's interesting to me that the one thing Europe chooses to unite is their currency and NATO (military, granted they're still much less powerful than the U.S. military because the union in NATO is much weaker than our military union).

The one problem I see is the states drifting apart, leading to people eventually deciding to strike out. A loose confederation with focus on the states probably wouldn't work, as evidence see the Articles of Confederation. Either you are united strongly or not at all. Either being drawn closer together or drifting apart. We really are at an impasse. THe national govt is either going to continue to take more and more power to itself or the states will take power back. To take power back means to weaken the national govt. What that means I'm not sure...civil war? CIvil strife? Not sure.

I think the European Union is coming about due to Europe being increasingly ostacized in importance compared to America and the East [China, Japan, India]. Combined the EU may be able to contend with American or Asian economic power [economics being the new arena for battle, as recent World Wars left a bad taste in the mouths of all envolved].

I just see a level of communistic like thinking in the liberals. In other words, its not enough for many of them to be liberal and quietly live the liberal ideology and enjoy the wonderful fruits of liberalism. They think everyone should believe and act as they do, and if you don't, you're stupid. Therefore they see nothing wrong with coercing this train of thought by any means possible, just like the communist wanted global communism. This could hold true in the upper echelon of the Republican party as well. I sort of believe that some liberals wouldn't mind trying to set up their own utopia up in VT somewhere and shutting out the conservatives. I really think this could be good for everyone.

I don't want to say what I want on this issue for fear of Coggins derailment...

[_ajax18]

I'm familiar with the Articles of confederation. I guess that leads to my question. Would the Articles of Confederation perform better in the 21st century than the 19th centurty or worse. I think you have a good point that we're two party even down to the local level. It seems like there must be something better. But even though the Federalist won out over the Articles of Confederation promoted by the Sectionalist, wouldn't it be fair to say that even Federalist like George Washington were a lot more sectionalist than most all of us today.