Org Mobile Site
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5519158.html
Do you believe him? Personally, I see this country succumbing to massive civil disturbance over the next 10-20 years. I don't want it to happen because it would be miserable and throw the planet into a dark age, but human nature is human nature, and I'm not sure that Americans have much in common beyond language anymore.
Not secession, but a hemorrhaging of civil strife and asymmetrical warfare all over the continent. Given our understanding of human history, is it crazier to think that it will happen or that it won't? Are Americans becoming more similar or less similar?
Do you believe him? Personally, I see this country succumbing to massive civil disturbance over the next 10-20 years. I don't want it to happen because it would be miserable and throw the planet into a dark age, but human nature is human nature, and I'm not sure that Americans have much in common beyond language anymore.
Not secession, but a hemorrhaging of civil strife and asymmetrical warfare all over the continent. Given our understanding of human history, is it crazier to think that it will happen or that it won't? Are Americans becoming more similar or less similar?
Also bobby jindal is an oblivious idiot even by Republican candidate standard.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Also bobby jindal is an oblivious idiot even by Republican candidate standard.
Combine enough "oblivious idiots" and mistakes can be made.Also bobby jindal is an oblivious idiot even by Republican candidate standard.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Also bobby jindal is an oblivious idiot even by Republican candidate standard.
I need to start voting Democrat. Obviously my GOP leanings have been sapping my mind. Nobody can look at a conservative agenda and believe in it unless they are a drooling idiot.Also bobby jindal is an oblivious idiot even by Republican candidate standard.
The point that Jindal seemed to be trying to make - leaving aside any insinuations about civil strife, which would only be to the benefit of a warlord who loves bloodshed - is that people resent well-meaning central governance requiring people thousands of miles away to think and act in a certain way. Whether this is actualized by requiring that all laws be consistent, all curriculum consistent, etc; this is anathema to anyone outside of the immediate influence group of that central authority.
The problem with a centralized educational curriculum is that it demands that all lessons be identical, not that it requires a base standard of education. This is a problem with most progressive policies, it isnt that they want a base standard on which to build unique concepts, economies and legal systems; it is that they want to command it to the enth degree morning, noon and night.
I reject sameness and I reject the idea that we are a nation founded on revolting against a 10% tax rate enacted by a government thousands of miles away only to be under the boot of a government thousands of miles away with a tax rate of nearly 50% a few hundred years later. I want a Federal government that ensures a base standard, not the endpoint.
The warning is this; there are consequences to a take no prisoners approach to changes that are vehemently opposed by many. I'm sure that plenty of Northerners thought that those who opposed their domination were hillbillies with a smaller population, weaker economy, and dumber ideas. It didn't stop them from surging into the Pennsylvania after years of superior military action that was unexpected. Just be sure that playing with fire is something that you want to do over commanding the lives of others. It seems to be something that growing numbers of Americans incensed with D.C. are coming to terms with themselves. History isn't over, hopefully the past few years of watching Europe and the Middle-East degenerate are uncovering this fact.
You guys wouldn't put up with it in Europe, why should we?
The problem with a centralized educational curriculum is that it demands that all lessons be identical, not that it requires a base standard of education. This is a problem with most progressive policies, it isnt that they want a base standard on which to build unique concepts, economies and legal systems; it is that they want to command it to the enth degree morning, noon and night.
I reject sameness and I reject the idea that we are a nation founded on revolting against a 10% tax rate enacted by a government thousands of miles away only to be under the boot of a government thousands of miles away with a tax rate of nearly 50% a few hundred years later. I want a Federal government that ensures a base standard, not the endpoint.
The warning is this; there are consequences to a take no prisoners approach to changes that are vehemently opposed by many. I'm sure that plenty of Northerners thought that those who opposed their domination were hillbillies with a smaller population, weaker economy, and dumber ideas. It didn't stop them from surging into the Pennsylvania after years of superior military action that was unexpected. Just be sure that playing with fire is something that you want to do over commanding the lives of others. It seems to be something that growing numbers of Americans incensed with D.C. are coming to terms with themselves. History isn't over, hopefully the past few years of watching Europe and the Middle-East degenerate are uncovering this fact.
You guys wouldn't put up with it in Europe, why should we?
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I need to start voting Democrat. Obviously my GOP leanings have been sapping my mind. Nobody can look at a conservative agenda and believe in it unless they are a drooling idiot.
Is this sarcastic?I need to start voting Democrat. Obviously my GOP leanings have been sapping my mind. Nobody can look at a conservative agenda and believe in it unless they are a drooling idiot.
Originally Posted by :
we are a nation founded on revolting against a 10% tax rate instated by a government thousands of miles away
Uh...you serious? I mean as much as my nationality makes me want to say "the americans were unjustified in thier revolution" we did a bit more than institute a 10% tax rate.we are a nation founded on revolting against a 10% tax rate instated by a government thousands of miles away
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Is this sarcastic?
Uh...you serious? I mean as much as my nationality makes me want to say "the americans were unjustified in thier revolution" we did a bit more than institute a 10% tax rate.
Hmm, you mean like sending armed soldiers into the home of non-violent citizens ? (this). General warrants affecting the whole of the populace? Warrant-less searches & seizures? Limitless surveillance?Is this sarcastic?
Uh...you serious? I mean as much as my nationality makes me want to say "the americans were unjustified in thier revolution" we did a bit more than institute a 10% tax rate.
Imposition of massive tax rates from afar, hyper-violent enforcement of minor violations, excessive educational mandates; we are either at the place or approaching rapidly.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I need to start voting Democrat. Obviously my GOP leanings have been sapping my mind. Nobody can look at a conservative agenda and believe in it unless they are a drooling idiot.
The current problem is more that the Republicans got a influencial faction that treats realism and sanity as treason. They have to be appeased, or they vote in a real nutter.I need to start voting Democrat. Obviously my GOP leanings have been sapping my mind. Nobody can look at a conservative agenda and believe in it unless they are a drooling idiot.
Americans are feeling oppressed and repressed by a government that represents only the 1% and global corporations.
The government has a monopoly on force but widespread demonstrations could have an effect. The trouble here is that the media is controlled and operated by that 1%.
Whether their laws are constitutional is in the hands of 9 government lawyers who decide what they want to here from whom.
The US was founded on limited government but we seem to have all powerful government.
And you don’t see a need to reform it? Dark Age?
The government has a monopoly on force but widespread demonstrations could have an effect. The trouble here is that the media is controlled and operated by that 1%.
Whether their laws are constitutional is in the hands of 9 government lawyers who decide what they want to here from whom.
The US was founded on limited government but we seem to have all powerful government.
And you don’t see a need to reform it? Dark Age?
Reform? Yes. Revolt? No. With america's track record with revolts armed conflict is the last thing that will solve it's woes, especially if it's the very portion of society keeping those 1% in power that's doing the revolting.
Edit: actually I guess if it is the republicans doing the revolting I suppose it could be beneficial, when the revolution inevitably gets itself massacred there'll be fewer obstructionist politicians in power.
Edit: actually I guess if it is the republicans doing the revolting I suppose it could be beneficial, when the revolution inevitably gets itself massacred there'll be fewer obstructionist politicians in power.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Reform? Yes. Revolt? No. With america's track record with revolts armed conflict is the last thing that will solve it's woes, especially if it's the very portion of society keeping those 1% in power that's doing the revolting.
Edit: actually I guess if it is the republicans doing the revolting I suppose it could be beneficial, when the revolution inevitably gets itself massacred there'll be fewer obstructionist politicians in power.
This is an interesting sentiment, from the types of people who eschew firearms and alienate the armed forces. Who are your allies? Brutal "meritocrats" in government?Reform? Yes. Revolt? No. With america's track record with revolts armed conflict is the last thing that will solve it's woes, especially if it's the very portion of society keeping those 1% in power that's doing the revolting.
Edit: actually I guess if it is the republicans doing the revolting I suppose it could be beneficial, when the revolution inevitably gets itself massacred there'll be fewer obstructionist politicians in power.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
If the Tea Party had popped up during the Bush years, maybe I'd have been convinced of some merit. As it stands, Obama is one of the better presidents we've had in generations (that's not to say he's a good president, though--we haven't had an objectively good president in a very long time, if ever). 99% of the vitriol spewed against him is pure unadulterated grade-A conspiracy-theory bullshit. The sorts of people who buy into it aren't smart enough to do anything other than support every stupid Cliven Bundy-like figure that comes along. All this talk about "We need smaller government!" lol. Government is weak and puny, the real tyrants in our society are corporations that can push the government around any which way they please, and they are empowered by the tea party garbage.
I agree, 90% of the garbage spewed about Obama is hogwash - BUT - to argue the absurdity that "Obama is one of the better presidents we've had in generations". WHAT? what were your main concerns about the policies of the past "generations of Presidents" that Obama hasn't continued or made worse?If the Tea Party had popped up during the Bush years, maybe I'd have been convinced of some merit. As it stands, Obama is one of the better presidents we've had in generations (that's not to say he's a good president, though--we haven't had an objectively good president in a very long time, if ever). 99% of the vitriol spewed against him is pure unadulterated grade-A conspiracy-theory bullshit. The sorts of people who buy into it aren't smart enough to do anything other than support every stupid Cliven Bundy-like figure that comes along. All this talk about "We need smaller government!" lol. Government is weak and puny, the real tyrants in our society are corporations that can push the government around any which way they please, and they are empowered by the tea party garbage.
Also, "government is weak and puny" and "nothing you citizens can do will ever stop the juggernaut that is government" (which you have suggested before) are inconsistent thoughts.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
This is an interesting sentiment, from the types of people who eschew firearms and alienate the armed forces. Who are your allies? Brutal "meritocrats" in government?
Oh just everyone who isnt stupid enough to fight to overthrow a government just because the republican politicians throw a tantrum, IE 95% of the population of your country. Seriously, it's Bobby Jindall, he's as much an indicator of popular american sentiment as NAMBLA.This is an interesting sentiment, from the types of people who eschew firearms and alienate the armed forces. Who are your allies? Brutal "meritocrats" in government?
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Oh just everyone who isnt stupid enough to fight to overthrow a government just because the republican politicians throw a tantrum, IE 95% of the population of your country. Seriously, it's Bobby Jindall, he's as much an indicator of popular american sentiment as NAMBLA.
He is the governor of a State with 5 million people and a GDP the size of Finland or Greece.Oh just everyone who isnt stupid enough to fight to overthrow a government just because the republican politicians throw a tantrum, IE 95% of the population of your country. Seriously, it's Bobby Jindall, he's as much an indicator of popular american sentiment as NAMBLA.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
If the Tea Party had popped up during the Bush years, maybe I'd have been convinced of some merit. As it stands, Obama is one of the better presidents we've had in generations (that's not to say he's a good president, though--we haven't had an objectively good president in a very long time, if ever). 99% of the vitriol spewed against him is pure unadulterated grade-A conspiracy-theory bullshit. The sorts of people who buy into it aren't smart enough to do anything other than support every stupid Cliven Bundy-like figure that comes along. All this talk about "We need smaller government!" lol. Government is weak and puny, the real tyrants in our society are corporations that can push the government around any which way they please, and they are empowered by the tea party garbage.
Oy vey do I disagree as to the quality and direction of the Obama administration. The best of recent years was the thoroughly muzzled Clinton admin after the first midterm election and before the blue dress idiocy (as though THAT rose to the level of impeachable....stupid). Prior to that I thought Reagan did well for the first six years and Nixon policy wise might have done great things if he hadn't been a crook. Since WW2? Ike by a mile.If the Tea Party had popped up during the Bush years, maybe I'd have been convinced of some merit. As it stands, Obama is one of the better presidents we've had in generations (that's not to say he's a good president, though--we haven't had an objectively good president in a very long time, if ever). 99% of the vitriol spewed against him is pure unadulterated grade-A conspiracy-theory bullshit. The sorts of people who buy into it aren't smart enough to do anything other than support every stupid Cliven Bundy-like figure that comes along. All this talk about "We need smaller government!" lol. Government is weak and puny, the real tyrants in our society are corporations that can push the government around any which way they please, and they are empowered by the tea party garbage.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Americans are feeling oppressed and repressed by a government that represents only the 1% and global corporations.
The government has a monopoly on force but widespread demonstrations could have an effect. The trouble here is that the media is controlled and operated by that 1%.
Whether their laws are constitutional is in the hands of 9 government lawyers who decide what they want to here from whom.
The US was founded on limited government but we seem to have all powerful government.
And you don’t see a need to reform it? Dark Age?
Of course there is a need for reform. Oligarchy is simply big government unconnected from even the whims of the people. Arguably the worst of both worlds.Americans are feeling oppressed and repressed by a government that represents only the 1% and global corporations.
The government has a monopoly on force but widespread demonstrations could have an effect. The trouble here is that the media is controlled and operated by that 1%.
Whether their laws are constitutional is in the hands of 9 government lawyers who decide what they want to here from whom.
The US was founded on limited government but we seem to have all powerful government.
And you don’t see a need to reform it? Dark Age?
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
It only seems inconsistent because you refuse to have a three dimensional view of government.
see a Dr. Get checked for heavy metals.It only seems inconsistent because you refuse to have a three dimensional view of government.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
It only seems inconsistent because you refuse to have a three dimensional view of government.
Please elaborateIt only seems inconsistent because you refuse to have a three dimensional view of government.
I am a scissor, and I am awesome. I've been cutting up mah papers all day long, there's noone to stop me!
Oh hey there mr Rock....
Oh hey there mr Rock....
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Its not THE GOVERNMENT its actually thousands of myriad agencies. In the USA there are over 90,000 distinct governments. The agencies the Tea Party has the biggest problems with (FDA, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, and so on) have way less power on the national stage than most of the groups funding campaigns to dismantle them! Its not black and white, and smaller government crusades are almost entirely misguided at the most fundamental levels.
You are correct that referring it to as though it were a single entity is, at best, a convenient shorthand. Government is a byzantine concatenation of bureaus, agencies, programs, and regulations -- most with their own organizational political agendae and half or more of them unaware of what the other pieces are doing.Its not THE GOVERNMENT its actually thousands of myriad agencies. In the USA there are over 90,000 distinct governments. The agencies the Tea Party has the biggest problems with (FDA, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, and so on) have way less power on the national stage than most of the groups funding campaigns to dismantle them! Its not black and white, and smaller government crusades are almost entirely misguided at the most fundamental levels.
I am an avid fan of downsizing this ouroboric beast, but you are VERY much correct that efforts to do so, to date, are usually better intentioned than thought out.
The government we have is an accretion developed over more than a century and cannot be pruned back with two quick pieces of legislation and a rousing "huzzah!"
And yes, to those of you who were in doubt about post #23. the eye-rolling smiley was supposed to indicate sarcasm.
That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.
Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.
Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.
Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.
Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.
Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.
Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.
I assume that you meant "entity", but just in case you have been using a word incorrectly I am bringing it up. This is not to be petty, I appreciate when people correct my usage which will aid me in argument in the real world.That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.
Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.
Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.
Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.
Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to improve the situation. That some companies have a corrupting streak and prefers to eliminate the compitition through unfair means are the default position, goverment or not. Claiming otherwise is fundamentally missing out on the basics on competition. That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.
Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.
Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.
That means that you have to have a regulating body with enforcement powers, that those companies will try to corrupt. Also known as the current situation.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
I'm not sure how that's supposed to improve the situation. That some companies have a corrupting streak and prefers to eliminate the compitition through unfair means are the default position, goverment or not. Claiming otherwise is fundamentally missing out on the basics on competition.
That means that you have to have a regulating body with enforcement powers, that those companies will try to corrupt. Also known as the current situation.
That is just the point. Government only provides corrupt trade practices. If companies eliminate one another there is no problem until there is a monopoly and without government intervention that is not likely to occur.I'm not sure how that's supposed to improve the situation. That some companies have a corrupting streak and prefers to eliminate the compitition through unfair means are the default position, goverment or not. Claiming otherwise is fundamentally missing out on the basics on competition.
That means that you have to have a regulating body with enforcement powers, that those companies will try to corrupt. Also known as the current situation.
Businesses may require product safety regulation etc but in the US it is more about corporate welfare and price supports.
It is much closer to mercantilism than it is to capitalism.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
I've always been a fan of downsizing the wastefulness and byzantine-ness (heh) of government, but the way the right goes about it is something I find morally abhorrent. All the agencies I listed off are vital for keeping corporate monsters out of the system, and they need more funding, not less. Not to mention what the tea party would do to social welfare programs if they could!
There's not a single small-government movement out there that isn't either anti-poor, or so poorly thought out that they are anti-poor without realizing it. De-regulation is only a backdoor to more extreme corporate welfare.
*The corruption in government comes from the outside. After decades of a lawmaker ---> lobbyist ----> $$$ career map for countless lawmakers and presidential appointees from both sides, and the seeming total subversion of the supreme court on the issue of defining bribery and corruption, it can be hard to tell the difference. These are all problems of big corporations and massively rich individual donors being able to reach in with impunity. To attack it you need strict laws, harsh regulation, and maybe even a constitutional amendment to deal with the fact that the supreme court's definition of bribery is too narrow to enforce in a world of SuperPACs. The Dems benefit probably more than the republicans from this system, but what the far right wants to do would only make it worse! And they'd screw the poor while they were at it! Its absurd, and I can't respect the position.
You know, I am some what left of center and no advocate of unregulated free trade but people should have the sense to see what is before their eyes and stop swallowing the trip passed out by which ever party you think is representing you.I've always been a fan of downsizing the wastefulness and byzantine-ness (heh) of government, but the way the right goes about it is something I find morally abhorrent. All the agencies I listed off are vital for keeping corporate monsters out of the system, and they need more funding, not less. Not to mention what the tea party would do to social welfare programs if they could!
There's not a single small-government movement out there that isn't either anti-poor, or so poorly thought out that they are anti-poor without realizing it. De-regulation is only a backdoor to more extreme corporate welfare.
*The corruption in government comes from the outside. After decades of a lawmaker ---> lobbyist ----> $$$ career map for countless lawmakers and presidential appointees from both sides, and the seeming total subversion of the supreme court on the issue of defining bribery and corruption, it can be hard to tell the difference. These are all problems of big corporations and massively rich individual donors being able to reach in with impunity. To attack it you need strict laws, harsh regulation, and maybe even a constitutional amendment to deal with the fact that the supreme court's definition of bribery is too narrow to enforce in a world of SuperPACs. The Dems benefit probably more than the republicans from this system, but what the far right wants to do would only make it worse! And they'd screw the poor while they were at it! Its absurd, and I can't respect the position.
The primary reason in the US for business regulation to include their anti-trust laws is to prop up prices for favored sectors of the economy and to help their corporate buddies.
That brings in a lot of campaign donations but it hurts everyone who is not the beneficiary of the government largess.
As for the Tea Party, you have much more in common than you have differences. The left has always been prone to eating their own but they are a threat to the establishment rather than to the public. But you swallow the load they give you.
Remember who voted to defund the NSA? It was Tea Party types on the right and civil libertarians on the left. Who defeated the issue? The rank and file hacks from both parties that talk the party line and never deliver anything to the people.
You are a willing pawn of the established order. When will you see?
One thing I will give you, however, is that any government legislation title usually does the opposite of what the title claims.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Dude, it's really as simple as the stance on the poor. I grew up in poverty, thanks to the Army I'm mostly out of it now. All my friends have food stamps, and they all need them. If the tea party had a sensible stance on social welfare, I'd support them. But they don't, in fact the main support for the Tea Party are the sorts of people who think people are poor because they somehow deserve it, sprinkled in with bitter rednecks and white trash who just want to burn the whole thing down. That, I won't support.
Dude, it's really as simple as the stance on the poor. I grew up in poverty, thanks to the Army I'm mostly out of it now. All my friends have food stamps, and they all need them. If the tea party had a sensible stance on social welfare, I'd support them. But they don't, in fact the main support for the Tea Party are the sorts of people who think people are poor because they somehow deserve it, sprinkled in with bitter rednecks and white trash who just want to burn the whole thing down. That, I won't support.
I understand the emotion of the issue. The thing is that the Tea Party only stands for a few issues and is not a united body. Their political views are only half formed.
People don’t hate the poor. Most are just about as poor as you. But those further to the right resent a paid underclass and see it as keeping people dependant on government.
That is a topic for its own thread.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Ya, that's an abhorrent view that is worth fighting wherever it is found. The Tea Party is rife with that sentiment, and its backers are empowered by it. You see this is a minor part of the Tea Party, but you're wrong. It is a cultural norm within most of the Tea Party, not brought up because it is a given.
Here is a big assumption on your part however that they want to do nothing, which I have not found to be the case.Ya, that's an abhorrent view that is worth fighting wherever it is found. The Tea Party is rife with that sentiment, and its backers are empowered by it. You see this is a minor part of the Tea Party, but you're wrong. It is a cultural norm within most of the Tea Party, not brought up because it is a given.
I have heard a negative income tax (minimum income for all) and various training and support ideas. The main objective being no permanent underclass.
Decent ideas lost by coverage of people shouting about welfare queens.
In the meantime in other parts of the country people are understanding that Occupy and Tea Party have most of the same goals in mind.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
I understand the emotion of the issue. The thing is that the Tea Party only stands for a few issues and is not a united body. Their political views are only half formed.
People don’t hate the poor. Most are just about as poor as you. But those further to the right resent a paid underclass and see it as keeping people dependant on government.
That is a topic for its own thread.
I read somewhere that Walmart employees got state subsidiaries for more than 2 billion usd... The same year Walmart went + 17 billions...I understand the emotion of the issue. The thing is that the Tea Party only stands for a few issues and is not a united body. Their political views are only half formed.
People don’t hate the poor. Most are just about as poor as you. But those further to the right resent a paid underclass and see it as keeping people dependant on government.
That is a topic for its own thread.
Maybe the companies should start paying their employees wages they can actually live on.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5519158.html
Do you believe him? Personally, I see this country succumbing to massive civil disturbance over the next 10-20 years. I don't want it to happen because it would be miserable and throw the planet into a dark age, but human nature is human nature, and I'm not sure that Americans have much in common beyond language anymore.
Not secession, but a hemorrhaging of civil strife and asymmetrical warfare all over the continent. Given our understanding of human history, is it crazier to think that it will happen or that it won't? Are Americans becoming more similar or less similar?
Eh, you have no official language, and quite some areas are overrun with non-english speaking people. So if that's what you have got going for you... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5519158.html
Do you believe him? Personally, I see this country succumbing to massive civil disturbance over the next 10-20 years. I don't want it to happen because it would be miserable and throw the planet into a dark age, but human nature is human nature, and I'm not sure that Americans have much in common beyond language anymore.
Not secession, but a hemorrhaging of civil strife and asymmetrical warfare all over the continent. Given our understanding of human history, is it crazier to think that it will happen or that it won't? Are Americans becoming more similar or less similar?
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
It only seems inconsistent because you refuse to have a three dimensional view of government.
As Federal government is not here for me (not a rich person), I can only view the government in one dimension, the view that they are spending my money on stuff that isn't for me. So for my money, Bill Clinton set the standard as best president. By that same standard Obama and Bush are the worst presidents of my lifetime, and Bush Sr. stands a distant third.It only seems inconsistent because you refuse to have a three dimensional view of government.
No takeover of Washing is brewing. However, there seems to be glimpses of hope that someday localities (states) will be recovering some of their authority.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO