Monday, May 28, 2007
Why ER will always hug the center-left, compared to his more lefty friends and acquaintances
Bullshit like this: National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.
The states founded the federal government. If the federal government is disbabled, the states should be the ones to whom its tattered remains fall.
Thomas Jefferson was a state's rights advocate. He believed -- wrongly, it turned out -- that the states would be most likely to protect civil liberties. Of course, he was thinking about whites' civil liberties. Emancipation screwed that up.
But the fact remains that the United States of America started as united states of America. If the federal government is disabled, surviving states will prevail.
--ER
The states founded the federal government. If the federal government is disbabled, the states should be the ones to whom its tattered remains fall.
Thomas Jefferson was a state's rights advocate. He believed -- wrongly, it turned out -- that the states would be most likely to protect civil liberties. Of course, he was thinking about whites' civil liberties. Emancipation screwed that up.
But the fact remains that the United States of America started as united states of America. If the federal government is disabled, surviving states will prevail.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Amigo, we are the Federal Government. If it don't work it is because we haven't made it work.
If it fails no State will prevail either, for there will be no concept of a "State".
I think you still harbor that streak of secessionist that makes you think that the States are actually seperate from one another. Wasn't actually true in 1775, 1860, or ever. Even the Pilgrams survived by trading with neighboring settlements later know as "States" and Canada. We are so intertwined, socially, economically, physcologically, militarily, and so on and so on that if any fall all will fall. Actually the inter dependence now extend well into Mexico and Canada as well.
Now if you want to talk about "War Lords" and call them Govenors after the fall go for it.
If it fails no State will prevail either, for there will be no concept of a "State".
I think you still harbor that streak of secessionist that makes you think that the States are actually seperate from one another. Wasn't actually true in 1775, 1860, or ever. Even the Pilgrams survived by trading with neighboring settlements later know as "States" and Canada. We are so intertwined, socially, economically, physcologically, militarily, and so on and so on that if any fall all will fall. Actually the inter dependence now extend well into Mexico and Canada as well.
Now if you want to talk about "War Lords" and call them Govenors after the fall go for it.
I would prefer warlords pretending to be governors leading weak states than a single tyrant pretending to be acting president leading an extra-constitutional power structure.
And you're damn right on the secesh streak. And I totally disagree with your assessment of the role of the states in the formation of this country. It was their association that was weak at first, with some stronger than others, depending on trade and geography among other things.
And you're damn right on the secesh streak. And I totally disagree with your assessment of the role of the states in the formation of this country. It was their association that was weak at first, with some stronger than others, depending on trade and geography among other things.
ER said: " And I totally disagree with your assessment of the role of the states in the formation of this country. It was their association that was weak at first, with some stronger than others, depending on trade and geography among other things."
Not sure where you saw my "assessment".
But if my memory serves me correctly all of the "States" before the revolution were subservient to the mother country, Great Brittan and were not soverign. King George was Soverign. By 1776, there were dozens of inter-colony agreements contracts etc. that were military, economic, and transportation based.
In fact George Washington actually claimed that his inter-colonial compact that he made in order to build his Patomac Canal Company was the basis for his belief that the colonies could successfully unite against their mother country.
And just to tweak that "secesh streak" that question has already been answered numerous times in "The" United States and it ain't gonna happen again. The Military-Industrial-Corporate-Political-Fundamentalist Complex ain't gonna let it happen bro. It is not profitable.
As for War Lords, I would rather concentrate my Jeffersonian resistance towards one Federal Government rather than towards 200 plus "War Lords" living in a time like it was fuedal Europe.
Yoda rules!
Not sure where you saw my "assessment".
But if my memory serves me correctly all of the "States" before the revolution were subservient to the mother country, Great Brittan and were not soverign. King George was Soverign. By 1776, there were dozens of inter-colony agreements contracts etc. that were military, economic, and transportation based.
In fact George Washington actually claimed that his inter-colonial compact that he made in order to build his Patomac Canal Company was the basis for his belief that the colonies could successfully unite against their mother country.
And just to tweak that "secesh streak" that question has already been answered numerous times in "The" United States and it ain't gonna happen again. The Military-Industrial-Corporate-Political-Fundamentalist Complex ain't gonna let it happen bro. It is not profitable.
As for War Lords, I would rather concentrate my Jeffersonian resistance towards one Federal Government rather than towards 200 plus "War Lords" living in a time like it was fuedal Europe.
Yoda rules!
I would prefer warlords pretending to be governors leading weak states than a single tyrant pretending to be acting president leading an extra-constitutional power structure.
And you're damn right on the secesh streak. And I totally disagree with your assessment of the role of the states in the formation of this country. It was their association that was weak at first, with some stronger than others, depending on trade and geography among other things.
And you're damn right on the secesh streak. And I totally disagree with your assessment of the role of the states in the formation of this country. It was their association that was weak at first, with some stronger than others, depending on trade and geography among other things.
Not at all. :-) Just diggin' in my heels. Dr. ER agrees with me on this, BTW. Of course, she's a Texan.
Well now, Texas is a whole nother country. I'm sure they could survive on their own just like they did for those six or seven years way back in the 1840s. I'm sure they will welcome home their sons and daughters when the time comes. But be careful waddin that damn Red River, quicksand you know. And you will have to wade it cause the Buffalo Commons and the Tribes will have blown all the bridges across it to slow down the flow of refugees.
Some times when you dig in yor heels you just get bucked off quicker.
Some times when you dig in yor heels you just get bucked off quicker.
That's exactly what I told Dr. ER!
Texas take swhatever part of northern Mexico it wants, and gets Oklahoma (whuich wikll have split into Oklahoma and Sequoyah), and probably the rest of the Gulf South.
Miami becomes a city-state.
California takes whatever of the West wants to go.
Andm, I said, The Indians wil take back western Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas.
They'll reform as united States of America, using the old Constitution as a starting point, but probably incorporating NAFTA and CAFTA.
Heels still dug in.
Texas take swhatever part of northern Mexico it wants, and gets Oklahoma (whuich wikll have split into Oklahoma and Sequoyah), and probably the rest of the Gulf South.
Miami becomes a city-state.
California takes whatever of the West wants to go.
Andm, I said, The Indians wil take back western Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas.
They'll reform as united States of America, using the old Constitution as a starting point, but probably incorporating NAFTA and CAFTA.
Heels still dug in.
No body is going to unite with California, but Mexico will take the southern 2/3rds of it, and you can be sure that Utah and a chunk of Idaho would go to the Saints. Washington, N. California, and Oregon will unite with Brittish Columbia.
It is more likely that Mexico will take back Texas. NO, cancel that "will", Mexico has done taken back Texas. The Texagrigos just haven't seen it yet.
Western Oklahoma will go with the Tribes as will the northern parts of New Mexico & Arizona, and Western Colorado(the Colorado Piedmont will be a Strassenburg State. Because there will be no water up on the Llano everything north of what was Lubbock will go with the Tribes as well. Actually I suspect there will be the North Tribes and the South Tribes. The N. Platte will be the boundary between them.
Post a Comment
It is more likely that Mexico will take back Texas. NO, cancel that "will", Mexico has done taken back Texas. The Texagrigos just haven't seen it yet.
Western Oklahoma will go with the Tribes as will the northern parts of New Mexico & Arizona, and Western Colorado(the Colorado Piedmont will be a Strassenburg State. Because there will be no water up on the Llano everything north of what was Lubbock will go with the Tribes as well. Actually I suspect there will be the North Tribes and the South Tribes. The N. Platte will be the boundary between them.
<< Home
