PDA

View Full Version : The new secessionists



Gerarddm
12-01-2012, 03:01 AM
Just read a piece where the main point was that secession movements in America, and there have been several, have inevitably been religious-based.

Thus the current puerile whining ignores that they are hoisted on their own petard: it was Their Favorite Deity's will that President Obama won, so they should just STFU and learn to be good Americans.

BrianW
12-01-2012, 07:55 AM
So the "War of Northern Aggression" was caused by religion? ;)

Chip-skiff
12-02-2012, 12:04 AM
They aren't thinking ahead.

If Texas seceded, they'd have to pay off their portion of the deficit. And the Dallas Cowboys would get kicked out of the National Football League.

Gerarddm
12-02-2012, 11:18 AM
No, BrianW, The War Against Southern Treason was.

Tom Montgomery
12-02-2012, 11:35 AM
FWIW the compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate Armies is entitled The War of the Rebellion (http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/waro.html).

Tom Montgomery
12-02-2012, 11:38 AM
So the "War of Northern Aggression...."Ah... if only the South Carolinians had not attacked Fort Sumter. Unfortunately the war began with an act of southern aggression.

Osborne Russell
12-02-2012, 01:56 PM
So the "War of Northern Aggression" was caused by religion? ;)

Slavery and genocide of the natives are the most prominent features of MEM in the New World. Before Darwin it was the only rationale we had.

Ian McColgin
12-02-2012, 02:03 PM
Interestingly, southerners often call it the "War of Northern Aggression" while northerners call it the "Civil War". When you look at the many years of giving the southern slave-owning oligarchs concession after concession only to see the slavers' demands escalate till finally they started the war, one is struck by the parallel to today's owners of the Republican party. The comparison is good even to the extent that given how the majority of white southerners did not have slaves and were kept in relative poverty by their caviliers is so similar to how most of those following the Koch brothers' dictates are in reality harmed by the right wing program.

Given how it even coveres so many of the same states, one wonders if it's genetic or if there's something in the water.

(Yeah, I know. This sort of blunt reality dose will not change any minds. It's just to make be feel better.)

Tom Montgomery
12-02-2012, 02:12 PM
Ian... you evidently hold out the hope that the majority will learn from history.

Unfortunately the majority are utterly ignorant of history and are enamored of ideology. Much simpler and less nuanced, don'tcha know?

That would still be OK if we had principled, educated leadership. Instead we have politicos willing and able to pander to the know-nothings.

This should be no surprise. The free press and public education have been attacked for decades in America. We prefer myth to reality.

Keith Wilson
12-02-2012, 05:20 PM
. . . that secession movements in America, and there have been several, have inevitably been religious-based.Eh? I don't think so. The secession of the Confederacy (the only one that came to anything) was not primarily religious at all, although like everybody else at the time, they invoked God to justify their decision. You can read the Declarations of Secession here (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html); the reasons they give are entirely political and economic, defending slavery above all.

Durnik
12-02-2012, 06:12 PM
aye, defending slavery.. which god (as their ministers claimed) had ordained..

The new secessionists make claims of economics also.. but they are driven by religious fundies..

Religion - in its extremes - can be sneaky - & is dangerous.

enjoy
bobby

Keith Wilson
12-02-2012, 06:51 PM
Religion - in its extremes - can be sneaky - & is dangerous.Oh, no question. Still, the secessionists in 1860 were NOT religious extremists by any means. From Lincoln's second inaugural address:


Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

Lew Barrett
12-02-2012, 08:20 PM
Oh, no question. Still, the secessionists in 1860 were NOT religious extremists by any means. From Lincoln's second inaugural address:

My sentiment dictates disagreement. Why would a man lay down life and risk all for such abstract concepts as states rights, the freedom for a man richer than you to keep slaves, or the defense of the commonwealth?

It was different time, even if the same place, with far more universal faith in a supreme being. Calling upon God in each speech, ("as God gives us to see the right"...... that's an important line there) Lincoln himself suggests how God guides man's hand. If he didn't believe it himself, he still had to form the words, just as it is today.

Religion is one major fundamental of warfare, or at least fundamental to motivating men to fight. At the very highest levels, war may be waged for money and power, but at the soldier's altitude, religion is necessary to daily survival in combat. I could argue that believing in your superiors is even a form of religion, but that's a bit arcane. In any case, if we can't agree about the role religion played in the Civil War, I think the idea that today's secessionists are likely to be "fundamentally" motivated is probably true.

If there's ever a study to prove it, I'd be willing to place a bet on Gerard's theory. I dislike fundies of every stripe, and the older I get, the less patience I have for their certainty.

Keith Wilson
12-02-2012, 10:40 PM
Why would a man lay down life and risk all for such abstract concepts as states rights, the freedom for a man richer than you to keep slaves, or the defense of the commonwealth?Defending one's home against what one believes to be aggression (rightly or wrongly) isn't abstract at all. Wars have their own logic once they get going, and people have fought for far stupider reasons. Again, read the declarations of secession. The causes of the US Civil War were not fundamentally religious at all, no more so that any other ordinary war.

Today's secessionists are quite different, a small number of wackos, and yes, religion is probably a major factor.

Durnik
12-02-2012, 11:19 PM
Oh, no question. Still, the secessionists in 1860 were NOT religious extremists by any means. From Lincoln's second inaugural address:

Hmm.. not extremists by _any_ means?? Maybe in most (many?) ways they were the same.. but, we know they believed god gave them the right to own slaves (or that god told them negroes (term of the era) were not human (but sex with them was ok..??)). That's one 'extreme'..

Meanwhile, I've sat with & listened to southern baptists (church of christers/freewillers etc).. and I was raised a baptist in New England.. I can say from unpleasant experience that they are different, very different. Extrapolating from the present, backwards - I feel comfortable with my thinking they were different then, too.

Was the war between the states religion based? No way. Were the ministers, as 'social leaders' 'pushing from behind'? From my experience in the south, I'd have to say 'yes'. Were _all_ pushing? We know there are no absolutes, so no. But generally, yes, I feel religion pushed the souths side (internally, at least) of the war 'twixt the states.

However, in the North, the Quakers, at least, pushed for an end to slavery (tho abhorring war & killing) & Protestants, in general, supported northern intervention - so there was religion there, too. Mean anything? Hmm.

When 'your side' is supported from without, that's good.. When 'their side' is supported from without, that's bad.. least ways according to buddhist views.. 'good' & 'bad' are all relative. ;-)



from a further post of yours -


The causes of the US Civil War were not fundamentally religious at all, no more so that any other ordinary war.

True without a doubt, but that is not what I understood the OP to say. It's not that the wars are religious so much as that people who claim 'religion' push the wars (secession)..

IMHO


This -

Wars have their own logic once they get going, and people have fought for far stupider reasons.
- is far to true to not acknowledge..

enjoy
bobby

Lew Barrett
12-03-2012, 02:21 AM
Defending one's home against what one believes to be aggression (rightly or wrongly) isn't abstract at all. Wars have their own logic once they get going, and people have fought for far stupider reasons. Again, read the declarations of secession. The causes of the US Civil War were not fundamentally religious at all, no more so that any other ordinary war.

Today's secessionists are quite different, a small number of wackos, and yes, religion is probably a major factor.

Bobby makes my point better than I did. Atheists see no future in death. It takes a real believer to willingly go forth and die for a principle, and a man of the cloth to convince him it's God's will, he'll go to heaven and then to urge him to do so.

The "causes" of the war are what they are and be what they may.....

Osborne Russell
12-03-2012, 07:38 AM
Still, the secessionists in 1860 were NOT religious extremists by any means.

Yes, that's the trouble -- they were totally mainstream. That was Lincoln's premise.

John Smith
12-03-2012, 07:48 AM
I'm not sure today's situation is alalogous to the Civil War situation.

It is the religious folks today who tell me there is a war on Christmas. If there is, I hope those fighting this war win it.

Why do the religiously inclined feel it necessary to place a nativity scene on public property?

We are dealing today with a large chunk of people, many in Congress and state governments, who are more beholding to their religious beliefs than the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. It is their calling to use our laws to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. If they fail, they want to "take their ball and go home." I say let them.

First thing I would do is immediately stop sending these states any federal money.

Phillip Allen
12-03-2012, 07:51 AM
Slavery and genocide of the natives are the most prominent features of MEM in the New World. Before Darwin it was the only rationale we had.

consider which party Polk belonged to...(think, Manifest Destiny)

Paul Pless
12-03-2012, 07:54 AM
First thing I would do is immediately stop sending these states any federal money.Because a few whackjobs signed a stupid petition?

Phillip Allen
12-03-2012, 08:04 AM
Because a few whackjobs signed a stupid petition?

Stanton the (collective) punisher still lives amongst us...

Tom Montgomery
12-03-2012, 08:13 AM
consider which party Polk belonged to...(think, Manifest Destiny)
The Democratic Party.

But you evidently believe that the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1840's and the 2010's are essentially identical in their principles.

Crazy.

BrianW
12-03-2012, 08:13 AM
Just read a piece...

Is there a link to this piece?

Osborne Russell
12-03-2012, 09:21 AM
It's not that the wars are religious so much as that people who claim 'religion' push the wars (secession)..

The people that push the wars claim religion, and many believe it; most of the saps that fight the wars believe it. It's a religious war no matter how you slice it.

BrianW
12-03-2012, 09:31 AM
I think men go to war for pride, country, family, the desire to right a wrong. Then they fight for their fellow soldiers, and die for their buddies.

Some go to war to kill. Those are rare though.

Not much religion in it.

That's my opinion.

Osborne Russell
12-03-2012, 09:41 AM
Eh? I don't think so. The secession of the Confederacy (the only one that came to anything) was not primarily religious at all, although like everybody else at the time, they invoked God to justify their decision. You can read the Declarations of Secession here (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html); the reasons they give are entirely political and economic, defending slavery above all.

Not entirely. From the link:


That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations . . .

The war was about slavery, OK. Where did the slavery come from? Unorganized greed is common, of course. But it takes ships to bring slaves, and whips and courts to keep them captive. It takes banking, roads, and ports to make it profitable, and a military to protect it all. How is an entire society -- not just those who profit -- brought to organize and devote itself to that extent, to a single institution? Because it's the will of the Creator.

Osborne Russell
12-03-2012, 09:47 AM
I think men go to war for pride, country, family, the desire to right a wrong. Then they fight for their fellow soldiers, and die for their buddies.

Some go to war to kill. Those are rare though.

Not much religion in it.

That's my opinion.

It's true there is a perpetual supply of naive sixteen-year-old males of all ages. That isn't enough to make war.

How and why did Christianity become the official religion of the Roman Empire? How and why was Europe converted to Christianity?

Lew Barrett
12-03-2012, 10:21 AM
The Democratic Party.

But you evidently believe that the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1840's and the 2010's are essentially identical in their principles.

Crazy.

Oh boy!

PhaseLockedLoop
12-03-2012, 11:40 AM
The free press and public education have been attacked for decades in America. We prefer myth to reality.

Hmm. We have had the free press and public education nevertheless (so far) and it's produced the electorate we have today. It seems those things aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Concordia 33
12-03-2012, 12:38 PM
Interestingly, southerners often call it the "War of Northern Aggression" while northerners call it the "Civil War". When you look at the many years of giving the southern slave-owning oligarchs concession after concession only to see the slavers' demands escalate till finally they started the war, one is struck by the parallel to today's owners of the Republican party. The comparison is good even to the extent that given how the majority of white southerners did not have slaves and were kept in relative poverty by their caviliers is so similar to how most of those following the Koch brothers' dictates are in reality harmed by the right wing program.

Given how it even coveres so many of the same states, one wonders if it's genetic or if there's something in the water.

(Yeah, I know. This sort of blunt reality dose will not change any minds. It's just to make be feel better.)

You normally have many knowledgeable and insightful things to say, but I think that this issue is a little more than what you say above. I think that slave holding states feared that if too many new abolitionist states were created by the western expansion, the equilibrium that preserved slavery would be disrupted. I sometimes fear that slavery would exist today if the US never expanded beyond the Mississippi.

That said, secessionists are more registering a complaint than trying to leave the union. I read an article several years ago about the financial collapse of the US (in part due to the growing national debt and the insolvency of some states). The author, a Russian Professor claims that the US will become fragmented into six territories most of which will be annexed by other countries. The article was from 2008 and his 2010 prediction is well overdue. A little extreme, but an amusing read:


MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.

In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."
Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin's ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.........................


.....................He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

Ian McColgin
12-03-2012, 01:01 PM
The slavers were indeed highly motivated by fear. Some of that fear was spurred by the economic futility of slavery for the long run, especially if the majority of white southern farmers, who did not have slaves and who worked only the poorer land, ever figured out how exploited by their caviliers they really were. Added to that, both cotton and tobacco monocultures were incredibly destructive to the land and the slavers kept needing new acrage to ruin. But mostly, fear led the slavers to keep over-reaching, effectivly demanding slave-ownership property rights in the free states. The free states had a majority that was willing to leave the slavers alone in their own states but they could not tolerate a de facto extension of slavery everywhere.

The economic conflicts between industrial urban and agrarian rural also played out. At the time of our Civil War the conflicts of obscene maldistribution of wealth landed hardest in the South and were not national issues in rural and industrial areas until the rise of the Robber Barons. That all's coming back, complete with the Right's ability to, just as the southern slavers had, exploit and motivate people against their actual interest.

Osborne Russell
12-03-2012, 01:41 PM
That said, secessionists are more registering a complaint than trying to leave the union.

Wishful thinking on your part; it would be self-contradiction on theirs. You want them on your side so you want to adopt their diagnosis without their prescription. But the prescription is the logical product of their diagnosis, and logic is a real bitch.


He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S.

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

Some Russian dookus with a bunch of colored markers and a map, paid by The Government. You've been snookered by Russian Government propaganda, what irony. Same since Stalin. Where'd your Tea Party scholars dig up this wad?

skuthorp
12-03-2012, 02:03 PM
Why are young men seemingly so willing to go to war? Nationalism, patriotism, the tribal fear of the other, but at root evolution, that's why given natural circumstances there are more males born than females. Males are disposable, you don't need too many males about to keep the tribe in children. This trait is alive and well in most modern young males and there's a quote from a prominent WW2 German re how easy it is to convince the nation to follow, the use of the press being the key factor, “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

wardd
12-03-2012, 03:05 PM
Because a few whackjobs signed a stupid petition?

no, because the people they send to dc are totally against big gov

Keith Wilson
12-03-2012, 07:12 PM
The slavers were indeed highly motivated by fear.In addition to the points Ian mentioned, the Haitian revolution of 1791-1804 scared them witless, and I can sort of sympathize. It was effectively a successful and very bloody slave rebellion, and on most large plantations, slaves considerably outnumbered whites.

The stuff of slaveowners' nightmares:

http://s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/1281052/Haitian_Revolution.jpg?1291987032


Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic."Is there a petition I can sign in support? ;)

Chip-skiff
12-03-2012, 07:17 PM
I think men go to war for pride, country, family, the desire to right a wrong. Then they fight for their fellow soldiers, and die for their buddies. Some go to war to kill. Those are rare though.

So why did Bush II go to war twice, and lie to do it the second time?

Daddy problems? A grinning psychopath? So his pals (not militarily inclined) could steal billions while puffing up their patriotism?

Pretty glorious, ennit?

Keith Wilson
12-03-2012, 07:19 PM
Bush Jr. didn't go to war, he sent other people off to war.

hanleyclifford
12-03-2012, 07:41 PM
Bush Jr. didn't go to war, he sent other people off to war. Now there is a truth we can agree on!

Osborne Russell
12-03-2012, 08:48 PM
no, because the people they send to dc are totally against big gov

Speshly Fedral !

John Smith
12-04-2012, 07:07 PM
According to a report I saw this evening, some states have enough signatures that the White House will have to respond.

My vote would be to give each person who signed a petitition a path to non-citizenship. Lose their vote, the social security, etc. Also let them not count when it comes to things like the number of house members they get or the dollars the state gets from the feds.

Maybe we can let them apply for help to self deport.

Ian McColgin
12-04-2012, 07:15 PM
Good thing these phoney petitions have no legal force. Not even a little. They are just a way to keep the more truculant and ignorent of the racist right occupied while their manipulators think of something else.

Tom Montgomery
12-04-2012, 07:21 PM
I don't get the petition thing at all.

Secession has always struck me as something a state does without asking permission.

Just more evidence that the morans are incapable of thinking this rebellion thing through.

wardd
12-04-2012, 07:22 PM
the true patriots after the election are the ones that want to leave the union

true patriots don't like democracy

skuthorp
12-04-2012, 07:22 PM
And it stops them from coming to terms with reality as well Ian, and keeps them in the camp.

John Smith
12-04-2012, 07:27 PM
I don't know why a citizen can't apply for non citizenship. That's a bit different than the state leaving he union. If they really don't like it here, they're free to go. I've been told that a lot by those on the right, but I've never signed a petition of this nature.

John Smith
12-04-2012, 07:30 PM
This sounds like they have some legal implications http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#50077934

Keith Wilson
12-04-2012, 07:40 PM
. . . some states have enough signatures that the White House will have to respond.I'd think that "No." would be sufficient.

John Smith
12-04-2012, 07:44 PM
I'd think that "No." would be sufficient.

That would only make them angrier. They might trye second amendment remedies. Let them denounce their citizenship and lose the 2nd Amendment, and other, rights.

Chip-skiff
12-04-2012, 07:46 PM
I'd think that "No." would be sufficient.

If I were president, I'd take the petitions, crumple them, and burn them on the White House lawn. And then douse the embers with a bodily fluid.

Good thing I'll never be president.

hanleyclifford
12-04-2012, 07:48 PM
The new "secession" is taking on a different form; I talked to a businessman today who is quietly moving his assets to Brazil and buying property. Of course the uber rich have been doing this for some time. Who is going to pay for the next generation's free stuff?

Tom Montgomery
12-04-2012, 07:51 PM
The new "secession" is taking on a different form; I talked to a businessman today who is quietly moving his assets to Brazil and buying property. Of course the uber rich have been doing this for some time. Who is going to pay for the next generation's free stuff?
The patriots who remain? (That is not to say I accept your right-wing rhetoric of "the next generation's free stuff.")

Did you challenge the patriotism of that businessman? If not, why not?

Keith Wilson
12-04-2012, 07:52 PM
I talked to a businessman today who is quietly moving his assets to Brazil and buying property.Good riddance, say I. If he thinks that Obama is too far left, he sure doesn't know much about Sra. Rousseff and the Partido dos Trabalhadores,

hanleyclifford
12-04-2012, 07:56 PM
In addition to the points Ian mentioned, the Haitian revolution of 1791-1804 scared them witless, and I can sort of sympathize. It was effectively a successful and very bloody slave rebellion, and on most large plantations, slaves considerably outnumbered whites.

The stuff of slaveowners' nightmares:

http://s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/1281052/Haitian_Revolution.jpg?1291987032

Is there a petition I can sign in support? ;) Yes, Haiti has developed into a wonderful workers paradise.

John Smith
12-04-2012, 07:57 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by hanleycliffordThe new "secession" is taking on a different form; I talked to a businessman today who is quietly moving his assets to Brazil and buying property. Of course the uber rich have been doing this for some time. Who is going to pay for the next generation's free stuff?


Please. Free stuff began under Reagan. He created the illusion of prosperity and recovery by spending $200 billion of borrowed money every year and no one ever had to pay for it. Defense contractors got free work. No one had to pay. Deficits didn't matter and could go on to infinity.

That's how we got where we are now.

The people who ate the free lunch are now upset that the deficit and debt they ran up are becoming a problem.

hanleyclifford
12-04-2012, 07:58 PM
The patriots who remain? (That is not to say I accept your right-wing rhetoric of "the next generation's free stuff.")

Did you challenge the patriotism of that businessman? If not, why not? Hey, I like free stuff too; we gotta figure out a way to make these bastards stay here...

Chip-skiff
12-04-2012, 08:13 PM
The rich don't seem to be paying their way now, despite the "stimulus" of the Bush tax cuts.

Let him go to Brazil, and do his whining there.

Tom Montgomery
12-04-2012, 08:18 PM
Hey, I like free stuff too; we gotta figure out a way to make these bastards stay here...
The only difference between your soon-to-be-ex-patriot-businessman acquaintance and my Romney/Ryan t-shirt wearing co-worker (who firmly believes the Obama re-election will result in a dictatorship) is that your businessman acquaintance has more money. They are both nuts.

ccmanuals
12-04-2012, 08:19 PM
Business has been fleeing for about 30 years now. We enact laws and tax code that makes it attractive for them to do this. Maybe that would be a good start to correcting this problem.

hanleyclifford
12-04-2012, 08:22 PM
The rich don't seem to be paying their way now, despite the "stimulus" of the Bush tax cuts.

Let him go to Brazil, and do his whining there. You lefties still don't get it; the country is being systematically plundered while you talk about squeezing the rich.

Tom Montgomery
12-04-2012, 08:25 PM
Bah! More right-wingnut rhetoric.

In the run-up to the election you fooled a few Forumites into believing you are a moderate.

Since the election you have been showing your true colors. So when are you moving to Brazil?

hanleyclifford
12-04-2012, 08:41 PM
This is a little wordy and dated but kinda tells the story. http://www.businessinsider.com/here-comes-the-imminent-flight-of-us-capital-2010-7

hanleyclifford
12-04-2012, 08:43 PM
Bah! More right-wingnut rhetoric.

In the run-up to the election you fooled a few Forumites into believing you are a moderate.

Since the election you have been showing your true colors. So when are you moving to Brazil? Instead of calling names, try focusing on what is best for your own position !

Tom Montgomery
12-04-2012, 08:48 PM
Where did I call you a name?

I said you were using right-wingnut rhetoric. How would you characterize your political ideology? Puleeze do not say "Republican moderate!"

Tom Montgomery
12-04-2012, 08:53 PM
As for the flight of American Tory wealth to tax havens... that is a solvable problem.

Tom Montgomery
12-04-2012, 08:56 PM
You never did answer my question. So I may presume you DID NOT challenge the patriotism of your businessman acquaintance who is booking to Brazil.

I also asked: "If not, why not."

Don't bother answering now. We all understand why that is.

Durnik
12-05-2012, 12:32 AM
You lefties still don't get it; the country is being systematically plundered while you talk about squeezing the rich.

You righties still don't get it; the country _is_ being systematically plundered, by the rich who take the wealth from the working class & return but an infinitesimal portion of it thru spending & (ridiculously low to they) taxes. If their taxes were such that the wealth was returned to the system (instead of being sent to, for instance, Cayman Island Banks), they would be staying & continuing to put their efforts into the pot that is the U.S. IE, the low taxes on those who take home the largest amounts _are_ the reason for the plundering of the U.S..

It may be the wealthy who give you work (living where you do, doing the work you do - lucky you - few are so lucky), but what they 'give' is a minuscule portion of what they take - meaning the flow of capital, upwards, far surpasses the return flow - and you - & people like you - are only a few of many. Walmart employees, to stir up our second best (after you) troll, NTM many in the military, make too little to even live on - while a few make way too much to ever need - and pay far less in real taxes than many workers.

We aren't talking about 'squeezing the rich', we're talking about putting back in circulation what they 'squeezed' the working class to take. You 'claim' to be one of the working class - Ok, Time to WTFU - or don't you care about your fellow Americans?

enjoy
bobby

John Smith
12-05-2012, 06:26 AM
The only difference between your soon-to-be-ex-patriot-businessman acquaintance and my Romney/Ryan t-shirt wearing co-worker (who firmly believes the Obama re-election will result in a dictatorship) is that your businessman acquaintance has more money. They are both nuts.

Obama is about to have his third meeting with a group of CEO's and other major businessmen. The only comment from this audience I've seen was one that said Obama was extremely reasonable. That gives me some hope.

This is the group that mainly supported Romney. They may be about to support Obama's budget proposals. If the 2% put pressue on the GOP to stop protecting their tax cuts, things may get interesting.

John Smith
12-05-2012, 06:28 AM
Business has been fleeing for about 30 years now. We enact laws and tax code that makes it attractive for them to do this. Maybe that would be a good start to correcting this problem.

I had lunch with a gentleman yesterday, and he tended to agree that the single biggest step this country can take to get jobs back is single payer healthcare.

The problem is, as I see it, the same people who are signing petitions to secede are the same people who simply have no use for facts.

hanleyclifford
12-05-2012, 09:57 AM
You righties still don't get it; the country _is_ being systematically plundered, by the rich who take the wealth from the working class & return but an infinitesimal portion of it thru spending & (ridiculously low to they) taxes. If their taxes were such that the wealth was returned to the system (instead of being sent to, for instance, Cayman Island Banks), they would be staying & continuing to put their efforts into the pot that is the U.S. IE, the low taxes on those who take home the largest amounts _are_ the reason for the plundering of the U.S..

It may be the wealthy who give you work (living where you do, doing the work you do - lucky you - few are so lucky), but what they 'give' is a minuscule portion of what they take - meaning the flow of capital, upwards, far surpasses the return flow - and you - & people like you - are only a few of many. Walmart employees, to stir up our second best (after you) troll, NTM many in the military, make too little to even live on - while a few make way too much to ever need - and pay far less in real taxes than many workers.

We aren't talking about 'squeezing the rich', we're talking about putting back in circulation what they 'squeezed' the working class to take. You 'claim' to be one of the working class - Ok, Time to WTFU - or don't you care about your fellow Americans?

enjoy
bobby Thank you for demonstrating an understanding of some of the symptoms of the problem. The difference between us is that I understand better how the uber rich do it, but ok, we are moving forward. BTW, I am still smarting at my non nomination on the "troll" thread. I cheerfully enjoy all the names you suspects may sling.

ahp
12-05-2012, 10:51 AM
Free enterprise enthusiasts really don't like "Free Enterprise". It has nasty surprises. Cartels and trusts are so predictable, so profitable, and so comfy.

TDSoren
12-05-2012, 11:50 AM
Eh? I don't think so. The secession of the Confederacy (the only one that came to anything) was not primarily religious at all, although like everybody else at the time, they invoked God to justify their decision. You can read the Declarations of Secession here (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html); the reasons they give are entirely political and economic, defending slavery above all.

The parallel between the south wanting to keep their slave labor for economic viability and the current crop of conservatives (just a coincidence on. the "red" states?) wanting to disenfranchise the working class for the same reasons isn't a connection I'd made before, but now it sits there and stares me in the face :-)

Osborne Russell
12-05-2012, 11:56 AM
Africans, Chinese and Mexicans were nice and cheap, but even taken together were never going to be enough. Time to turn our attention to the whites. How may they be most efficiently recruited and maintained?

Durnik
12-05-2012, 12:51 PM
Thank you for demonstrating an understanding of some of the symptoms of the problem. The difference between us is that I understand better how the uber rich do it, but ok, we are moving forward. BTW, I am still smarting at my non nomination on the "troll" thread. I cheerfully enjoy all the names you suspects may sling.

Ah, I understand _how_ they do it.. I simply realize it, & they, are wrong. See? No? I figured.

It's kind of like this - I know how to aim a firearm & squeeze the trigger - but I don't, as I know it is wrong. Having the knowledge to do - does not justify the doing.. 'cept maybe to a rightie..

enjoy
bobby

hanleyclifford
12-05-2012, 01:10 PM
Ah, I understand _how_ they do it.. I simply realize it, & they, are wrong. See? No? I figured.

It's kind of like this - I know how to aim a firearm & squeeze the trigger - but I don't, as I know it is wrong. Having the knowledge to do - does not justify the doing.. 'cept maybe to a rightie..

enjoy
bobby I'm afraid I was wrong: you are not grasping the problem, only demonstrating an emotional anti rich sentiment. We'll have to wait for another thread. Sorry, no enjoy Bobby

fishrswim
12-05-2012, 01:33 PM
I've been to Brazil many times. If your "rich businessman wants to go there. Let him go. He deserves it.

BTW please ask him to surrender his US citizenship once he gets there. It's a simple process. Course he won't be able to visit unless he gets a visa.

hanleyclifford
12-05-2012, 01:39 PM
We could actually make some progress on threads like this if you would consider the abuse of the instrument we call "corporation" and how it relates to such matters as taxation and capital flight.

Durnik
12-05-2012, 05:00 PM
I'm afraid I was wrong: you are not grasping the problem, only demonstrating an emotional anti rich sentiment. We'll have to wait for another thread. Sorry, no enjoy Bobby

You're funny.. put a name to what you think is 'wrong' with me & keep on thinking you have all/the only answers..

You are correct, you are wrong.

enjoy
bobby

Lew Barrett
12-06-2012, 09:49 PM
Hey, I like free stuff too; we gotta figure out a way to make these bastards stay here...


The new "secession" is taking on a different form; I talked to a businessman today who is quietly moving his assets to Brazil and buying property. Of course the uber rich have been doing this for some time. Who is going to pay for the next generation's free stuff?


You lefties still don't get it; the country is being systematically plundered while you talk about squeezing the rich.

I can't make heads or tails of this!
I thought the rich didn't have enough money to make a difference when it came to taxation which is, presumably, the source of all our free stuff.
Now, having become rich here, they are leaving as the nation is plundered? Plundered by whom...the po' folk?

hanleyclifford
12-06-2012, 10:03 PM
Sorry Lew; I was just being facetious. Nothing funnier than watching the lefties figure out ways to make the "rich" pay for free stuff. Leona Helmsley put it best; "...only little people pay taxes...". The rich usually figure out a way to get out of it. There are steps that could be taken to get control of this country back in the hands of the American people but the usual suspects are too busy calling names and spouting Obama propaganda to really talk about it.

Durnik
12-06-2012, 10:48 PM
Sorry Lew; I was just being facetious. Nothing funnier than watching the lefties figure out ways to make the "rich" pay for free stuff. Leona Helmsley put it best; "...only little people pay taxes...". The rich usually figure out a way to get out of it. There are steps that could be taken to get control of this country back in the hands of the American people but the usual suspects are too busy calling names and spouting Obama propaganda to really talk about it.

Ah, there's your mistake.. & a popular one it is -

'Control' of this country has _never_ been 'in the hands of the American people'..

_Never_.

& 'the usual suspects' (the (supporters of the) right) are too busy imagining they can 'take back the gov' to actually do something about the situation which has any chance of creating change.

bizarre..

and that 'free stuff' meme.. more right wing projection, as the wealthy right wingers (Koch bros, Mitt's of the country, your friend - Leona Helmsley etc) are the true recipients of 'free stuff' - as in our blood, sweat & tears in the form of massive Cayman Island/Swiss bank accounts..

Word of advice, that 'tea' isn't.. it's kool-aid.. & it'll do you well to stop quaffing it in copious quantities!

enjoy
bobby

ccmanuals
12-06-2012, 10:57 PM
Whack. :)

fishrswim
12-07-2012, 02:17 AM
I don't know why a citizen can't apply for non citizenship. That's a bit different than the state leaving he union. If they really don't like it here, they're free to go. I've been told that a lot by those on the right, but I've never signed a petition of this nature.

Actually they can. It's an easy process. Just appear at a US embassy or consulate in a foreign country, and sign a few papers. Check out the State Dept. web site for specifics.
Might want to arrange for legal status in some other country first because otherwise they could end up stateless. Also they would need a visa to visit the US and the web site cautions that such visas might not be easy to obtain.

John Smith
12-07-2012, 07:14 AM
Sorry Lew; I was just being facetious. Nothing funnier than watching the lefties figure out ways to make the "rich" pay for free stuff. Leona Helmsley put it best; "...only little people pay taxes...". The rich usually figure out a way to get out of it. There are steps that could be taken to get control of this country back in the hands of the American people but the usual suspects are too busy calling names and spouting Obama propaganda to really talk about it.

BAck in the days so many long for, upper income tax rates were a great deal higher. Under Ike they were 90%. Donald Trump, when he was sane, addressed this in an interview I've been unable to find: it was a while ago.

The substance of what he said was that no one actually paid the 90%, or whatever the rate was when he was interviewed (it might have come down to 70%, but the idea is that same) because there were "loopholes". Most, or many, of those loopholes that allowed the wealthy man to lower his tax rate gave jobs to the middle class. They were decent jobs where one income supported the family. As tax rates came down it was easier to just pay the taxes, outsourcing made more sense, and here we are.

TDSoren
12-07-2012, 10:26 AM
Sorry Lew; I was just being facetious. Nothing funnier than watching the lefties figure out ways to make the "rich" pay for free stuff. Leona Helmsley put it best; "...only little people pay taxes...". The rich usually figure out a way to get out of it. There are steps that could be taken to get control of this country back in the hands of the American people but the usual suspects are too busy calling names and spouting Obama propaganda to really talk about it.

After reading the last several posts, I find myself largely agreeing with Hanley here.

He's acknowledged repeatedly that the uber rich are bailing with all the cash, and something has to be done about corporations to cure the problem. He just isn't identifying as a progressive or liberal, big surprise :-)

I'm a registered independent that has found reason to vote rabidly Democrat Since about 2001. One reason I stay independent is that I think people can be blinded by rabid partisanship in either direction. The irritating political correctness starting to pop up in the 90's workplace is one example.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Take a step back, take a cold hard look at how the bastards are getting away with our cash, then calmly cut them off at the knees. Don't let them get us pissed off and talking crazy and swinging in all directions.

If I've misinterpreted you Hanley, I stand ready to be verbally eviscerated :-)

hanleyclifford
12-07-2012, 10:36 AM
After reading the last several posts, I find myself largely agreeing with Hanley here.

He's acknowledged repeatedly that the uber rich are bailing with all the cash, and something has to be done about corporations to cure the problem. He just isn't identifying as a progressive or liberal, big surprise :-)

I'm a registered independent that has found reason to vote rabidly Democrat Since about 2001. One reason I stay independent is that I think people can be blinded by rabid partisanship in either direction. The irritating political correctness starting to pop up in the 90's workplace is one example.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Take a step back, take a cold hard look at how the bastards are getting away with our cash, then calmly cut them off at the knees. Don't let them get us pissed off and talking crazy and swinging in all directions.

If I've misinterpreted you Hanley, I stand ready to be verbally eviscerated :-) You are spot on TDSoren. Now let's focus on the "knees".

John Smith
12-07-2012, 10:37 AM
After reading the last several posts, I find myself largely agreeing with Hanley here.

He's acknowledged repeatedly that the uber rich are bailing with all the cash, and something has to be done about corporations to cure the problem. He just isn't identifying as a progressive or liberal, big surprise :-)

I'm a registered independent that has found reason to vote rabidly Democrat Since about 2001. One reason I stay independent is that I think people can be blinded by rabid partisanship in either direction. The irritating political correctness starting to pop up in the 90's workplace is one example.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Take a step back, take a cold hard look at how the bastards are getting away with our cash, then calmly cut them off at the knees. Don't let them get us pissed off and talking crazy and swinging in all directions.

If I've misinterpreted you Hanley, I stand ready to be verbally eviscerated :-)

I don't argue with any of this, except for where you see it beginning. I see it starting in the very late 70's and taking off when Reagan took office. That's when we enjoyed credit card financing without ever having to pay the bill. Outsourcing was happening at a high rate of speed, and NAFTA was still more than a decade into the future. Reagan's tax cut was dramatic enough to change the way the wealthy handled their money.

Sitting here today, it's my opinion that getting good jobs back in the USA to the extent we need them is an uphill climb. One step, IMO, we must take is single payer healthcare.

hanleyclifford
12-07-2012, 10:45 AM
Single payer is an excellent idea but cannot be implemented without other significant changes.

Keith Wilson
12-07-2012, 10:45 AM
He's acknowledged repeatedly that the uber rich are bailing with all the cash . . . Yeah, that and a buckandahalf will get you a cup of coffee. Evidence, please? So far we have an anecdotal conversation with one guy who claims he's going to Brazil, a country whose government is far to the left of the US. This does not convince me that "the uber rich are bailing with all the cash". Seriously, where are they going to bail to? Almost any place one would want to live has a government way to the left of ours; Galt's Gulch is juvenile fiction.

The causes of changes in distribution of wealth and income are complicated, we have a real problem, and silliness about 'free stuff' and 'banksters' doesn't help much.

Osborne Russell
12-07-2012, 10:52 AM
There are steps that could be taken to get control of this country back in the hands of the American people but the usual suspects are too busy calling names and spouting Obama propaganda to really talk about it.

What did the Chimp Squad say about it? What does the TP say about the Chimp Squad? You ain't sayin' S.


On June 22, 2006 the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs released its final report [22] on the scandal. The report states that under the guidance of the Mississippi Choctaw tribe's planner, Nell Rogers, the tribe agreed to launder money because "Ralph Reed did not want to be paid directly by a tribe with gaming interests." It also states that Reed used non-profits, like Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, as pass-throughs to disguise the origin of the funds, and that "the structure was recommended by Jack Abramoff to accommodate Mr. Reedís political concerns."

-- Wikipedia

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1995/1101950515_400.jpg

hanleyclifford
12-07-2012, 12:49 PM
What did the Chimp Squad say about it? What does the TP say about the Chimp Squad? You ain't sayin' S.



http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1995/1101950515_400.jpg What color is the grass on your planet?

Osborne Russell
12-07-2012, 01:41 PM
Where did the money come from? From the job creators. How'd they get it? Who said God Bless them?

fishrswim
12-08-2012, 12:43 PM
Yeah, that and a buckandahalf will get you a cup of coffee. Evidence, please? So far we have an anecdotal conversation with one guy who claims he's going to Brazil, a country whose government is far to the left of the US. This does not convince me that "the uber rich are bailing with all the cash". Seriously, where are they going to bail to? Almost any place one would want to live has a government way to the left of ours; Galt's Gulch is juvenile fiction.

The causes of changes in distribution of wealth and income are complicated, we have a real problem, and silliness about 'free stuff' and 'banksters' doesn't help much.

X2. The Uber rich are sending the cash off to the Cayman Islands but for the most part they choose to live here.

The only uber rich guy I've ever personally known to bail was a Texas rancher, who went to Brazil waaaay back in the 60's. He bought a HUGE ranch, something like a 40 x 60 mile rectangle. On this property he said he paid less than $3000 US per year. The outback of Brazil in those days was like the American wild west of the late 1800s and he loved it. Things went well for a few years but then he ended up on the wrong side of land reform and lost everything.

However I also knew a uber rich Greek fellow who brought his money to the US and ran a very successful international construction and service company from offices in Washington DC.

So anticdotally, in my case, we're at break even. And I really doubt that many of our super rich are bailing. But there are some we should encourage to go somewhere, anywhere, the sooner the better.