Quote: Original post by trzy
I don't recall ever buying anything made in Iceland. Do you?

Herring ? [smile]

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Although if they did secede, I doubt an embargo would be imposed. I mean, what would be the point? Not really anything would be different than now except they wouldn't abide by federal laws. If the prediction that Texas would become a 'Narco-state' is true, it'd only be because of an embargo. Not a good move tbh.

The wisdom of the US placing an embargo or denying texans visas notwithstanding, we've just got done agreeing that the republic of texas is unlikely to have much diplomatic clout. Are they going to be able to guarantee that such things will never happen, or is the policy going to be to rely on the goodwill and wisdom of the United States to continue to proffer the benifits of Union, without any of the downsides? Maybe a strong alliance with Cloud-Cuckoo-Land could help thier case.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Texas is not going to secede, but if it did, Obama sending in the military would be equally ridiculous. I can't see a faster way to spark multiple revolts against the federal government in other places around the country. Military response in the US would be a complete disaster.

That's assuming you could even get many of the people in the military to abide by your orders. A large number of people in the military are from Texas or would be sympathetic to their cause. It's not like you could just cut out those people from the military easily.

It'd be a huge mess really.

Although if they did secede, I doubt an embargo would be imposed. I mean, what would be the point? Not really anything would be different than now except they wouldn't abide by federal laws. If the prediction that Texas would become a 'Narco-state' is true, it'd only be because of an embargo. Not a good move tbh.

Even if that were so, it'd be easy to just make drugs legal. Oops, guess what? No more criminals smuggling drugs and fighting in the streets. What would be the point?

Allowing Texas to secede makes the Federal government look weak and calls into question the entire existence of the United States, implying that Americans as a people are a failure. The point about soldiers likely being sympathetic to Texas is a good one; it remains to be seen which pull is stronger on them: the desire to see America persevere or their hatred of the Federal government. The President would have to wage a clever PR offensive depicting secessionist Texans as rogue elements holding their state captive.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Although if they did secede, I doubt an embargo would be imposed. I mean, what would be the point? Not really anything would be different than now except they wouldn't abide by federal laws. If the prediction that Texas would become a 'Narco-state' is true, it'd only be because of an embargo. Not a good move tbh.

The wisdom of the US placing an embargo or denying texans visas notwithstanding, we've just got done agreeing that the republic of texas is unlikely to have much diplomatic clout. Are they going to be able to guarantee that such things will never happen, or is the policy going to be to rely on the goodwill and wisdom of the United States to continue to proffer the benifits of Union, without any of the downsides? Maybe a strong alliance with Cloud-Cuckoo-Land could help thier case.

Like I said, it all depends on what Texas chooses to do with its economy. Diplomatic clout will follow. It's no secret that US diplomatic clout peaked after the Cold War and entering a phase of decline, possibly permanently.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And then there is the uproar over the DHS memo warning against Right Wing Extremists ala Timothy McVeigh. Limbaugh and his acolytes are up in arms over it. Nevermind that their outrage associates them with Neo-Nazis and the Klan. Nevermind that the DHS has been doing worse to leftists and pacifists since it's exception. Nevermind the history of COINTEL Pro and it's targeting of leftists, including targeting for assassination.

If you acknowledge this is okay, then you must acknowledge that the scrutiny of Muslims and anti-war group during the Bush administration was perfectly legitimate.

This leads me to some observations of our democracy: it's run by a system of elites with overlapping interests whose primary concern is their own welfare, hence bailouts for Wall Street movers and shakers who have their tendrils firmly rooted in the highest levels of government. That in and of itself is not surprising.

What is interesting is that democracy is always only an illusion. Government is always necessarily beholden to those who have the greatest stake in society, and it bestows upon them the power to make law. If not them directly, then through "elected" representatives, which is actually a more clever system, because ordinary people are made to believe their voices are being heard. The elites don't even have to prevent anyone from running, they just outspend them and ensure that the media does not cover them. The few that might slip through the cracks are unable to effect any change.

What we're left with is a system whereby the people are made to think they have a choice and which plays on our irrationality by pulling on our emotional strings. When one administration becomes unpopular, the elites replace it with an equally incompetent know-nothing (in this case, Obama) who continues with business as usual, but this time with the outright assistance of former government opponents. You want desperately to believe that Obama is on your side and will therefore rationalize a lot of what he does. Your desire to see your former opponents humiliated by subjecting them to the same treatment that angered you before also furthers the elite agenda.

This is part of the reason I'm an Anarchist...



As for Texas doing it's thing. Very unlikely. But it's a possibility. Stranger things have happened, and things like civil wars, etc. generally start pretty fast and over stupid things.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And then there is the uproar over the DHS memo warning against Right Wing Extremists ala Timothy McVeigh. Limbaugh and his acolytes are up in arms over it. Nevermind that their outrage associates them with Neo-Nazis and the Klan. Nevermind that the DHS has been doing worse to leftists and pacifists since it's exception. Nevermind the history of COINTEL Pro and it's targeting of leftists, including targeting for assassination.

If you acknowledge this is okay, then you must acknowledge that the scrutiny of Muslims and anti-war group during the Bush administration was perfectly legitimate.

I think a distinction Lessbread is trying to draw here, is that the investigation of the anti-war groups was silly because they didnt acctually blow anyone up, or plan to. Various government departments launched various investigations of various muslim groups and people in the US, at least some of which turned out to be unreasonable(so unreasonable in fact, that the government ended up paying the victims). The Right Wing Extremists of the famous memo on the other hand, acctually did kill a bunch of people, so its less of a streatch to have the DHS write an intelligance memo on them. Either way, I don't think the memo was evidence of a substantial flaw in the democratic processes, not that I necessarily agree with the content of the memo, just that the comparison you are making is apples to oranges.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Although if they did secede, I doubt an embargo would be imposed. I mean, what would be the point? Not really anything would be different than now except they wouldn't abide by federal laws. If the prediction that Texas would become a 'Narco-state' is true, it'd only be because of an embargo. Not a good move tbh.

The wisdom of the US placing an embargo or denying texans visas notwithstanding, we've just got done agreeing that the republic of texas is unlikely to have much diplomatic clout. Are they going to be able to guarantee that such things will never happen, or is the policy going to be to rely on the goodwill and wisdom of the United States to continue to proffer the benifits of Union, without any of the downsides? Maybe a strong alliance with Cloud-Cuckoo-Land could help thier case.

Like I said, it all depends on what Texas chooses to do with its economy. Diplomatic clout will follow. It's no secret that US diplomatic clout peaked after the Cold War and entering a phase of decline, possibly permanently.

Texas could have a great economy, but that wouldnt garuntee the US would allow free movement of people, or that it would allow free trade. There are many countries that have much better economies then Texas is likely to have that dont enjoy such benifits with the US. IMO not being able to garuntee such benefits is likely to scupper the whole project, since these two things alone are of massive value. Again, anyone who thinks that Texas is likely to have the diplomatic clout to force the United States to offer these benifits is living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. Really, we are probably dignifying the whole idea with way more discussion then it deserves.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And then there is the uproar over the DHS memo warning against Right Wing Extremists ala Timothy McVeigh. Limbaugh and his acolytes are up in arms over it. Nevermind that their outrage associates them with Neo-Nazis and the Klan. Nevermind that the DHS has been doing worse to leftists and pacifists since it's exception. Nevermind the history of COINTEL Pro and it's targeting of leftists, including targeting for assassination.

If you acknowledge this is okay, then you must acknowledge that the scrutiny of Muslims and anti-war group during the Bush administration was perfectly legitimate.

No, I don't have to. There is a gigantic difference between a pacifist anti-war group and an armed militia group. Beyond that, the current uproar on the right is contrived. They have no problem with such actions when the Bush administration directed it's focus towards those they oppose. Limbaugh et al. probably had a good belly laugh when Ted Kennedy ended up on a no fly list. And in addition, it's also worth pointing out that this list was began under the Bush administration. Given the uproar, I can't help but wonder if the list was planned in advance to provide a future excuse for the right wing noise machine to complain and distract attention away from issues where it should be placed. For example, on Obama's decision to give immunity to CIA agents for torture. If the right is truly upset with the prospect of tyranny, it should be screaming bloody murder about that, but of course, it won't because the only principle the right in America cares about is the Fuhrer principle, but only when it's their Fuhrer in command.

Quote: Original post by trzy
This leads me to some observations of our democracy: it's run by a system of elites with overlapping interests whose primary concern is their own welfare, hence bailouts for Wall Street movers and shakers who have their tendrils firmly rooted in the highest levels of government. That in and of itself is not surprising.

What is interesting is that democracy is always only an illusion. Government is always necessarily beholden to those who have the greatest stake in society, and it bestows upon them the power to make law. If not them directly, then through "elected" representatives, which is actually a more clever system, because ordinary people are made to believe their voices are being heard. The elites don't even have to prevent anyone from running, they just outspend them and ensure that the media does not cover them. The few that might slip through the cracks are unable to effect any change.

What we're left with is a system whereby the people are made to think they have a choice and which plays on our irrationality by pulling on our emotional strings. When one administration becomes unpopular, the elites replace it with an equally incompetent know-nothing (in this case, Obama) who continues with business as usual, but this time with the outright assistance of former government opponents. You want desperately to believe that Obama is on your side and will therefore rationalize a lot of what he does. Your desire to see your former opponents humiliated by subjecting them to the same treatment that angered you before also furthers the elite agenda.

I don't think "incompetent know-nothing" applies to Obama. The implications of your theory is that the elites need to bring in competent technocrats now and again to smooth out the troubles created by incompetent management. If elites have a vested interest in the status quo, then they have a vested interest in seeing that the system doesn't collapse.

As for turning this back on me and what I desire, that's nuts. I didn't ask Limbaugh to make an issue of the DHS memo, to identify himself with Neo-Nazis or the Klan. He did that on his own. I merely pointed that out. I also pointed out the hypocrisy in his position in that he likely relished the attention given by law enforcement agencies to groups that opposed the invasion of Iraq. I also think they protest too much and too soon. So far they have no examples of actual persecution by Federal authorities to point to. They haven't been put on a no fly list, they haven't turned up on terrorist watch lists. None of that has happened to them yet and I doubt any of that will. Sure, it'll happen to the extremists, their followers on the fringe, but it won't likely happen to them or the bulk of their listeners. I think they're crying about it because it serves the "stabbed in the back" mythology that authoritarians always fall back on. They create the feeling of persecution because it enables their feelings of righteousness. I think that's dangerous. It's the kind of thing that turns populism into fascism, and that's why I condemned them for faking anti-fascism to foment fascism. I've been ringing the bell on fascism for a long time and it wasn't simply because I didn't like Bush. The threat was there with Clinton and it remains with Obama, but nevertheless, Bush pushed the country closer to that dead end more than any President ever has.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
I think a distinction Lessbread is trying to draw here, is that the investigation of the anti-war groups was silly because they didnt acctually blow anyone up, or plan to.

That's not true. Remember the Vietnam War? It seems reasonable to believe that anti-war extremists could turn to violence. There was a bombing of a recruiting station that, IIRC, had something to do with the Iraq War.

Quote: The Right Wing Extremists of the famous memo on the other hand, acctually did kill a bunch of people, so its less of a streatch to have the DHS write an intelligance memo on them.

I'm not aware of any plots carried out by returning veterans and secessionists lately. That's not to say the government shouldn't keep an eye out -- but only if it keeps an eye on Muslims and pinkos, too.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
No, I don't have to. There is a gigantic difference between a pacifist anti-war group and an armed militia group.

The memo referred to the types of people that might be drawn to armed groups or form them. Likewise, anti-war protesters can conceivably be drawn to violent movements as well. How do you know an anti-war group's agenda is peaceful unless you observe it?

Quote: I don't think "incompetent know-nothing" applies to Obama.

I think it does. I haven't seen him say anything original or insightful. He's got some smart people in his administration, but no smarter than those in the Bush administration, and no less corrupt.

Quote:
The implications of your theory is that the elites need to bring in competent technocrats now and again to smooth out the troubles created by incompetent management. If elites have a vested interest in the status quo, then they have a vested interest in seeing that the system doesn't collapse.

Which is what they're trying to do. They're desperately trying to preserve their power. Government bureaucrats are increasing their job security and grabbing power by massively increasing the size of the Federal government (this has been going on for decades.) The areas around D.C. have quite high median incomes.

A lot of people are being paid a lot of money for running the nation into the ground.