Hey all you Texans...........

[Peek a Boo]

Umm...yeah...I have a good time with jokes, etc..but the term "teabagger" is really really bad - I didn't see anyone else mention this, but it isn't one that people that participated in the Tea Parties would use (unless they have no idea what it is really meaning). No one else mentioned this - so thought I would.

 

For those of you that don't know:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagging

Yeah - probably don't want to open this up with the wee children around.

 

Those in the media that started calling people that were going to these Tea Parties knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

 

 

I'm betting Dot knew exactly what she was saying too ;).

what was it SpyCar was saying about a classy crowd? which crowd?

:D

[chiguirre]

Here's the Chron's article about the money TX has already accepted (with Gov. Perry's approval) and the budget debates that will take place today. It's always nice to have your cake and eat it too...

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6377814.html

[Peek a Boo]

Here's the Chron's article about the money TX has already accepted (with Gov. Perry's approval) and the budget debates that will take place today. It's always nice to have your cake and eat it too...

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6377814.html

 

perfect!!

 

Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, defended Perry, saying the funds are made up of Texas tax dollars anyway, and if Texans didn’t take them, the money would go to other states.

 

“It’s not like Washington is sending us money they made selling souvenirs at the Barack Obama gift shop,†Patrick said.

 

so we'll just keep OUR money too :)

[Perry]

Boy howdy!

But hey, there's plenty room for at least 3 more people, because we'll be exiting this state in the next few months.

 

Come on up to Iowa. We'd be happy to have you!

[Danestress]

If you want to be an American, stay. If you want America to change, work for change and vote. If you vote and lose, keep working.

 

But to me, this attitude is a big part of what is wrong with America. Don't like your marriage? Walk out. Mad at your pastor? Leave in a huff. Disappointed that your candidate didn't win? Secede.

 

My husband is a sixth generation Texan, and he's so disgusted.

[Murphy101]

Heck yeah! That man has gonads the size of... erm, TEXAS! :thumbup:

 

snorting coffee on keyboard :lol:

 

I agree w/ Michelle about SS.

Not to mention that the state is capable of setting up a voluntary retirement system for those wanting to keep SS. Many people over 65 have asked for quite awhile for the opportunity to opt out.

 

As for any other federal funds rec'd, I'd count it as payment for political pain and suffering or breach of contract w/ our Constitution and leave it at that. ;)

 

there you go.:iagree:

 

Umm...yeah...I have a good time with jokes, etc..but the term "teabagger" is really really bad

 

oh. yuck.:ack2: way too early in the morning to be reading that!

 

 

well now for those that don't know, Texas has always had the option to secede. It was part of the deal when they joined the union.

 

frankly I agree with them.

 

the reality is even if they seceeded they'd be sunk pretty quick. (anyone care to lay bets how quick the US and/or mexico would block texas trading in the gulf?)

 

and from a strategic position, the US would be danged dumb to let TX go purely from a military stragetic location perspective.

 

all the facts of reality aside....

 

what the governor really is sending up the brass to the feds is that the people are NOT happy with them and if enough people aren't happy with their gov't...

 

history has shown that they can and they will remove that gov't for a better one.

 

and texas could comparitivly easily do so for themselves.

 

so.

 

what I want to know is will the feds take this seriously?

 

and if so will they be stupid and fuel the fire by calling Texans terrorists or will they be smart and actually enact some change that the people want?

[clwcain]

If you want to be an American, stay. If you want America to change, work for change and vote. If you vote and lose, keep working.

 

But to me, this attitude is a big part of what is wrong with America. Don't like your marriage? Walk out. Mad at your pastor? Leave in a huff. Disappointed that your candidate didn't win? Secede.

 

My husband is a sixth generation Texan, and he's so disgusted.

 

When the Constitution has been violated beyond repair and the deck is stacked against anything other than Jacobin tyranny, the only sane option is to leave.

 

You can't negotiate with an abusive spouse. And the abusive spouse is now in control of this country.

[Murphy101]

what clwcain said although I wouldn't quite yet say the abuser has all the power. yet.

 

If you want to be an American, stay. If you want America to change, work for change and vote. If you vote and lose, keep working.

 

But to me, this attitude is a big part of what is wrong with America. Don't like your marriage? Walk out. Mad at your pastor? Leave in a huff. Disappointed that your candidate didn't win? Secede.

 

My husband is a sixth generation Texan, and he's so disgusted.

 

yeah.. I keep hearing that anyone who doesn't want to be an american should leave. And I even agree with it.

 

problem is most of Texas does want to be American, just can't be that if you have a gov't that is becoming unamerican though.

[Remudamom]

Eeks, for those that don't know, every state used to have the right to suceed.

[liltrees]

all the facts of reality aside....

 

what the governor really is sending up the brass to the feds is that the people are NOT happy with them and if enough people aren't happy with their gov't...

 

 

:iagree:

[Aubrey]

Sorry guys, but with those "cute" Rick Perry gonad comments, it was just too hard to pass by. As for "classy", Peek ? I'd think those that can giggle for dozens upon dozens of pages about "TEA parties", wax jobs, and sex toys wouldn't bat an eye at a joke like that.

 

Those who giggled about TEA parties may not be the same ones who are here. Besides, we all know that discussing a topic & being called names are not the same thing.

 

Fwiw, I wasn't offended by the TEA party thread. I'm not offended by these remarks, either, but that's mainly because I was taught that what we say about other people is more a reflection of who we are than who they are.

[Murphy101]

Eeks, for those that don't know, every state used to have the right to suceed.

 

 

well yes.. and no...

 

it should also be noted that TX did join the confederates in the civil war

(a civil war that would not have happened if the Union (northern states) had let the southern states sucede)

 

so can any state give the feds the flip and go do their own thing?

sure they have that option

can they actually do it?

maybe with enough fire-power and citizens who want it (or enough citizens who aren't willing to fight against it)

and the right new friends that I'm sure would pop up (hmmm I wonder if texas' would buddy up with mexico? nothign unites like a common enemy)

 

hmmm....

this has all sparked some interesting conversation here at my school table this morning...

we're wrapping up our american history studies for the year this month and this is all very interesting to us

[Debbie in OR]

just can't be that if you have a gov't that is becoming unamerican though.

 

 

Yep...at the rate we're going (220 years to build the Republic so it is, comparatively, sliding downhill quickly), we will be EurCubAmerica in record time. Texas may be the only real America remaining.

 

Hopefully, however, the sleeping giant is being awakened and it won't come to that. :patriot:

[clwcain]

Actually, 250-300 years is about the limit for a republic. Rome's lasted about that long, as did Venice. And those were relatively homogenous, aristocratic republics which are inherently more stable.

 

A heterogenous, commercial republic obsessed as ours is with democracy and equalitarian delusions would be very lucky to last that long.

[KidsHappen]

Umm...yeah...I have a good time with jokes, etc..but the term "teabagger" is really really bad - I didn't see anyone else mention this, but it isn't one that people that participated in the Tea Parties would use (unless they have no idea what it is really meaning). No one else mentioned this - so thought I would.

 

For those of you that don't know:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagging

Yeah - probably don't want to open this up with the wee children around.

 

Those in the media that started calling people that were going to these Tea Parties knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

 

I have a pretty good sense of humor (and I did laugh when I heard them use this term) but was horrified when I heard others using it thinking it was a good nickname. Most of you probably already know..but if not...I feel obsessed with making sure you know.

 

Yeah, call me naive and sheltered but I had to look it up when it was mentioned previously. And well, my opinion of the opposition that is using this term, um, classy! :glare:

[teamturner]

Boy howdy! That's perfect then, for a teabagger party!

But hey, there's plenty room for at least 3 more people, because we'll be exiting this state in the next few months.

 

Wow, just wow! Your disgusting comment is going to get this thread closed! Classy indeed. :glare:

[Jami]

Actually, 250-300 years is about the limit for a republic. Rome's lasted about that long, as did Venice. And those were relatively homogenous, aristocratic republics which are inherently more stable.

 

A heterogenous, commercial republic obsessed as ours is with democracy and equalitarian delusions would be very lucky to last that long.

 

 

This might be a good thread for me to post this

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

 

:001_smile:

[Spy Car]

I'm betting Dot knew exactly what she was saying too ;).

what was it SpyCar was saying about a classy crowd? which crowd?

:D

 

I hate to appear the naif (especially as I'm not an unworldly fellow) but I'd never heard the "linked" meaning of the term till now.

 

So what do you call it? A little "grace" may be in order?

 

Bill

[clwcain]

This might be a good thread for me to post this

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

 

:001_smile:

 

I think his conclusions vis-a-vis map division and foreign influence are incorrect, but I don't disagree with the essential conclusion.

 

I think he's off on the time frame by about a decade.

 

And it presumes that those who are at war with us don't succeed in a strike on US soil before the natural frictions present within the nation result in balkanization.

 

Also, his reliance on "ethnic" lines for division is the sort of error a Russian analyst would make. It makes sense given his experience of people, particularly in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet empire, but it really doesn't obtain in the unique environment that is the US.

[teamturner]

Actually, 250-300 years is about the limit for a republic. Rome's lasted about that long, as did Venice. And those were relatively homogenous, aristocratic republics which are inherently more stable.

 

A heterogenous, commercial republic obsessed as ours is with democracy and equalitarian delusions would be very lucky to last that long.

 

I am happy for the state's rights discussion but seccession is not an option for me. I'm not an expert on Roman history, but wasn't one of their downfalls that they became divided and were thus weakened. I keep thinking of the saying, "United we stand, divided we fall." I think we should remind the critics of these protests that our objective is to correct what we see wrong with America, not abandon it. At least that's my pov.

[clwcain]

I'm not an expert on Roman history, but wasn't one of their downfalls that they became divided and were thus weakened.

 

No.

[Debbie in OR]

Actually, 250-300 years is about the limit for a republic. Rome's lasted about that long, as did Venice. And those were relatively homogenous, aristocratic republics which are inherently more stable.

 

A heterogenous, commercial republic obsessed as ours is with democracy and equalitarian delusions would be very lucky to last that long.

 

Yeahbut....

 

just because it's precedent, does that mean it's inevitable???

[LilyK]

I'm not an expert on Roman history, but wasn't one of their downfalls that they became divided and were thus weakened. I keep thinking of the saying, "United we stand, divided we fall."

 

If you are talking about the Diocletian division, I think that was more because of the the existing weakness than a cause of it.

[Murphy101]

This might be a good thread for me to post this

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

 

:001_smile:

 

fasinating reading on the boards today...

 

I hate to appear the naif (especially as I'm not an unworldly fellow) but I'd never heard the "linked" meaning of the term till now.

 

So what do you call it? A little "grace" may be in order?

 

Bill

 

:iagree:I would never ever in my wildest dreams have made such a nasty connection. Seems like everything these days has some sick conotation if one researches enough or just has a sick enough mind. Why the rest of us have to be punish for the sick mind of others is beyond me.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if forever here after the term referred to what it should have referred to in the first place? democracic voice in action?:001_smile:

[clwcain]

Yeahbut....

 

just because it's precedent, does that mean it's inevitable???

 

Human nature hasn't changed since the Fall. Based on that, I answer in the affirmative.

 

A republic is an inherently unstable form of government because it is fatherless government.

 

As the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment observed, a commercial society cannot produce virtue. It can only spend the virtue accumulated by the martial society that it supplants.

 

Combine the inherent instability of republican government with the inability to produce moral capital of a commercial society, and you have a recipe for failure.

 

It may be the best government man has ever conceived of for himself. And therein lies the problem.

[Murphy101]

I am happy for the state's rights discussion but seccession is not an option for me.

 

I keep thinking of the saying, "United we stand, divided we fall."

 

no one is saying it has or even should be an option.

 

well I'm not anyways.

 

*I* am just having a friendly exploratory discussion of interest (just in case the PTB are reading this and flagging me as a terrorist!)

 

however, "united we stand" does not neccessarily equal a good or a success

 

standing united on a sinking ship is not a great thing to ponder either.

 

if we are to stand together, let it be for common ground (literally and politically) and a united just purpose.

 

because otherwise, we're just standing on a sinking ship together and getting mad at those who jump off in the hope of living free.

 

like I said, the governor is really stating what the feds seem to have forgotten, this country was born of people deciding to over-throw an unjust gov't. and if this gov't isn't careful, history could repeat itself.

 

I don't think any sane person wants history to repeat this.

I think we'd all rather see positive change instead.

[Spy Car]

When I think of what our last civil war cost us - on so many levels - I am sickened by the use of secession talk in calculated political posturing... and am deeply uncomfortable with hearing it tossed about so lightly.

 

Union is hard - like marriage. We encompass so many differences, so many philosophies, so many different visions of what this country is and should be... and many of those seem mutually incompatible. And even our central document is viewed/interpreted in so many different ways. I know I interpret the second amendment, for example, much differently than many Texans (or Texan sympathizers!)...

 

Sometimes, especially when pain or outrage is at its height, extreme measures are really appealing - just pack and leave! ...but actually acting on that impulse of passion is irresponsible in the extreme.

 

We aren't housemates, sharing some living space while retaining complete autonomy - that ended when we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution and became one nation... as the original version of the pledge of allegiance said: "“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.†It's a marriage... and it has been a challenging one from the beginning - our Constitution is the product, not of a single vision or set of ideals, but of a painfully hammered out set of compromises.. an ongoing process. ...both the pain and the compromise.

 

But we formed a union for a lot of reasons - for the benefit of both the nation as a whole and for the (at least perceived) benefit of we the people... and those reasons still hold even when my visions aren't the ones winning out in the painful process of compromise.

 

 

... and I think posturing is cowardice, not courage at all. Courage involves risk, even sacrifice - not content-less grandstanding. We need leaders with the courage to engage in meaningful dialogue, in constructive debate... and who have the courage and integrity to find honorable compromises for the common good.

 

Beautifully said!

[laylamcb]

Beautifully said!

 

:001_huh:

 

Bill. Come now. Sickened? Deeply uncomfortable? About people exercising their first amendment right to express their frustration with the direction the country is going?

 

I will agree with the previous poster on one point: There's a whole lot of posturing goin' on (though it appears to be in the eye of the beholder).

 

I like you. And so I'm going to get in my little red convertible and skeedaddle before my head explodes and I say something stoopid. :auto:

[Jenny in Atl]

Actually, 250-300 years is about the limit for a republic. Rome's lasted about that long, as did Venice. And those were relatively homogenous, aristocratic republics which are inherently more stable.

 

A heterogenous, commercial republic obsessed as ours is with democracy and equalitarian delusions would be very lucky to last that long.

 

I hate to say, but I have to agree. A republic is not an easy thing to maintain, and far too many have divested their interest in being an active part of this grand experiment called the U.S.A

[laylamcb]

I hate to say, but I have to agree. A republic is not an easy thing to maintain, and far too many have divested their interest in being an active part of this grand experiment called the U.S.A

 

:iagree:, except not with a big fat smile on my face, if you know what I mean.

[clwcain]

I hate to say, but I have to agree. A republic is not an easy thing to maintain, and far too many have divested their interest in being an active part of this grand experiment called the U.S.A

 

Far too many support a vision of the United States that is anathema to its founding principles and are intent upon compelling those of us who do respect the founding principles to accept their POV.

[Aubrey]

Sometimes, especially when pain or outrage is at its height, extreme measures are really appealing - just pack and leave! ...but actually acting on that impulse of passion is irresponsible in the extreme.

 

We aren't housemates, sharing some living space while retaining complete autonomy - that ended when we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution and became one nation... as the original version of the pledge of allegiance said: "“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.†It's a marriage... and it has been a challenging one from the beginning - our Constitution is the product, not of a single vision or set of ideals, but of a painfully hammered out set of compromises.. an ongoing process. ...both the pain and the compromise.

 

But we formed a union for a lot of reasons - for the benefit of both the nation as a whole and for the (at least perceived) benefit of we the people... and those reasons still hold even when my visions aren't the ones winning out in the painful process of compromise.

 

First, I'm not arguing that we should secede, only w/ the principles you've outlined here.

 

On the one hand, sure, being a union is hard, & we have to fight for it, respect ea others' differences, yield a little, etc.

 

But if seceding were *always* irresponsible, then we should return to England's rule, kwim? Some people thought the Am Rev was irresponsible. There was dissension then, too. What made it right? I think mainly the fact that we won. You know, to the victor goes the writing of history.

 

Ultimately, I think secession talk should be reserved for *very* serious conversations which are the result of deeply violated rights combined with people of courage who are willing to die, not for their own impeded freedom, but others'. Because they will most likely not live to see the results.

[Aubrey]

Far too many support a vision of the United States that is anathema to its founding principles and are intent upon compelling those of us who do respect the founding principles to accept their POV.

 

This is very well stated.

[brehon]

When I think of what our last civil war cost us - on so many levels - I am sickened by the use of secession talk in calculated political posturing... and am deeply uncomfortable with hearing it tossed about so lightly.

 

Union is hard - like marriage. We encompass so many differences, so many philosophies, so many different visions of what this country is and should be... and many of those seem mutually incompatible. And even our central document is viewed/interpreted in so many different ways. I know I interpret the second amendment, for example, much differently than many Texans (or Texan sympathizers!)...

 

Sometimes, especially when pain or outrage is at its height, extreme measures are really appealing - just pack and leave! ...but actually acting on that impulse of passion is irresponsible in the extreme.

 

We aren't housemates, sharing some living space while retaining complete autonomy - that ended when we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution and became one nation... as the original version of the pledge of allegiance said: "“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.†It's a marriage... and it has been a challenging one from the beginning - our Constitution is the product, not of a single vision or set of ideals, but of a painfully hammered out set of compromises.. an ongoing process. ...both the pain and the compromise.

 

But we formed a union for a lot of reasons - for the benefit of both the nation as a whole and for the (at least perceived) benefit of we the people... and those reasons still hold even when my visions aren't the ones winning out in the painful process of compromise.

 

 

... and I think posturing is cowardice, not courage at all. Courage involves risk, even sacrifice - not content-less grandstanding. We need leaders with the courage to engage in meaningful dialogue, in constructive debate... and who have the courage and integrity to find honorable compromises for the common good.

 

You know, Eliana, I don't disagree with you. And my family was horrendously affected by the War -- to the point that it was a living, breathing entity even in my grandparents' time (and they were both born in the 'teens). I view the responses in this thread more as venting than actively planning secession. And, in my humble opinion, at least, there's a lot to vent about right now.

 

I mentioned in my previous reply that I'm not generally a Perry fan. Many of the Texans who replied on this thread also indicated that heretofore they hadn't been very impressed with him either. There are real reasons for that, but I promise I won't bore you to tears with TX politics. I do think he was posturing. And, you're right, posturing is easy. It takes courage to take meaningful action.

 

***Important Disclaimer*** I am not advocating secession or anything like that for TX. I know others who would.

 

The difference *to me* between the Constitutional Conventions during Revolutionary times and now is that everyone knew that there were compromises which had to be made. That's the whole reason we have a Bill of Rights -- the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are the Federalists compromising so that the Anti-Federalists would ratify the Constitution. One of the biggest anti-Federalists states at that time, in fact, was New York. The Bill of Rights is NOT granting the people certain rights; it is really limiting the federal government's power. Now, however, there doesn't appear to be any real compromising happening between the federal gov't and the states/the people. The federal gov't is simply declaring what will be without truly consulting the people. This isn't a new phenomenon nor is it limited to any one party/ideological philosophy. I think many people (both here on the boards and, for me, IRL) are tired of having no meaningful say in the running of their gov't. It's incredibly difficult to have a constructive dialogue/debate when one party (and FTR I don't mean political party) refuses.

 

*To me* the best thing that could come from these Tea Parties is that the federal gov't realizes that it MUST consult the people. And that it, too, must compromise. An added benefit would be if the federal gov't starts adhering to that same Constitution it worked so hard to achieve in the first place.

 

And to re-iterate, I don't advocate secession either philosophically or practically. I have ancestors who fought with Sam Houston at San Jacinto. And Houston himself never advocated (and actively fought against) secession the first time.

[clwcain]

Philosophical outrage or dislike of a tax code don't seem to me enough to bring that carnage and pain into our country again.

 

 

I think it is. Particularly when combined with abortion, so-called gay marriage, the assault on faith in the public sphere, continued violations of the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Amendments, and a host of other nonsense.

 

Nationalism is an ugly thing, even in America. A desire for union, when none exists in fact, will require a police state to enforce. I'd rather see the union dissolved than the trappings of this once-great commercial Federal Republic parodied in the service of a Jacobin-Marxist police state.

[5kidsforME]

When I think of what our last civil war cost us - on so many levels - I am sickened by the use of secession talk in calculated political posturing... and am deeply uncomfortable with hearing it tossed about so lightly.

 

 

 

Eliana, time to put on your big girl panties. You've been aorund these boards long enough to be able to handle a little disagreement, yes?

[Spy Car]

A republic is an inherently unstable form of government because it is fatherless government.

 

 

What would be a "fatherfull" government?

[clwcain]

What would be a "fatherfull" government?

Monarchy. preferably a Catholic monarchy.

 

The real thing, not the secularized, centralized, authoritarian model that came into being with gunpowder, the printing press, and the Protestant religion.

 

But that's a discussion for another time and place.

[Elaine]

:001_huh:

 

Bill. Come now. Sickened? Deeply uncomfortable? About people exercising their first amendment right to express their frustration with the direction the country is going?

 

I will agree with the previous poster on one point: There's a whole lot of posturing goin' on (though it appears to be in the eye of the beholder).

 

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

There are a lot of things that sicken me, but folks exercising their rights is not one of them.

[Mommyof4ks]

Love being in Texas- can't imagine ever leaving! This is a recent quote from Texas Governor Perry....

 

"Every child is entitled to a public education, but public education is not entitled to every child."

 

He is on a roll! :D

 

I had not heard that line, but I love it!!

 

We love Texas too! Born and raised!

[OnTheBrink]

 

Yes, I can handle most disagreements (though not a recent Holocaust discussion), but handling is different than staying quiet. ...and I feel that expressing my discomfort with what seems to me casual, sometimes even gleeful suggestions of secession is completely appropriate.

 

I guess I don't understand the point. If the conversation makes you uncomfortable, why participate? There are topics that spring up here from time to time that make me uncomfortable. I choose to stay out of them. I could choose to post how uncomfortable and sick the conversation is to me, but, to what end?

 

You certainly have the right to post your discomfort; that's not the issue, I guess I just wonder, Why bother? The conversation won't end because of one person's discomfort over the issue.

[Debbie in OR]

Well, durnitall! :sad: I guess I am either naive or stubborn :glare: but I am unwilling to sing the death knell of our republic. Not yet.:D

[Murphy101]

I strongly support citizens voicing their opinions - their outrage. I believe that speaking out when we feel our country is doing wrong or it headed down a wrong path is part of our patriotic duty. ...and I believe there is a time and place for nonviolent civil disobedience as well.

 

voicing the truth - that the fed gov't needs to remember that is purely by the will of the people that it exists is not a bad idea. fed gov't tends to forget things like that

 

voicing the truth that if the gov't does forget it and refuses to correct the error of it's way the people will form a new gov't is also not a bad idea.

 

because the sad truth is, if the people do not have the teeth to match their bark, the gov't really has no reason or desire to give a flip what they think or want.

 

it's not saying, "hey let's all ditch and pitch our tents somewhere else."

 

it's simply saying we will if we feel we must to be free

[Murphy101]

Well, durnitall! :sad: I guess I am either naive or stubborn :glare: but I am unwilling to sing the death knell of our republic. Not yet.:D

 

me neither!:D

[LisaNY]

Sorry guys, but with those "cute" Rick Perry gonad comments, it was just too hard to pass by. As for "classy", Peek ? I'd think those that can giggle for dozens upon dozens of pages about "TEA parties", wax jobs, and sex toys wouldn't bat an eye at a joke like that.

 

I wasn't giggling then, and I'm not giggling now. Gross. :blink:

[Audrey]

Actually, 250-300 years is about the limit for a republic. Rome's lasted about that long, as did Venice. And those were relatively homogenous, aristocratic republics which are inherently more stable.

 

A heterogenous, commercial republic obsessed as ours is with democracy and equalitarian delusions would be very lucky to last that long.

 

 

You know what? I agree with you on this 100%. I have had this discussion with others numerous times. Historically speaking, republics always fail to hold. Time has shown us that successive generations have deigned to learn nothing from history. History is doomed to repeat itself.

 

On all this "talk" of secession... if you (not you specifically clwcain, but those speaking of it) really mean it, then back it up and do something about it. Talking about it is meaningless. It's posturing. It's noise just for the sake of noise. Do something.

 

In Canada, we have a province who has threated to secede. They don't just talk about it either. They formed a secessionist federal party that (while it actually has no members outside of PQ) managed to take over a significant number of seats in parliament. How many congressional seats does TX have? Enough to make a difference, I'll bet.

 

Here, PQ also puts forward referendums. Now, to date, they haven't got a majority of Quebecers to vote to pass it, but they've seriously tried it. It's far more complex than that simplistic explanation, but my point is, no one listens to people just standing around saying "Oh, wah-wah, let's secede." You have to back it up.

 

So go DO something. If that's what you really want. Organize your like-minded people. Work for it to happen. If enough people want it, then do it.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Audrey

[SherryTX]

I just saw Dr. John Lewis tonight give a lecture (it was regarding Ayn Rand on American Culture) and he discussed the Tea Parties briefly. I got to chat with him for a while after the lecture, and when I got home, I found two links that I thought you may be interested:

 

http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1830

His short speech at the Tea Party on April 1th

 

http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1831

His interview with CapMag after his speech.

 

Good stuff. He does a good job explaining the meaning of the Tea Parties, and how it isn't just the taxes we need to fight, but also the government programs.

 

Well worth watching, and both are under 10 minutes.

 

 

Regarding the link I provided to the "teabagging" comment - I only posted it because I figured some may not know what it really means. Personally, it didn't offend me - until I realized that some supporting the Tea Parties didn't understand it was actually an insult, so that is why I posted it here. So I wasn't looking to gross anyone out. But we are all adults, and I thought I would want to be told what it really meant. So sorry if I offended anyone.

[Peek a Boo]

acting on the emotional impulse of the moment is what I was labeling as irresponsible.

 

Should revolution never be considered? I would not say that, not at all, but it such a serious decision, and carries such a heavy and ugly price tag that threshold should, imo, be very high indeed.

 

Philosophical outrage or dislike of a tax code don't seem to me enough to bring that carnage and pain into our country again.

 

...and I speak as someone who has felt disenfranchised by our system for as long as I can remember. I have been outraged and horrified for as long as I can remember too.

 

I don't think many of the people discussing this are acting on one emotional impulse. Much of it is people who have been watching and like you, *continue to* be outraged and horrified.

 

how much philosophical outrage should one take?

and ftr, the state could secede peacefully --it would be up to the rest of the US to decide if they want to turn it into a war or not.

 

and yes, Audrey-- there are plenty of people putting their actions where their mouth is. But unfortunately, we are finding out that Eliana's suggestion of "resolving it w/in the established framework" doesn't work well when the framework is shoddy. It's like trying to build a new house around a frame that has been devastated by termite damage.

 

We formed a NEW union for a reason, and there's a difference between a "difficult marriage" and one where the spouse is being controlled beyond reasonable expectations that were agreed upon at the beginning.

Time for a new republic ;)

[Peek a Boo]

I hate to appear the naif (especially as I'm not an unworldly fellow) but I'd never heard the "linked" meaning of the term till now.

 

So what do you call it? A little "grace" may be in order?

 

Bill

 

nope-- check her posting history: she DID know exactly what she was saying.

so.... Mr. "I can tell unclassy when I see it" what do YOU think? ;)

 

and I'm w/ Aubrey: not everyone participates in THOSE other threads either.

 

i'm off to another Expo -tis the season ;)

[Mama Lynx]

A marriage? So, is it a marriage of the states to form the union? Or a marriage of the state to the federal government?

 

What do you do in a marriage, when one spouse shows a repeated pattern of ignoring the other, and taking away its rights?