Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on May 10, 2011, 05:49:52 PM
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberals-southern-arizona-seek-form-state-130257516.html
There's a similar movement in southern Oregon to form the State of "Jefferson." Lots of rabble-rousing in Northern California about breaking away, too. And eastern Washington.
I say, have at it. Don't let the door hit your *expletive deleted*ss on the way out, Tucson. Have fun paying for the U of A with your own tax dollars from your sanctuary city migrant hell-hole. Heck, go be part of Mexico if you'd like. By doing so, you'll set the precedent for the conservative/libertarian front to gain 6 senators from Jefferson, East Washington and NorCal. And probably shift the House more in our favor.
-
The ultimate goal of the newly formed political action committee Start our State is to split Pima County off into what would become the nation's 51st state, tentatively dubbed Baja Arizona.
Umm.... I'm a little shaky on this but wouldn't they have to apply for statehood once they secedded from AZ? I seem to recall some sort of process for becoming a state written down somewhere.
-
We all know this is just talk, right?
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberals-southern-arizona-seek-form-state-130257516.html
There's a similar movement in southern Oregon to form the State of "Jefferson." Lots of rabble-rousing in Northern California about breaking away, too. And eastern Washington.
Put it to a vote downstate, I bet we could kick Chicago out of Illinois.
-
Would this simply be the state of Aztlan or something?
-
West Virginia is the legal precedent here?
-
Yes, it's just talk, but serious matters often begin with "just talk. In a year or two the break-away phenomenon won't look so bizarre. Those who believe that through "unity" we are going to save what's left of the Founders' vision are naive. It will be clear soon enough that cooperation and co-existence with the Left are not practical and viable options for the future. See how far we get with serious budget reforms with the current cultural dynamic.
-
Yes, it's just talk, but serious matters often begin with "just talk. In a year or two the break-away phenomenon won't look so bizarre. Those who believe that through "unity" we are going to save what's left of the Founders' vision are naive. It will be clear soon enough that cooperation and co-existence with the Left are not practical and viable options for the future. See how far we get with serious budget reforms with the current cultural dynamic.
+ 100
Liberals today, conservatives in 2-5 years (and obviously for different reasons).
-
Liberals today, conservatives in 2-5 years (and obviously for different reasons).
Or sooner. The "state of Jefferson" movement in northern California and southern Oregon is largely conservative/libertarian driven. So far, it's not a serious attempt at forming a separate state as much as an expression of contempt for the status quo in Sacramento and Salem.
-
conservatives in 2-5 years (and obviously for different reasons)
What we conservatives/libertarians/other freedom loving people need to be asking ourselves is how exactly are we being represented when politicians in Washington (who haven't left since they were elected to office) and the major cities in our states dictate how we should live our lives? How are we being represented when we're screaming "NO!" on horrible legislation and our cries are promptly ignored?
Way I see it, we're being taxed without representation and legislated without representation. And I, for one, don't like it one damn bit, being made second class citizens and having our rights stripped away wholesale while our "benefactors" tell us how good it is for us.
-
Yes, it's just talk, but serious matters often begin with "just talk. In a year or two the break-away phenomenon won't look so bizarre. Those who believe that through "unity" we are going to save what's left of the Founders' vision are naive. It will be clear soon enough that cooperation and co-existence with the Left are not practical and viable options for the future. See how far we get with serious budget reforms with the current cultural dynamic.
Right, it's just talk.
The lefties aren't going to leave us. They couldn't run their own state if they tried. In the backs of their minds, they know that. Besides, they crave power over others. Secession doesn't accomplish that.
-
We all know this is just talk, right?
No no no. Remember, Alec Baldwin and Micheal Moore really left the States when Bush got reelected......oh.....
-
They couldn't run their own state if they tried.
Why couldn't they?
-
Why couldn't they?
Well, they could, but I think the point he was presenting is that any state they try to run, and with their policies, would cause the Soviet Union to look down right Methuselan.
-
Right, it's just talk.
The lefties aren't going to leave us. They couldn't run their own state if they tried. In the backs of their minds, they know that. Besides, they crave power over others. Secession doesn't accomplish that.
Talk to liberals--I have--about secession. They look aghast. They can't imagine our wanting to go our own way. That's not because they don't wish we "off in the cornfield," it's because they know the ugly truth: THEY NEED OUR MONEY. Besides, every lib I know loves the idea that they might be able to get us where they want us, dependent on them.
-
Talk to liberals--I have--about secession. They look aghast. They can't imagine our wanting to go our own way. That's not because they don't wish we "off in the cornfield," it's because they know the ugly truth: THEY NEED OUR MONEY. Besides, every lib I know loves the idea that they might be able to get us where they want us, dependent on them.
Also, the left has raised the stakes pretty high, in their tiny little minds. If they didn't control us, we would ruin the planet. We would oppress wimmins and minorities. We would start endless wars on false pretenses. We would drink black coffee (and not even fair trade coffee) in restaurants where there might also be smoking. They can't let that happen.
-
Well, they could, but I think the point he was presenting is that any state they try to run, and with their policies, would cause the Soviet Union to look down right Methuselan.
Aren't there plenty of EU countries run by these people?
-
Aren't there plenty of EU countries run by these people?
The EU is hardly a shining beacon of libtard success.
1. Invent a currency out of thin air (and angsty spite towards the US dollar)
2. Fail to create a meaningful economy
3. Bail out countries that fail to control government budgets
4. ???
5. Profit.
-
The local Seattle media periodically does stories on the issue of eastern Washington splitting off pretty much right along the Cascades. What has seemed to dampen enthusiasm for this was a cost/revenue analysis showing that the greater population in western Washington subsidizes eastern Washington pretty good from the standpoint of government services and infrastructure. As an example, on a proportionate basis, more of my gas taxes go to pay for road work in eastern Washington than here. Some of the sales tax collected in Snohomish county goes to fund government programs in eastern Washington. If eastern Washington split off, western Washington would actually save money. It is kind of like how West Germany had to increase taxes and spending to bring East Germany up to par when they reunified.
This has caused some of the Rugged Individualists in eastern Washington no little gnashing of teeth to realize that their roads, counties and rural way of life is in part subsidized by tree-hugging hipsters in Seattle driving Priuses and buying MacBooks.
I think I recall reading that the same sort of argument can be made about many of the rural Western states: that they incur more Federal dollars of benefit than they pay Federal taxes.
-
The EU is hardly a shining beacon of libtard success.
1. Invent a currency out of thin air (and angsty spite towards the US dollar)
2. Fail to create a meaningful economy
3. Bail out countries that fail to control government budgets
4. ???
5. Profit.
It's proved several things.
It's not a beacon of success in our terms, but in their terms, it proved:
1. You can run a state, indeed an entire continent, on leftist policies for decades on end.
2. While doing that, you can maintain a decent standard of living.
Now, it's not ACTUALLY proof of success, but it's not OH GOD COMPLETE FAILURE either, in the way Zimbabwe or Mexico are.
-
For proof of success, ask this simple question: Can these policies be sustained indefinitely?
Yes they did work, in the very short term and only because there was a resource surplus from prior economic policy and available labor. Now they're running out of other people's money and labor to spend in order to sustain a system the inherently operates at a loss. A set of policies whose guaranteed final conclusion is bankruptcy and collapse is not a viable governing system.
-
That isn't relevant here.
Whether I agree with you or not, people don't make political decisions based on what is true objectively. People make political decisions based on what they believe is true.
You might think Europe's society is a bad idea to emulate, but the truth is that it has not failed so grotesquely as to make European welfare states intellectually untenable. Perhaps it will, but right now, it provides leftoids reason to believe they could pull the same thing off if they only had free reign.
-
Aren't there plenty of EU countries run by these people?
Not terribly relevant. The nations of Europe were not formed by leftists seceding from larger nations. Also, it's not just a question of policy, but of people. Left-wing zealots are not the sort of people that know how to keep the trains running, so to speak.
-
Not terribly relevant. The nations of Europe were not formed by leftists seceding from larger nations. Also, it's not just a question of policy, but of people. Left-wing zealots are not the sort of people that know how to keep the trains running, so to speak.
That is not the point. The point is that the people backing this secession idea believe it will work. Thus they will push for it.
And as for left-wing zealots and trains...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpashinlife.ru%2Fuploads%2Fposts%2F2011-03%2F1301166707_565557_3.jpg&hash=67906d658452b8980472ecb7f467b7c7a60ca1bd)
-
Micro, I made the point, so I can tell you what it is. I just did. Your comparison is inapplicable, for the reasons I stated, so it matters not how many trains run.
Whether the "secessionists" really want to live in a looters-only state is not provable, and we disagree, so that's that.
-
It's proved several things.
It's not a beacon of success in our terms, but in their terms, it proved:
1. You can run a state, indeed an entire continent, on leftist policies for decades on end.
2. While doing that, you can maintain a decent standard of living.
Now, it's not ACTUALLY proof of success, but it's not OH GOD COMPLETE FAILURE either, in the way Zimbabwe or Mexico are.
Europe began with a powerful political legacy, unlike Zimbabwe or Mexico. It's going to take longer to unravel, that's all. Europe's future is either Eurabia, civil war, or both, thanks to the leftist technocrats. That "decent standard of living" and the ethos that sustains it will be seen as a post-WW II bubble in a few years.
-
Or sooner. The "state of Jefferson" movement in northern California and southern Oregon is largely conservative/libertarian driven. So far, it's not a serious attempt at forming a separate state as much as an expression of contempt for the status quo in Sacramento and Salem.
Actually I'm not sure what the CA portion of that would gain anyone on either side of the political spectrum. If you're conservative, you're still stuck with San Francisco (unless they plan the border North of there) and if you're liberal, you're stuck with the very conservative / libertarian interior. CA politics are very much split on an East / West division (with the West being a pretty thin, highly populated coastal sliver), not a North / South one.
-
Put it to a vote downstate, I bet we could kick Chicago out of Illinois.
And I bet alot of folks in Chicago would like to not be part of Illinois.
Secession YES !!!!
-
Actually I'm not sure what the CA portion of that would gain anyone on either side of the political spectrum. If you're conservative, you're still stuck with San Francisco (unless they plan the border North of there) and if you're liberal, you're stuck with the very conservative / libertarian interior. CA politics are very much split on an East / West division (with the West being a pretty thin, highly populated coastal sliver), not a North / South one.
Some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state)
The new state line would have been well to the north of San Francisco.
Yes, the political divisions nowadays generally run east/west, so reconciling the largely leftist Mendocino and Humboldt counties with the more conservative interior would be . . . interesting.
-
I love this idea. Let them try, set precedent, and then fail miserably. And then we'll make the Sovereign State of Montana. :lol:
-
I love this idea. Let them try, set precedent, and then fail miserably. And then we'll make the Sovereign State of Montana. :lol:
The precedent has already been set. They secede, and we kill half a million people in the ensuing war, then the federal gov. takes more power.
-
The precedent has already been set. They secede, and we kill half a million people in the ensuing war, then the federal gov. takes more power.
And the Statists win.
Again. :'(
-
Secession can take many forms. It does not necessarily have to end in a hot war.
-
Europe began with a powerful political legacy, unlike Zimbabwe or Mexico. It's going to take longer to unravel, that's all. Europe's future is either Eurabia, civil war, or both, thanks to the leftist technocrats. That "decent standard of living" and the ethos that sustains it will be seen as a post-WW II bubble in a few years.
Eurabia continues to be a myth. THe birth rate of the Muslim countries that contribute most immigrants is below replacement fertility.
-
Eurabia continues to be a myth. THe birth rate of the Muslim countries that contribute most immigrants is below replacement fertility.
True only if you define "Muslim countries that contribute most immigrants" as Algeria and Tunisia.
(http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2010/09/fertility_rates_of_muslim_and_nonmuslim_countries.html)
Still plenty of high TFR Muslim countries out there. With Libya no longer stopping sub-saharan migrants, expect a whole lot more black muslim illegal immigrants in Europe.
-
Secession can take many forms. It does not necessarily have to end in a hot war.
citation needed
-
citation needed
citation provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia)
-
Secession can take many forms. It does not necessarily have to end in a hot war.
Well, where's the fun in that?
-
True only if you define "Muslim countries that contribute most immigrants" as Algeria and Tunisia.
(http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2010/09/fertility_rates_of_muslim_and_nonmuslim_countries.html)
Still plenty of high TFR Muslim countries out there. With Libya no longer stopping sub-saharan migrants, expect a whole lot more black muslim illegal immigrants in Europe.
1. That document is out of date. I will be using the latest edition of the CIA World Factbook, the one from 2011.
2. The replacement fertility level varies from country to country. For Western countries, it is 2.15, for third-world countries it is as high as 3.0. The World Health Organizatoin suggests a rule-of-thumb level of 2.15.
3. Countries with fertility levels below the 2.33 cut-off include Turkey (fertility rate at 2.15 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html). This is important because Turkey has provided the largest single group of immigrants to Europe to date (5 million immigrants). Morocco - another major source of immigrants to Europe - has a fertility rate of 2.21 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mo.html), which is also below replacement rates. What is also interesting is the fact virtually all these countries display fertility rate declines compared to their previous levels. According to the CIA World Factbook, quoted by your source, Morocco had a TFR of 2.51 two years ago, and Turkey maintained a TFR of 2.21.
4. Statistics have shown that the fertility rates of immigrants in Europe decline over several years to match those of the host nation. The fertility rate of German turks is 1.9, for example.
5. More importantly, the Eurabia claims are bunk because they are based on something which - time and time again - intellectuals are incapable of doing, namely predicting future birth rates. This is exactly what Social Security ideologues did - predicating their economic plans on a continued rate of population growth that failed to materialize - and what Malthusians like Holdren did. They were wrong. The Eurabia scaremongers are also wrong.
-
And, just out of curiosity, what are the fertility rates in Israel and its surrounding neighbors...? Any disparity there?
-
These leftist secession movements could result in a lot more leftist US senators.
-
And, just out of curiosity, what are the fertility rates in Israel and its surrounding neighbors...? Any disparity there?
Have superior numbers helped these people in any wars so far?
Of course, Israel, per the CIA, has had a fertility rate of 2.7 children born per woman (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html), while Syria has displayed 2.94 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html). Jordan, Israel's ally, has displayed a fertility rate of 3.03 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jo.html) children per woman. On the other hand, Lebanon, populated by Israel's enemies, maintains a level of 1.77 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html) children per woman, and Iran, land of the furious Ayatollahs, is at 1.8 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html). Sure, Iran is not Israel's immediate neighbor, but we all know that they profess to be Israel's largest enemy.
Not that it matters. Demography continues not being destiny.
But why do you ask? THe CIA World Factbook is available to you as well as it is to me.
-
Demography isn't destiny if you're willing to circumvent it by drastic means--like war--you're right. But then wars don't always turn out the way we want them to.
-
I think I recall reading that the same sort of argument can be made about many of the rural Western states: that they incur more Federal dollars of benefit than they pay Federal taxes.
Sure, but is that controlled for actual benefit? IE: X amount of money going to interstate highway doesn't really give X amount of benefit to the folks that just happen to have the road passing through them.
-
Sure, but is that controlled for actual benefit? IE: X amount of money going to interstate highway doesn't really give X amount of benefit to the folks that just happen to have the road passing through them.
There's also bajillions more square miles of Federal land in the western States.
More military installations (which get counted in those estimates). More massive infrastructure projects. More national parks.
The eastern States still enjoy the benefits of those military installations vis-a-vis defense from Pacific or other threats. The eastern States still enjoy the benefits of things like Palo Verde Nuclear Plant and Boulder Dam, and their tie-in to the national electric grid and surplus power generation. The eastern States would still vacation to those parks and pay park usage fees if they were AZ/NV/UT State parks rather than National parks.
-
There's also bajillions more square miles of Federal land in the western States.
Bingo!
If the federally owned land was converted to:
a) private land - we'd have a lot more tax revenue to support things like schools and roads
and/or
b) state land - we'd have the benefit of income from minerals, timber, grazing, etc managed the way we would manage it
I'd gladly trade the annual largess of stolen dollars for title to BLM, NF, and NPS lands. =)
-
Demography isn't destiny if you're willing to circumvent it by drastic means--like war--you're right. But then wars don't always turn out the way we want them to.
Demography isn't destiny because the shapes of nations are not shaped by the sheer numbers of their populace, neither in science, nor in economics, nor in war.
Demography isn't destiny because birth rates alter over time in unpredictable fashions.
-
heretic!
-
Of course birth rates alter over time in "unpredictable fashions." Except they're not so unpredictable. While I agree with you that one can't simplistically extrapolate present conditions forward, there are only so many things that can derail the iron rule of demography. Historically, war, plagues, and ecological reverses have been the prime game-changers. It's possible that technology and trade can alter the course of things, that's true, but the deep cultural momentums usually prevail in the end.
-
Which also alter. Observe the falling (over the past 30-40 years) birth rates in the Muslim world.
I should post the recent research my University produced on the topic of social attitudes in the Muslim world.
-
I should post the recent research my University produced on the topic of social attitudes in the Muslim world.
A brief abstract would be interesting to see. Pwease.
-
The birth rates may have declined, but, as I said, the zealotry quotient has not.
I too would like to see how social attitudes have supposedly changed in the Ummah.
-
Here in Michigan, we could be 3 states. The State of Detroit, the YooPee would be Superior and we'd call the rest of Michigan Trollville as we are under The Bridge. :P
-
The birth rates may have declined, but, as I said, the zealotry quotient has not.
Given that the Eurabia myth is predicated on these individuals outbreeding us, the fall of birth rates is very relevant.
-
The "Eurabia myth" is not JUST about demographics. It is about pigheaded fanaticism and the complicit willingness of Eurocrats to cower before Islamic demands, to permit promiscuous immigration levels to keep the welfare states going, to blithely oversee the cultural destruction of their own nations. Islam can go nowhere without the active aiding and abetting of the West, both at the governmental and corporate levels.
-
Given that the Eurabia myth is predicated on these individuals outbreeding us, the fall of birth rates is very relevant.
Your idea of the eurabia myth is a myth itself. I'd call it a straw man, but straw men are more substantial.
The "Eurabia myth" is not JUST about demographics. It is about pigheaded fanaticism and the complicit willingness of Eurocrats to cower before Islamic demands, to permit promiscuous immigration levels to keep the welfare states going, to blithely oversee the cultural destruction of their own nations. Islam can go nowhere with the active aiding and abetting of the West, both at the governmental and corporate levels.
Ayup. A weak hand beats no hand in any card game.
1. Falling birth rates in the Muslim countries does not necessarily mean the absolute numbers or rate of immigration into Europe will change. The reasons for that immigration still exist, as the Muslim countries are still third-world cess pools overflowing with poverty, desperation, violence, and oppression.
2. While birth rates of current Muslim emigrant countries may be falling, they are still higher than native euro TFRs, as are the TFRs of Muslims already in Europe. Even if it takes only 3 or 4 generations for Muslim immigrants to lower their TFR to native euro levels, that is long enough to produce a whole buncha new bouncing baby Mohammeds.
3. With Wacky Kadaffy no longer taking bribes to keep sub-Saharan black muslims from traipsing across Libya and across the Med to euro-land, the euros can expect many more of them. And THEIR TFRs are still very high.
Oh, and my data on my last post was from CIA Factbook 2009, while the data you sorta cited was 2011. I doubt very much that if one takes statistical confidence of both sets of data into account WRT Muslim countries, that one could say with statistical confidence that either data set is "better" or more accurate. Muslim countries are not known for punctilious records-keeping.
-
Oh, and my data on my last post was from CIA Factbook 2009, while the data you sorta cited was 2011. I doubt very much that if one takes statistical confidence of both sets of data into account WRT Muslim countries, that one could say with statistical confidence that either data set is "better" or more accurate. Muslim countries are not known for punctilious records-keeping.
I would argue that we should assume that a reputable source is accurate (at least to the point of providing a reasonable statistical picture) unless we at least have a competing source and can explain how the official source's research methods are wrong.
Even if it takes only 3 or 4 generations for Muslim immigrants to lower their TFR to native euro levels, that is long enough to produce a whole buncha new bouncing baby Mohammeds.
It has taken only 30 years for EuroTurks to get from a TFR of 7.0 to less than native Euro levels. That's about the length of one generation. And the native baby Mohammed will be exposed to the most powerful weapon in our possession: Hollywood. And porn.
Do not discount American consumerism as a devastating cultural weapon.
With Wacky Kadaffy no longer taking bribes to keep sub-Saharan black muslims from traipsing across Libya and across the Med to euro-land, the euros can expect many more of them. And THEIR TFRs are still very high.
It remains to be seen what policy Ze New Libya will adapt.
-
And the native baby Mohammed will be exposed to the most powerful weapon in our possession: Hollywood. And porn.
Do not discount American consumerism as a devastating cultural weapon.
Perhaps you underestimate the ability of fanatics to combine fanaticism with hypocrisy. In other words, you watch the porn and go to the strip clubs BEFORE you blow people up. Allah makes allowances for faithful martyrs, after all.
So long as Muslims embrace unnatural "purity," denying their own humanity, they will be in the thrall of violence. Indeed, life in the West may well aggravate that inclination to violence by overwhelming them with lubricious temptation.
-
I have no doubt that the sort of fanatic that straps himself with explosives will not be influenced by whatever amount of foreign cultures he is exposed to.
-
Not terribly relevant. The nations of Europe were not formed by leftists seceding from larger nations. Also, it's not just a question of policy, but of people. Left-wing zealots are not the sort of people that know how to keep the trains running, so to speak.
I'm pretty sure both Microsoft and Apple are run by liberals. Along with every other Silicon Valley IT company.
-
So long as Muslims embrace unnatural "purity," denying their own humanity, they will be in the thrall of violence
lol how do you feel about catholics
-
I tread carefully among them, especially my former Jesuit preceptors. :) I'm not privy to how many times a day they scrub, body or soul.
Are you laughing at purity or those who embrace it?
-
The local Seattle media periodically does stories on the issue of eastern Washington splitting off pretty much right along the Cascades. What has seemed to dampen enthusiasm for this was a cost/revenue analysis showing that the greater population in western Washington subsidizes eastern Washington pretty good from the standpoint of government services and infrastructure. As an example, on a proportionate basis, more of my gas taxes go to pay for road work in eastern Washington than here. Some of the sales tax collected in Snohomish county goes to fund government programs in eastern Washington. If eastern Washington split off, western Washington would actually save money. It is kind of like how West Germany had to increase taxes and spending to bring East Germany up to par when they reunified.
This has caused some of the Rugged Individualists in eastern Washington no little gnashing of teeth to realize that their roads, counties and rural way of life is in part subsidized by tree-hugging hipsters in Seattle driving Priuses and buying MacBooks.
I think I recall reading that the same sort of argument can be made about many of the rural Western states: that they incur more Federal dollars of benefit than they pay Federal taxes.
This can be seen even on a county by county basic throughout the USA. The higher the use of federal/state monies the greater that county votes GOP.
I don't think (for instance) many Hollywood celebrities are on food stamps.