What they want from Zimmerman incident

[The Annoyed Man]

bagman45, this is why I continue to predict (not advocate for) that the U.S. will ultimately have to breakup into a groups of semiautonomous regions of like-minded states. It is the nonviolent solution that will avoid another civil war. It's not just the political differences, but the cultural differences as well. The politics of division have worked their black magic, and we no longer think of ourselves as one people. The people of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have almost nothing at all in common anymore with the people of New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Connecticut......other than common passports.

I take the organic view that this is the natural progression of things, sad as it is.

[sjfcontrol]

Frankly, I don't really see how it would help -- or even be any different from what we have today. The "Lib States" (which we already have) will still be unable to support themselves, and thus will look to the "Conservative States" for support. Where's the difference?

[iAmSam]

Frankly, I don't really see how it would help -- or even be any different from what we have today. The "Lib States" (which we already have) will still be unable to support themselves, and thus will look to the "Conservative States" for support. Where's the difference?

Could be like Germany being able to withhold their bailout of Greece unless there are concessions.

[The Annoyed Man]

Frankly, I don't really see how it would help -- or even be any different from what we have today. The "Lib States" (which we already have) will still be unable to support themselves, and thus will look to the "Conservative States" for support. Where's the difference?

When the regions are semi (or fully) autonomous, they no longer have to accept dominion from other regions. New York voters can no longer decide Texas farm policy. Texas is no longer required to support the parasitic states. If they want Texas grown/made goods, Texas drilled oil and gas, then they have to come as customers, hat in hand. The alternative, is for northeastern cities to shrink to sizes that can be supported by local farming. When that happens, their political influence decreases rapidly. Either way, it is a win/win situation. Exactly what, outside of tourism and windbaggery, do the northeastern states have to offer Texas, that Texas (or the other like-minded states) cannot produce for itself?

The nation of Yugoslavia was formed as a kingdom in 1918.....relatively recently.......and eventually came under the . With the breakup of the USSR, Yugoslavians realized that they had little in common with one another, and the nation fragmented into its separate culturally based constituencies of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Serbia, and Macedonia. Yugoslavia is no more. This happened within my lifetime. Within my lifetime, European nations tried to unite into the European Union. Today, also within my lifetime, the EU is showing signs of fragmenting. I wish it were not so, but I don't see anything in our own political landscape which leads us away from the same fate. Instead of uniting us, the culture wars divide us. Instead of uniting us, racial politics divides us. Instead of religion uniting us, decreasing religiosity divides us as the common bonds of faith disappear. Instead of uniting us, economic power has transformed into class envy and wealth redistribution which divides us.

It is very hard not to be pessimistic about the nation's future.

[bagman45]

Agreed, we are in a very sorry state. Unfortunately, the elite in Washington have NO interest in uniting ANYONE. The more they can fragment the population,the more they can identify and pander to, or identify and attack, specific groups to stay in power. Ultimately the only answer is to reduce the size of government and its influence by forcing people to become accountable for their own actions and survival. Otherwise, I fear that gunfire is in our future....

[sjfcontrol]

I guess I just don't see California, New York (City), Massachutes, (Chicago) illinois or (Detroit) Michigan ever agreeing to such an arrangement. What's in it for them? Starvation?

[tbrown]

I guess I just don't see California, New York (City), Massachutes, (Chicago) illinois or (Detroit) Michigan ever agreeing to such an arrangement. What's in it for them? Starvation?

It's like expecting England to give up the American Colonies without a fight.

[The Annoyed Man]

I guess I just don't see California, New York (City), Massachutes, (Chicago) illinois or (Detroit) Michigan ever agreeing to such an arrangement. What's in it for them? Starvation?

It's like expecting England to give up the American Colonies without a fight.

What could they do to stop it if a whole block of 4 or 5 states decided to do it? Is New York going to send the NYPD to subdue Oklahoma? Is Washington D.C. going to send military units staffed largely by people from the recalcitrant states to put down rebellions in their home towns? Besides which, people forget that California has one of the largest food producing regions in the entire country: the San Joaquin Valley. Once they're hungry, they'll stop worrying about guppies in the irrigation canals and they'll start growing food again......the difference being that anglos will be working the fields for their illegal alien masters. And by the way, that's another reason California won't object. It will be a lynchpin in the new Aztlán carved out of far west Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Colorado. And who will stop that? New York and Rhode Island? BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!



And again, I want to be very clear that this is not advocacy. I don't want this to happen. But it is what I think will happen. At some point, the states that are the most tired of the crap coming out of DC are simply going to tell DC where to step off, and they are going to go on about their business as if DC did not exist. If there are hostilities, it will be DC who initiates them. And once DC does that, it will be the end of the union because the nation's military is not going to turn against the nation's population.

[bagman45]

TAM, I'm with you in the thought that there will be a time when the populace of the states that are still interested in supporting themselves will just start ignoring the feds. I'm hopeful, but not confident that DC won't send in the military to quell the "treasonous uprising" (if retards up there could actually figure out what those words mean), as we've read reports that our national JOKE, oops, I mean Commander In Chief, has instructed the Pentagon to start selecting/promoting military leaders based on their willingness to command their troops to open fire against US citizens on US soil. NOW, will the troops actually FOLLOW those orders? THAT, my brothers, IS the question. Let's all pray to the almighty that we never have to find out...

[mojo84]

as we've read reports that our national JOKE, oops, I mean Commander In Chief, has instructed the Pentagon to start selecting/promoting military leaders based on their willingness to command their troops to open fire against US citizens on US soil.

I don't recall seeing this. Can you provide more info or a link?

[VoiceofReason]

as we've read reports that our national JOKE, oops, I mean Commander In Chief, has instructed the Pentagon to start selecting/promoting military leaders based on their willingness to command their troops to open fire against US citizens on US soil.

I don't recall seeing this. Can you provide more info or a link?

Yes, please do.

[pancho]

If there are hostilities, it will be DC who initiates them. And once DC does that, it will be the end of the union because the nation's military is not going to turn against the nation's population.

There was a church 10 miles east of Waco whose members might disagree with you.

[bdickens]

If there are hostilities, it will be DC who initiates them. And once DC does that, it will be the end of the union because the nation's military is not going to turn against the nation's population.

Yes they will.

[The Annoyed Man]

If there are hostilities, it will be DC who initiates them. And once DC does that, it will be the end of the union because the nation's military is not going to turn against the nation's population.

There was a church 10 miles east of Waco whose members might disagree with you.

FBI and BATF. Not the same thing as the military.

If there are hostilities, it will be DC who initiates them. And once DC does that, it will be the end of the union because the nation's military is not going to turn against the nation's population.

Yes they will.

Surveys of active duty military personnel indicate differently. Some will, yes. But they do not constitute the majority. Now, I can see a situation where, let's say hypothetically, DC wanted to "invade" and suppress the region made up of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana, so they made sure that the TNG, ONG, ANG, and LNG was deployed elsewhere and disarmed, and they'd use NYNG and CANG troops, but even among those the issue might be in doubt. Here is an instructive recruitment map for the year 2007 published by the Heritage Foundation, showing what states contribute the most recruits to the nation's military:

Source: Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers, by Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and James Sherk, http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... orm_anchor

As you can see, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana contribute a higher percentage of total recruits than any other state in the union......15% from those 4 states alone. Add in the southeastern and mountain states, and you've got a total of 50% of the nation's military. When I say that it's not going to happen, that doesn't mean that an administration in DC wouldn't try to make it happen, but the military as a force for internally suppressing an entire region of the U.S. would disintegrate in fairly short order as large numbers would either mutiny and turn on their chain of command, or simply refuse to obey orders. And that dysfunction would be heightened if the states to be suppressed were among those who contribute more troops to the military than the others. Furthermore, since troops from all states tend to be stationed wherever the military needs them at any given time, many Texans and Oklahomans are stationed in California and New York and other states, while many of their counterparts are stationed in Texas and Oklahoma. Regional homogeneity works well when all are pulling for a common goal. But what happens to units located outside of TX/OK/AR/LA, when 43% of those troops are from the states which are to be invaded if TX/OK/AR/LA wanted to secede together? If they either mutiny, refuse to follow orders, or are rounded up and incarcerated, those units are automatically down to 57% strength.....certainly administratively ineffective, and approaching combat ineffective. I submit that troops from TX/OK/AR/LA would not be so enthusiastic about invading ID/MT/WY/CO.

In the 1860s, the northern states had the advantage in population and industrial base over the southern states, AND the north had it's own large food producing areas. Today, those states which favor a strong top-down federal government and which least respect the Constitution still have the largest populations, but it is no longer true that they either self-sufficient for food, nor that they control the nation's manufacturing. Large parts of the heartland could go either way, and are also self-sufficient if need be. The old abandoned factories of the rust belt have been demolished or in disrepair for so long that they cannot be thrown back into operation without an investment of decades in labor and cash.......and oil....which those states do not yet produce in a quantity sufficient to sustain a new industrial renaissance. And, in the 1860s, industry was not oil nor electricity dependent. Today, it is, and oil production in southern states is high and the southern states are not dependent upon the north for power generation.

This is a simplified picture, but my point is that those clear advantages that the north had over the south in the Civil War no longer really apply today. And sociologically, we are a much different country today than we were back then, and I don't mean just in the obvious issue of slavery. We are more tribal today than ever before. The hyphenation of Americans, the encouragement of multiculturalism to replace a national cultural identity, the gradual abolishment of religious ties which once bound the largest majority of Americans together in one main religious faith (denominational differences notwithstanding), the abolishment of the idea of English as the official language of the state and replacing it with multilingual accommodations in government and education, etc., etc., etc.........ALL of these things have divided us to the point where people in one region truly don't give much of a damn about people in other regions. There is even intra-regional hostility today that transcends the mere competitive rivalry of even just 30 years ago. Does anyone think that a soldier from Oregon or New York is truly willing to die for the cause of keeping California or Texas in the union if one of those states decided to secede? I don't think so. And I don't think the old calculus of fighting not for country, but for the guy in the foxhole next to yours would apply much in this situation. How does a soldier from Oregon or New York feel about having a soldier from Texas in the foxhole next to him, when Texas is the target of their advance? How does the Texan feel about the Oregonian next to him being willing to fire upon the Texan's cousins?

And again, I want to stress that this is not what I want. I remember a very different America from the one that exists today. I would like very much to see that America make a comeback. I just don't think it is possible, given the moral degeneration of the culture underpinning a political system which requires morality in order to function. Our founders assured us many times over that morality and virtue are necessary to the proper functioning of our form of government, that this form is suitable for no other kind of people, and they have turned out to be prescient. We are dysfunctional today exactly to the degree of our cultural immorality. Everything that is wrong with us today is directly traceable to the near absence of virtue at all levels of the culture—from the publicly political, to the privately personal. The devil has had his way with us, and pending some kind of miraculous revival of faith, he will continue to do so. In fact, my Bible predicts it.

In the absence of those common ties which bind us, those mystic cords of memory that Lincoln referred to, we have nothing left which can hold together a nation the geographical size of ours with a population as large as ours over the long haul. We no longer have a unifying cultural identity. The largest part of our people don't even know our history anymore. People forget that some of our states are the size of entire nations. Texas is 10% larger than France, and almost twice the size of Germany. Peacefully allowing regions of like minded contiguous states to attain at least partial if not total regional autonomy is the only way to avoid massive loss of life.....which frankly, I don't think either end of the political spectrum is willing to contemplate when the reality of the situation hits them. With the exception of a fairly small group of dedicated fascists in the democrat party, I don't think most of the U.S. will have the stomach for what it will take to hold it all together over the long haul.

I don't think that means that we just thrown in the towel and give up. The work that people like Charles Cotton do at the national level is absolutely essential in the preservation of our rights as long as we have a nation. They are the latter day Thomas Jeffersons and John Adamses who spent years at the British and French courts trying to protect the rights of their countrymen, with an imperious Obama the latter day king. But there eventually came a day when Jefferson and Adams had to come home, because there was no longer any percentage in trying to get the king to see their side of things. That is where we are headed as a nation with Washington D.C.

[MeMelYup]

what were the confederate states during the civil war?