Half of Texas Republicans want to Secede

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm still in shock that I didn't see any toll booths while driving around in Texas... Here in Jersey we have them everywhere... and we have crappier roads too...

---

Yep, when it comes to bureaucracy, you get what you pay for...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yep, when it comes to bureaucracy, you get what you pay for...

---

And we sure pay a lot... $6 toll to cross to Philly... $13 to go to the city...
The fucking Turnpike, a WASTE of a road, it's $4 for like 12 miles....

Gotta love the GPS and the 'Toll Avoidance' option...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan

That's not true anymore, Democrats currently enjoy between 9 and 14% advantage in partisanship identification, with republicans representing just 25.7 % of the population

---

It'll be back there in a few years. Temporary shifts happen, but it always normalizes back around the 35-35-30 area. It'll probably be back to about the standard split by the next Pres. Election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Exactly. And given there are probably a good number of Libertarians in the "Other" group, you can see why I'm skeptical.

---

Quite true, although Libertarians are not a large segment of the population, really. Larger here than most other places, but still fairly negligible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

I could see it happening...I mean does anyone give a shit if any other state wants to secede?

I couldn't careless if some state seceded and I imagine the rest of the country would feel likewise about Texas. In fact I could imagine Texas would have the overwhelming support of the citizenry of states like Cali and NY who probably view the big red state of Texas as somewhat of a thorn in their side. Furthermore I think if Texas were to get serious about this they might not be making the move alone.


But I mean really...if you guys heard tomorrow that New York wants to secede, what would be your attitude about it? War? Or fuck it...let em' go. I don't think Texas would be any different. I do not see the population of America supporting any sort of military action against a seceding state and it would be tough sell for the Government.

---

Yeah I agree I don't think anybody would care, I think alot of states would encourage it to see if it would work, and then try it later themselves.I know it's hard to imagine but it's hard to imagine alot of things that have happened, and so many people feel that the nation is coming to an end, why not try something else.I'm sure alot of soviets couldn't imagine the fall and balkinization of the ussr,but it happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

The powers that be in the GOP are counting way too much on that. As if we weren't paying attention when an allegedly conservative Republican president essentially took part in a blackmail of the Congress to pass a $700 billion increase in the national debt to pass the losses of large financial services firms on to middle class taxpayers? Am I really supposed to believe that this was merely a creation of the current administration and forget everything that occurred prior to Jan. 20, 2009? Am I supposed to be agitated about 'socialism' when the prior, allegedly conservative Republican administration rammed through the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the 1960s?

Another thing the GOP leadership needs to wrap their minds around is that the social conservatives are a spent political force. Stop kissing Dobson's ass. They haven't delivered in the last two federal elections. That is not how you get back to being a majority party. Actually offer an alternative to greater government expansion instead of merely offering a more intrusive federal government with a social conservative cultural bent. Tax cutting isn't enough. End the fing spending.

---

You know alot of what you say is true,but the social conservatives didn't deliver because the republican party didn't deliver, they're taken over by neo cons.George Bush can be accussed of alot of things but he is neither a fiscal nor social conservative he's just a politician who wants to keep his political machine in power, and his connections to power close.He simply made gesture to appease social conservatives so the made gesture of support for him.

I've found there is a lot broader range of thinking among conservatives than liberals, and so they don't all believe the same things.However an economy is not enough to base a society on, the nation must have more of a vision that ties it together than just the bottom line, that type of thinking is what has got us into this mess. Look a california or other third world countries where money is king and everyone is busy climbing over the other guy to the top of the shitheap,cause he don't wanna be climbed over.I really think that money is the least of a nations worries if it can find something that can sustain and nourish it as a people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

You know alot of what you say is true,but the social conservatives didn't deliver because the republican party didn't deliver, they're taken over by neo cons.

---

The neoconservatives are a small sliver of intellectuals based in NYC and DC. Yes, they are certainly influential. Still, the social conservatives command their power through their GOTV efforts. That's why they have power in the party. If they can't win elections for the party, it's time to reexamine the importance given to the policies and issues they care about and determine if a change is in order for the party to come up with a winning electoral strategy. I think that strategy is greater personal freedom (to the extent it can be thought of as separate from economic freedom). This strategy is much more consistent and in tune with the classical liberalism inherent in the Constitution. Plus it's generally more appealing. As long as your liberty is safeguarded to live as you see fit, what's the problem?

Quote:

---

George Bush can be accussed of alot of things but he is neither a fiscal nor social conservative he's just a politician who wants to keep his political machine in power, and his connections to power close.He simply made gesture to appease social conservatives so the made gesture of support for him.

---

Nah, he's a social conservative today. Honestly, he represented a strain of militarist progressivism, much like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson once did. That is, a political philosophy that is not opposed to the expansion of the state, so long as that expansion accomplishes certain political objectives which have sprung out of a Judeo-Christian view of society and the world. That is, 'big government' isn't bad so long as it is accomplishing the objectives they like. Hence, government charity isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as it can be run in part by institutions of faith. Government intervention in general isn't a bad thing as it has the power and resources to shape society in a way amenable to certain values. Frankly, it wasn't surprising that the Obama campaign went after evangelicals in the last federal election as many aren't necessarily opposed to the expansion of the state. A true conservative in the classical liberal/individualist mode of course objects to this as the end that matters is not the state but rather that which provides the individual with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of what they deem to be happiness. And, of course, one would expect that the individual of faith would realize that such a 'big government' could one day serve other purposes inimical to their beliefs. I have no doubt that the religious side he exhibited publicly was honest.

Quote:

---

I've found there is a lot broader range of thinking among conservatives than liberals, and so they don't all believe the same things.However an economy is not enough to base a society on, the nation must have more of a vision that ties it together than just the bottom line, that type of thinking is what has got us into this mess. Look a california or other third world countries where money is king and everyone is busy climbing over the other guy to the top of the shitheap,cause he don't wanna be climbed over.I really think that money is the least of a nations worries if it can find something that can sustain and nourish it as a people.

---

Sure, there are plenty of different flavors of conservative and individualist thought. The problem is that instead of social conservatives seeking to protect their liberties from an increasingly secular state, they simply sought to change the nature of the state's policies. There's definitely a road back for the GOP and conservatives to a political majority, but that road is to become more libertine in the legality of personal matters, while actually exhibiting fiscal conservatism and still holding the line on some issues such as in crime and punishment in which the country is inherently more traditionalist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Texas v. White and international law (if one wants to go that route) say it ain't happening.

If you really want to do it, get yer gun and go for it. These things don't have a history of going well, however.

---

My daughter (and her 5th grade class) gets to re-enact Pickett's Charge on Friday - Right up (well partly) Cemetery Hill.

It is cool living up here; some very interesting field trips relatively close by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

There's definitely a road back for the GOP and conservatives to a political majority, but that road is to become more libertine in the legality of personal matters, while actually exhibiting fiscal conservatism and still holding the line on some issues such as in crime and punishment in which the country is inherently more traditionalist.

---

+1

However, no Republican President in recent memory has actually been fiscally conservative. Clinton was the most fiscally conservative President this country has had in the last 40 years. And that is why the Republican base is by and large a bunch of clueless idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

My daughter (and her 5th grade class) gets to re-enact Pickett's Charge on Friday - Right up (well partly) Cemetery Hill.

---

Lee should have been shot by his own men for ordering that attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

The neoconservatives are a small sliver of intellectuals based in NYC and DC. Yes, they are certainly influential. Still, the social conservatives command their power through their GOTV efforts. That's why they have power in the party. If they can't win elections for the party, it's time to reexamine the importance given to the policies and issues they care about and determine if a change is in order for the party to come up with a winning electoral strategy. I think that strategy is greater personal freedom (to the extent it can be thought of as separate from economic freedom). This strategy is much more consistent and in tune with the classical liberalism inherent in the Constitution. Plus it's generally more appealing. As long as your liberty is safeguarded to live as you see fit, what's the problem?



Nah, he's a social conservative today. Honestly, he represented a strain of militarist progressivism, much like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson once did. That is, a political philosophy that is not opposed to the expansion of the state, so long as that expansion accomplishes certain political objectives which have sprung out of a Judeo-Christian view of society and the world. That is, 'big government' isn't bad so long as it is accomplishing the objectives they like. Hence, government charity isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as it can be run in part by institutions of faith. Government intervention in general isn't a bad thing as it has the power and resources to shape society in a way amenable to certain values. Frankly, it wasn't surprising that the Obama campaign went after evangelicals in the last federal election as many aren't necessarily opposed to the expansion of the state. A true conservative in the classical liberal/individualist mode of course objects to this as the end that matters is not the state but rather that which provides the individual with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of what they deem to be happiness. And, of course, one would expect that the individual of faith would realize that such a 'big government' could one day serve other purposes inimical to their beliefs. I have no doubt that the religious side he exhibited publicly was honest.



Sure, there are plenty of different flavors of conservative and individualist thought. The problem is that instead of social conservatives seeking to protect their liberties from an increasingly secular state, they simply sought to change the nature of the state's policies. There's definitely a road back for the GOP and conservatives to a political majority, but that road is to become more libertine in the legality of personal matters, while actually exhibiting fiscal conservatism and still holding the line on some issues such as in crime and punishment in which the country is inherently more traditionalist.

---

Nice Post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chumpdumper

lee should have been shot by his own men for ordering that attack.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warlord23

+1

However, no Republican President in recent memory has actually been fiscally conservative. Clinton was the most fiscally conservative President this country has had in the last 40 years. And that is why the Republican base is by and large a bunch of clueless idiots.

---

And much of the credit for that can be given to a GOP controlled Congress that actually acted as a conservative majority Congress, at least for a few years. In general, fiscal conservatism is not really a selling point for a politician any longer. That is why it's going to get worse in this country before it improves (if ever).

Frankly, I don't see any political party or politician moving away from the 'national greatness' meme. The only thing that changes is the definition of said greatness. The notion that each of our own life, liberty and pursuit of what we define as happiness is the end of our politics (so long as we do not infringe on the rights of our fellow citizens to do the same) should hold. Instead, we find that we must take haircut after haircut of our freedom to serve the state, as politician after politician expands the state to enhance his or her greatness, as well as the state's greatness. After all, the state will make us good. George and Barack agree.

Don't Mess With Texas... Get Rid Of It

Quote:

---

NPR.org, April 28, 2009 · During the campaign, President Obama talked a good game about bipartisanship. Now he has the perfect opportunity to achieve something that people on both sides of the aisle desperately want: kicking Texas out of the union.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently implied that Texas might need to leave the United States if the mean old federal government doesn't stop doing things like sending stimulus money and slightly raising the top marginal tax rates. These things being obvious markers of impending fascism (unlike, say, unapologetically institutionalizing a global torture regime), Perry thinks it's time to go. Unsurprisingly, a majority of Texas Republicans approved of these remarks.

Texas asking Blue America for a divorce is like a woman asking her boyfriend if he'd like to sit around all day drinking Miller and watching football, or like the Patriots offering Tom Brady to the Redskins for a 19th-round draft pick. Befuddled liberals can only shake their heads in gratified amazement while they pop the cap on their first beer, settle into the sofa and watch Brady pilot the 'Skins to the Super Bowl.

The transition should be peaceful — no need for 600,000 Americans to die like the last time a state tried to leave the union. These kinds of things are best handled with negotiations — just ask the Czechs and the Slovaks, who dissolved Czechoslovakia like an old married couple who remain great friends but just don't want to sleep together anymore.

First, Texas should be given the option of taking neighboring Oklahoma, Alabama and Louisiana with them. These states are reliably deep red, and are also three of the biggest tax drains in the country, raking in federal dollars while kvetching about Obama's tyranny. In return, the U.S. gets to keep the liberal oasis of Austin, like the little swath of Azerbaijan surrounded by Armenia and Iran.

Second, Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton should immediately be seized by the Washington Nationals as part of the deal. The Washington Wizards should also demand star San Antonio point guard Tony Parker, who is French and therefore probably unwelcome in what is likely to be the violently xenophobic Republic of Texas. The U.S. would, of course, have to cough up some native Texans, like Houston Astros meatballer Brandon Backe.

Finally, the Republic of Texas should arrange a population transfer with the United States, like how Turkey and Greece exchanged all their misplaced Turks and Greeks after the first World War — only this time without the forced marches and famine. Basically, we get all the New Yorker-reading lefties, and Texas can have all the crazies — millenarians with basement stockpiles of semiautomatics, true believers who blockade abortion clinics, paranoiacs who think The Gays are coming to get them, and anyone who believes that evolution is "just a theory."

Getting rid of Texas is a once-a-century opportunity for America's new leader. Texas Republicans have spoken. The only question is, "Are you listening President Obama?"

---

:lmao http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103543574

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warlord23

+1

However, no Republican President in recent memory has actually been fiscally conservative. Clinton was the most fiscally conservative President this country has had in the last 40 years. And that is why the Republican base is by and large a bunch of clueless idiots.

---

If Clinton + that Republican congress was conservatism, then fuck conservatism. If letting Wal-Mart run the country is conservatism, then to hell with it. If conservatism is selling our manufacturing jobs out to China while pacifying the people with lies about how it'll be a huge market for us to sell goods to, then I hope it dies a quick and painful death.

Yet nobody seemed to have a problem when the Chinese subsidized our prolifigate public and private spending on credit, which in turn helped to create a couple of joyous credit bubbles or when the American consumer enjoyed the latest and greatest electronic goods from 'round the world. We wanted it all. And we had it, at least for a little bit.

You are right, though. That isn't "conservatism" per se. What are we going to give up then? What are you ready to give up? It's one thing to bitch and moan about it and quite another to live in the alternative.

Was all that credit ever good for the American consumer? Certainly driving up the cost of housing to ridiculous levels was never good for the average American worker. The only other thing that should ever be bought on credit is an education. That education has become ridiculously expensive in the last 15 years due to the inability of to make any kind of decent wage without a degree, thanks to our manufacturing jobs going to China and Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Was all that credit ever good for the American consumer? Certainly driving up the cost of housing to ridiculous levels was never good for the average American worker. The only other thing that should ever be bought on credit is an education. That education has become ridiculously expensive in the last 15 years due to the inability of to make any kind of decent wage without a degree, thanks to our manufacturing jobs going to China and Mexico.

---

Such is the cost of having all the wonderful consumer goodies from around the world. Are you suggesting that credit become more exclusive?

Quote:

---

The neoconservatives are a small sliver of intellectuals based in NYC and DC.

---

NeoCons made a lot of money under Dubya, plus they still control the Limbaugh-Hannity crowd - don't count them out yet..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Such is the cost of having all the wonderful consumer goodies from around the world. Are you suggesting that credit become more exclusive?

---

Yes, giving credit to anyone for a home they can't afford was every bit as much of a scam in 2006 as it was in 1906 when Upton Sinclair was writing about it. No one should be using credit to buy stereos, Playstations, and all other kinds of unimportant crap.

How about laptops? vehicles? clothing?

The notion that credit is the foundation of wealth is exactly backwards. Savings is the fountain of capital, not debt.

We need a system that rewards savers and fiduciary prudence, and obviates the superfluousness of experts and complicated instruments for our personal financial security. Good god, let's make banking boring again.

Debt bubbles aggrandize the money sector to the common detriment and unchecked cause the sort of bust we're experiencing right now. The snowcone got piled too high, even for the greatest economy so far known to man.

Edit: Wrong thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The notion that credit is the foundation of wealth is exactly backwards. Savings is the fountain of capital, not debt.

---

True, but credit is the straw that stirs the drink of economic growth. Should no one start a business (or expand an existing one) unless they already have the necessary capital saved up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

True, but credit is the straw that stirs the drink of economic growth. Should no one start a business (or expand an existing one) unless they already have the necessary capital saved up?

---

Sure.

I'm not against credit money, but the management of risk has to be prudent, the financial condition of the intermediaries transparent, and the total debt proportional to the real, underlying productive wealth that supports it.

In the present debacle, none of these conditions was satisfied.