We are *expletive deleted*ed

[longeyes]

You're obviously unfamiliar with actual war then.

No, please enlighten me about what an "actual war" is.  You think what is going on in Detroit or, for that matter, the Hollywood Hills is not part of The War?  I humbly recommend you deepen your imagination.  I understand the literal implications, and I do not seek war, "real" or metaphorical, but the failure to realize that we are already in a war to the death means we are going to lose.  And so far we are.  The "answer" isn't necessarily to pick up a rifle but we do need to think like warriors if only to know when to pull back and wait and prepare.  My life has been about creating, not warmaking; right now I expect to do even more of the former.

Listen, Balog, I avoid taking on APS folks personally.  Always have.  I just offer my thoughts here.  Your bitch is not with me, never was, never will be.  But sometimes it sounds as if it is.

[Balog]

No, please enlighten me about what an "actual war" is.  You think what is going on in Detroit or, for that matter, the Hollywood Hills is not part of The War?  I humbly recommend you deepen your imagination.  I understand the literal implications, and I do not seek war, "real" or metaphorical, but the failure to realize that we are already in a war to the death means we are going to lose.  And so far we are.  The "answer" isn't necessarily to pick up a rifle but we do need to think like warriors if only to know when to pull back and wait and prepare.  My life has been about creating, not warmaking; right now I expect to do even more of the former.

Listen, Balog, I avoid taking on APS folks personally.  Always have.  I just offer my thoughts here.  Your bitch is not with me, never was, never will be.  But sometimes it sounds as if it is.

You're not stupid, so I'm fairly certain I don't actually need to enlighten you on the meaning of simple and obvious words. When guys in tanks are calling in air strikes on entrenched defensive positions in Detroit you can call it a war. The political process being followed and you not getting your way? That's not a war.

I disagree with some of your conclusions. My "bitch"  is with the way you present them. And a whole lotta folks on this board are tired of it too.

[Hawkmoon]

Not the majority of voters (those who voted for Obama). They thought it was a choice between a moderate center/leftist and a job-outsourcer that also takes away health care.

Not around here. Around here, two groups voted for Obama:

1. Blacks -- because he is black. That was their ONLY criterion.

2. Union members -- because he is a Democrat, and unions vote for Democrats. And THAT was their only criterion.

Neither group understood or cared one single iota about the economy or about what reelecting Obama is likely to mean for their children and grandchildren.

[Hawkmoon]

That's cute. Like I said, good luck fighting that Civil War over again. I'm sure this time will be different.

It almost certainly would be different. Compare how many major military bases there are in the south and west (excluding California) compared to how many there are in the blue states.

[Hawkmoon]

All of this is one of the reasons I moved to Alabama. I wanted to live in a conservative state, after 50+ years of living in a semi-socialist one. It was nice to see just a handful of Obama bumper stickers, and no Obama lawn signs. Not one. I didn't have to listen to anyone sing his praises.

As evidence (perhaps) of just how engaged the populace was with this election, I live in a blue state that voted heavily for Obama this time around. Yet during the run-up to the election, I was astonished that I didn't see ONE single lawn sign for Obama ... and very, very few for Romney. There were some for our representative in Congress and for U.S. senator, but not that many. The vast majority of the lawn signs were for the contested seats in the state legislature.

I think people just turned off this year -- and the fact that significantly fewer people (overall) voted this time than last time confirms it.

[longeyes]

You're not stupid, so I'm fairly certain I don't actually need to enlighten you on the meaning of simple and obvious words. When guys in tanks are calling in air strikes on entrenched defensive positions in Detroit you can call it a war. The political process being followed and you not getting your way? That's not a war.

I disagree with some of your conclusions. My "bitch"   is with the way you present them. And a whole lotta folks on this board are tired of it too.

Intellectually you are way above your paygrade, my friend.  I couldn't care less what you think of how I present my ideas. You are no judge. Maybe I am a bit tired of some of the people on this board too, have you ever thought of that?  But I keep that to myself.  Thanks for the vote of confidence about my intelligence, but anytime you really want to compare resumes I will be happy to oblige you.  Meanwhile, go with God.

[longeyes]

You're not stupid, so I'm fairly certain I don't actually need to enlighten you on the meaning of simple and obvious words. When guys in tanks are calling in air strikes on entrenched defensive positions in Detroit you can call it a war. The political process being followed and you not getting your way? That's not a war.

I disagree with some of your conclusions. My "bitch"   is with the way you present them. And a whole lotta folks on this board are tired of it too.

And be a good fellow and let me know when the war starts, okay?

Oh, one more thing: This is exactly why the conservative movement is in such trouble, asinine squabbling among people who should be on the same side. But you obviously want to score some points to prove something about yourself. Why don't you just state your views and leave it at that?  If you don't like what I say just pass on and let it go. That's what I do with you.

[longeyes]

You're not stupid, so I'm fairly certain I don't actually need to enlighten you on the meaning of simple and obvious words. When guys in tanks are calling in air strikes on entrenched defensive positions in Detroit you can call it a war. The political process being followed and you not getting your way? That's not a war.

I disagree with some of your conclusions. My "bitch"  is with the way you present them. And a whole lotta folks on this board are tired of it too.

I read this again.  Don't ask me why but I did.  Lost on you is the fact that we stopped being a really representative government quite a long time ago.  The political process is a travesty.  The war starts in your mind. It is what makes you fight and determines who you fight. Most Americans are not in control of that.

[Cliffh]

I had a talk with a neighbor last night while we both took our trash carts to the street. We got on to the subject of politics, and eventually to the discussion of what to do, including some form of revolution or secession.

This guy is a prominent businessman, a former president of the local chamber of commerce, and very influential in politics. When someone like that starts talking about revolution or secession, you know things have gone too far.

I had a similar discussion with my doctor (60ish yr old) the day after the election.  He talked of how he and his wife are afraid of the direction the country is heading, how he hasn't seen so many depressed patients since 911, and how it wouldn't be a bad thing for Texas to secede.  My response was that I'm keeping my eye on Arizona, they've been pushing back at the Fed's for a while now - and the AZ mountains aren't a bad place to live. 

If a state (or more than one) decided to disassociate itself from the Union, would a shooting war be an absolute?  First, what would the Union gain by attacking the state?  And would the non-violent types in the Union actually support such an attack?

[zxcvbob]

If a state (or more than one) decided to disassociate itself from the Union, would a shooting war be an absolute?  First, what would the Union gain by attacking the state?  And would the non-violent types in the Union actually support such an attack?

I don't think the military would support it, but you bet your ass the thousands of combined federal LEO's would.  (Why do you think every agency has its own police force?)  OTOH, the state controls the national guard and the reserves -- unless they are already tied up overseas.

I predict the next civil war will start in AZ, and it'll be the feds starting a [literal] battle with one of the border sheriffs; the sheriff will be better armed than they expect and the governor will send the state police for backup and it all goes to hell very quickly after that.

OTOH,  Colorado's recent marahuana legalization could be the spark that sets it off.

A lot of the western states are getting fed up (pardon the pun)

[RoadKingLarry]

If a state (or more than one) decided to disassociate itself from the Union, would a shooting war be an absolute?  First, what would the Union gain by attacking the state?  And would the non-violent types in the Union actually support such an attack?

 Have a few SF types (contractors?) or drones take out the leadership of the rebellious faction. Make an example of a few "pillars of the community" and most likely any rebellion would be over. The MSM would portray it as a handful of "angry white right-wing nutjob extremists domestic terrorists". Most of the country would never know the truth and then a new sports season would start and life would go on. Any further domestic terrorism would be dealt with as it deserves and hell, while they're at it, never let a crisis go to waste, darn good time for some sensible gun control legislation.

[longeyes]

If and when the D.C. boys start making examples of people, whatever warp and woof of the social fabric is left will be torn asunder.  That means no one will be safe, not people in government, not people in the media, not people in academia, no one.  If two guys in a car with a sniper rifle could shut down D.C. for two weeks you can only imagine what America might look like when the seething rage that lies not that far under the surface is unleashed.  There are limits to stupidity and apathy, yes, even in football season...

That doesn't mean I don't think someone Up There will do something stupid to show who's boss.  In fact, I think it's inevitable, sadly.

[Cliffh]

It would be hard for the MSM to cover up if the elected State .gov were the ones to initiate the separation.

[kgbsquirrel]

It would be hard for the MSM to cover up if the elected State .gov were the ones to initiate the separation.

You don't have to cover up what you just don't report. "Today's top news, a bunch of dyed blond self-absorbed trust-fund sluts did something incredibly stupid and will be given special treatment by the courts that a common plebe would never receive."

[lupinus]

Have a few SF types (contractors?) or drones take out the leadership of the rebellious faction. Make an example of a few "pillars of the community" and most likely any rebellion would be over. The MSM would portray it as a handful of "angry white right-wing nutjob extremists domestic terrorists". Most of the country would never know the truth and then a new sports season would start and life would go on. Any further domestic terrorism would be dealt with as it deserves and hell, while they're at it, never let a crisis go to waste, darn good time for some sensible gun control legislation.

The problem is that once that happens the federal.gov runs at least even odds of galvanizing such a rebellion or having more states go ape *expletive deleted*it.

It's one thing when you are pushing states around with legislation or courts, it's a whole different ball game when you actually send bullets and bombs their way.

[lysander6]

One guarantee:  the Federal response will be brutal and overreaching and the train of unintended consequences will move out of the station.  And cops will do what they are told, they serve and protect...the government.

[birdman]

One guarantee:  the Federal response will be brutal and overreaching and the train of unintended consequences will move out of the station.  And cops will do what they are told, they serve and protect...the government.

In cities, I would agree,
In some large fraction of smaller municipalities, depending on region, yeah, probably.

But depending on region, there is going to be a point between federal and local where the police are going to resist, or at least become MUCH less "effective" at performing their new "duties"

[lee n. field]

I had a similar discussion with my doctor (60ish yr old) the day after the election.  He talked of how he and his wife are afraid of the direction the country is heading,

(I'll be ordering a copy.)

how he hasn't seen so many depressed patients since 911

Economics.  We're getting poorer.  Folks realize it.  It can't be hidden,  can't be papered over.

, and how it wouldn't be a bad thing for Texas to secede.  My response was that I'm keeping my eye on Arizona, they've been pushing back at the Fed's for a while now - and the AZ mountains aren't a bad place to live. 

If a state (or more than one) decided to disassociate itself from the Union, would a shooting war be an absolute?  First, what would the Union gain by attacking the state?  And would the non-violent types in the Union actually support such an attack?

Secession means you all of a sudden have "foreign relations" .that being part of the United State buffered you from.  Could Arizona handle Mexico?  Could Texas?  Arizona is landlocked.  Not good.

[Ben]

(I'll be ordering a copy.)

Excellent book, you'll like it.

[zxcvbob]

Secession means you all of a sudden have "foreign relations" .that being part of the United State buffered you from.  Could Arizona handle Mexico?  Could Texas?  Arizona is landlocked.  Not good.

What makes you think Mexico would be a hostile neighbor?  Maybe not a great neighbor, but who knows.

Texas would be just fine, it has a major seaport, oil and gas reserves, and its own electrical grid.

[RoadKingLarry]

Of course Arizona could just renegotiate water sales to So-Cal.

[Hawkmoon]

Suggested reading: The Ashes series, by the late William Johnstone.

[SADShooter]

Suggested reading: The Ashes series, by the late William Johnstone.

The first few books, anyway. After the first four or five the plots went off the rails.

[Cliffh]

Secession means you all of a sudden have "foreign relations" .that being part of the United State buffered you from.  Could Arizona handle Mexico?  Could Texas?  Arizona is landlocked.  Not good.

Of course it would mean instituting a Foreign Relations Dept. ASAP, best done prior to separating.  

I was considering that some of the political work could be done prior to the actual separation, such as negotiating with States and countries, but that would increase the chances of word getting out prematurely.  

While it's possible that Mexico would try to expand, Texas does have some modern armament - and the will to use it.  Some of the neighboring States might want to get involved on Texas' side too; to stay on Texas' good side, to thwart Mexico, etc.  

As was mentioned, Texas has the infrastructure and reserves to survive on its own for a while, at least.  Arizona doesn't have the resources Texas does, they might have a harder time of it.

I'm still not convinced that a shooting war would have to occur.  What is so important about making someone stay in your organization (Union) if they don't want to belong that you'd kill hundreds, thousands or more?

edited for spelling

[charby]

Of course Arizona could just renegotiate water sales to So-Cal.

And Colorado could cut off most of Arizona's water.