If Arizona were to secede from the United States ..

[Unilisia]

Arizona Secessionists: "We are declaring that all this land is ours, and that all the people who live here are no longer U.S. citizens, but rather citizens of Arizona."

Arizona Loyalists: "Like Hell!!!!" <to Washington> "HELP!!!!!!"

United States of America: "Let's see... No legal right to secede under the Consititution? Check. No legal right to strip Americans of their citizenship? Check. O.K., that's not kosher. You're under arrest."

Arizona Secessionists: "You have no legal authority here!"

United States of America: "Wrong answer. The right answer is, 'O.K., I'm laying down on the ground with my hands behind me head. Please don't shoot me.'"

Arizona Secessionists: "To arms!"

United States of America: "Let's see, that's Treason and Sedition. Check, and check." <proceeds to stomp all over Arizona Secessionist movement>

---

That's not a war of conquest, because Arizona never "belonged" to the secessionists. It's called "putting down an armed rebellion".

<pause>

You know, I have to ask: How can ultra-conservatives be such a Flaming Critical Mass of Fail? They're laissez-faire devotees who don't understand capitalism, Rand devotees who never really read Rand, strict Constitutionalists who don't understand the Constitution, most of them profess to be Christians while not understanding Christianity, and they're universally ignorant of history and incapable of using logic.

How can you be that lame without spending a lifetime working at it?

I love you.

[Sailsia]

As I said, it would not be a war of conquest. It would be a police action aimed at putting down an unlawful rebellion.

Show me a "Lawful Rebellion" and that sentence might make sense.
Otherwise, you can affix that label to any group attempting to exercise sovereignty and self-determination

Also, The Revolutionary war was unlawful, so surrender the original 13 colonies back to the English crown.

Actually, it was unlawful. If you didn't know, the English even sent an army here to quash the revolution.

It was only after the war got unpopular, that they decided to RECOGNIZE US. I doubt that AZ could fend off the US Army, let alone be recognized.

You see, there is thing called logic. Maybe you should use it more often? You know, think though your arguments? I'm sure you're a nice guy, but when you post stuff that can be dismissed as quickly as it takes to read it, you're just cluttering up the forums.

[Katganistan]

You know, I have to ask: How can ultra-conservatives be such a Flaming Critical Mass of Fail? They're laissez-faire devotees who don't understand capitalism, Rand devotees who never really read Rand, strict Constitutionalists who don't understand the Constitution, most of them profess to be Christians while not understanding Christianity, and they're universally ignorant of history and incapable of using logic.

How can you be that lame without spending a lifetime working at it?

*** Warned for trolling. ***

[Sailsia]

Not sure how that's trolling. He's stating his opinion. He isn't trying to get a rise out of anyone on purpose.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Not sure how that's trolling. He's stating his opinion. He isn't trying to get a rise out of anyone on purpose.

I'm sure the conservatives on NSG love him for that post.

[Dyakovo]

Not sure how that's trolling. He's stating his opinion. He isn't trying to get a rise out of anyone on purpose.

All x are y. He is negatively characterizing all conservatives.

[Sailsia]

Not sure how that's trolling. He's stating his opinion. He isn't trying to get a rise out of anyone on purpose.

All x are y. He is negatively characterizing all conservatives.

Generalizing negatively? That's one of the most common things I have seen on NSG. I didn't know you could really get people in trouble for it. Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose of an argument though?

[Wiztopia]

Not sure how that's trolling. He's stating his opinion. He isn't trying to get a rise out of anyone on purpose.

All x are y. He is negatively characterizing all conservatives.

*reports myself* But seriously I don't see how that can be considered trolling. I mean shit, everybody on this forum would have been warned/banned for it years ago.

[Hellsgrind]

All x are y. He is negatively characterizing all conservatives.

*reports myself* But seriously I don't see how that can be considered trolling. I mean shit, everybody on this forum would have been warned/banned for it years ago.

Whatever the case, got a positive rise out of me.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

NSG, what do you think would result if Arizona were to secede from the United States of America?

1. When you looked at a standalone map of the US, it would look painfully like a cake which had a piece cut from it.
2. Unless we inducted Puerto Rico we would have to go back to the old 1959 49-star flag, and the process of replacing all the flags everywhere, not just in government but everywhere, would likely cost a SHITLOAD of money, much more than you think, and probably less than granting statehood to Puerto Rico (sorry, Buffett).

[Volmachtia]

Rather unlikely to happen at all, to be frank. I just don't see Arizona getting fed up enough to actuall break away.

If it were to happen, though, I suspect other states would follow suit. Civil war? Maybe, but not likely.

My best bet is that if it did happen, the most that would come of it is two United States instead of one.

[Mike the Progressive]

Arizona is increasingly becoming highly sustainable in terms of security, and it's legislative government fails to recognize most of the clauses of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I predict that Arizona will threaten secession within 20 years, if not, 15.

NSG, what do you think would result if Arizona were to secede from the United States of America?

I think your prediction lacks any solid base and a failure to analyze history, especially our own. This is not the first time the state has tried to do what the national government can only do...and it won't be the last.

[Neu Leonstein]

http://www.economist.com/node/17305544

Seems like the US taxpayer might save some money if Arizona went and took its poverty with it...

[Farnhamia]

(Image)
http://www.economist.com/node/17305544

Seems like the US taxpayer might save some money if Arizona went and took its poverty with it...

From that map, the property doesn't actually belong to the people of Arizona, being mortgaged to the hilt. Better they stay and learn to live within their means.

[Neu Leonstein]

From that map, the property doesn't actually belong to the people of Arizona, being mortgaged to the hilt. Better they stay and learn to live within their means.

Well, I assume the debt ends up with the US taxpayer through two channels: firstly through Fannie and Freddie and secondly through the FDIC. Can't do much about the former regardless of what Arizona does, but getting them out of the FDIC's jurisdicitions would cut loose a lot of shitty local banks (thus made by ridiculous overhang of the oh-so-great post-1929 banking regulations, but that's another story).

[The Nuclear Fist]

Arizona would be crushed into dust, and brought back into the Union.

[Free Soviets]

Not sure how that's trolling. He's stating his opinion. He isn't trying to get a rise out of anyone on purpose.

All x are y. He is negatively characterizing all conservatives.

all nazis support genocide.
all child molesters are bad people.

sometimes negative characterizations are true. sorta like how it is simply true that the republican party is the party of white supremacy.

[Dyakovo]

Arizona would be crushed into dust, and brought back into the Union.

It really would depend upon how Arizona went about seceding and whether or not they decided to try seizing Federal property I think... If Arizona did secede and did provoke the US into an armed response, then yes, that is exactly what would happen.

[Farnhamia]

From that map, the property doesn't actually belong to the people of Arizona, being mortgaged to the hilt. Better they stay and learn to live within their means.

Well, I assume the debt ends up with the US taxpayer through two channels: firstly through Fannie and Freddie and secondly through the FDIC. Can't do much about the former regardless of what Arizona does, but getting them out of the FDIC's jurisdicitions would cut loose a lot of shitty local banks (thus made by ridiculous overhang of the oh-so-great post-1929 banking regulations, but that's another story).

Fannie and Freddie don't insure mortgages. Their purpose is to create a liquid secondary mortgage market so banks can lend more. The Federal Housing Administration does insure some mortgages but only a limited number.

So you think it's okay if depositors lose their money if their bank fails? The FDIC is funded by assessing the member banks an insurance fee. Only in a severe crisis would the Treasury have to step up.

[Neu Leonstein]

Fannie and Freddie don't insure mortgages. Their purpose is to create a liquid secondary mortgage market so banks can lend more.

And how do they do that? Through buying mortgages and then issuing MBS based on them, which come with the (now explicit) guarantee that the US taxpayer will cough up the cash if the mortgages go bad. Hence why Fannie and Freddie are the main reason this crisis will be directly financially expensive to the taxpayer, while the banking bailout in a simple sense actually turned out to be not all that bad.

So you think it's okay if depositors lose their money if their bank fails? The FDIC is funded by assessing the member banks an insurance fee. Only in a severe crisis would the Treasury have to step up.

One way or another the costs of FDIC insurance get passed on to the Average Joe, right? And cutting a bunch of bad banks out of the pool will reduce the costs for everyone else, just as in any other insurance situation. Not saying it's fair, just saying there's less grounds for complaints if those seperatist nutjobs want it so bad.

And I don't know about you, but I for my part am done with looking at official balance sheets to decide the financial health of things (including governments). Contingent liabilities is the way to go, and as such the insurance risk the FDIC takes on goes straight to the taxpayer. Everything else is just accounting magick.

[Farnhamia]

Fannie and Freddie don't insure mortgages. Their purpose is to create a liquid secondary mortgage market so banks can lend more.

And how do they do that? Through buying mortgages and then issuing MBS based on them, which come with the (now explicit) guarantee that the US taxpayer will cough up the cash if the mortgages go bad. Hence why Fannie and Freddie are the main reason this crisis will be directly financially expensive to the taxpayer, while the banking bailout in a simple sense actually turned out to be not all that bad.

So you think it's okay if depositors lose their money if their bank fails? The FDIC is funded by assessing the member banks an insurance fee. Only in a severe crisis would the Treasury have to step up.

One way or another the costs of FDIC insurance get passed on to the Average Joe, right? And cutting a bunch of bad banks out of the pool will reduce the costs for everyone else, just as in any other insurance situation. Not saying it's fair, just saying there's less grounds for complaints if those seperatist nutjobs want it so bad.

And I don't know about you, but I for my part am done with looking at official balance sheets to decide the financial health of things (including governments). Contingent liabilities is the way to go, and as such the insurance risk the FDIC takes on goes straight to the taxpayer. Everything else is just accounting magick.

Perhaps you're right on the Fannie/Freddie issue. The more important point is, however, your seeming opinion that tax money is still yours in some way after it goes to the government. It isn't. I personally think that the government ought to make provisions to protect people against the bad business decisions of other people, particularly ones to whom we give the money that is ours. Banks may be nice to you, sometimes, but they are not your friends. They do not have your best interests at heart, they have the interests of their shareholders at heart. If the people who run banks screw up, they may be sorry for a while, but as long as they don't actually end up in jail or have to pay huge fines, they get over it pretty quickly. Meanwhile, without the FDIC, you're going to stay screwed for a much longer time.

[Alien Space Bats]

You know, I have to ask: How can ultra-conservatives be such a Flaming Critical Mass of Fail? They're laissez-faire devotees who don't understand capitalism, Rand devotees who never really read Rand, strict Constitutionalists who don't understand the Constitution, most of them profess to be Christians while not understanding Christianity, and they're universally ignorant of history and incapable of using logic.

How can you be that lame without spending a lifetime working at it?

*** Warned for trolling. ***

---

Time for me to take a month off.

I'm sitting here in a State where the Republican-held Legislature has just created a mechanism for depriving citizens of their right to home rule if the municipalities in which they live are financially challenged, and where that same Legislature is about to cut aid to those same municipalities in half in spite of the fact that there is supposed to be a long-standing agreement between the State and municipalities for them to provide such aid in compensation for revenue they took away from said municipalities as part of a tax limitation measure they engineered 17 years ago. On top of that, they're going to pass another law forcing a 15-25% tax cut on those municipalities on top of the cut to State aid.

Why? Call me cynical, but I'm guessing it's so that they can force those municipalities and their school districts into "financial martial law", in which a State-appointed czar comes in and takes over complete control of the community and its schools, with unlimited authority to cut, privatize, and even legislate to his hearts content, and where the people of that community no longer have any right whatsoever to remove or challenge him, vote him out, or even force him to confront us in a public meeting and explain his actions. It's already started happening in Benton Harbor, MI, and the State has over two-hundred more newly trained Emergency Financial Managers waiting to assume dictatorial powers due to "financial emergencies" in other communities.

While people whine about how, with the lowest tax rates since the 1950's and more wealth concentrated in the hands of the top quintile of the population than God Himself could imagine, my ability as a voter to exercise a voice in local affairs is about to vanish. How do people respond to this? By pontificating about how this is somehow best for society. Never in my life did I imagine that so many of my fellow countrymen would believe that democracy ought to be destroyed in favor of oligarchy, and never in my life did I imagine that they would have the chutzpah to do it in the name of "liberty".

So yeah, I'm emotional about all of this. Why? Because this is not an academic exercise. This is not some intellectual game. These are my voting rights, this is my government, and this is my future. Do I get passionate about it? Oh, Hell, yes. If it were your freedom, you would be passionate, too.

Well, it is your freedom, America. This is the nation that your grandparents and great-grandparents bequeathed to you - after fighting for it in faraway places like the jungles of New Guinea and the bocage of Normandy - and it's about to get taken away from you. People who believe that "liberty" is something only a very small minority of very rich people ought to enjoy are working as we speak to strip you of your voting rights and steal away your right to have a voice in your government. Once that happens, the game is over: They will "rebuild" America in accordance with their ideals - simultaneously striving to turn it into a Dickensian Hell-hole and into a Fundamentalist Protestant version of Iran.

These are the people whose forebears used to say "the South will rise again" - only back then, we just thought it a silly, quaint expression. Evidently not. They would tear down the Union your forebears fought for and replace it with a new Confederacy, uglier and more vile than the old one. Their leaders claim that they're not racists, but many of their greatest philosophers and their most notable opinion leaders quite demonstrably are, and at the very least these are people who thought that the NACCP was on the wrong side of the Civil Rights battles of the 1960's. Whether they are bold enough to admit it or not, getting rid of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and gutting the 14th Amendment are part and parcel of these peoples' agenda.

Ask yourself why there are all these new threads about a Second Civil War and secession: Do you think this is coincidence? It isn't. On the sesquicentennial anniversary of the outbreak of the American Civil War, the Rebels are back, like zombies from the grave - and they are every bit as foetid as ever. Of course, the greatest irony is that they call themselves Republicans, so to my above characterization I could add "Republicans who renounce Republicanism". Listening to today's faux-Republicans, you'd never imagine that the GOP was the party that gave us Women's Suffrage and, from 1940-1980, made ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment a platform plank; you'd never imagine that it was a Republican President - and a conservative one, no less - who signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and created the EPA. These people who call themselves Republican have no idea what the GOP used to stand for; these days, it's indistinguishable from the Democratic Party of Nathan Bedford Forrest's day. Indeed, any day now, I'd expect to hear today's Republicans begin extolling Forrest's great virtues as a hero. It's just one more bit of madness to flavor the stew.

I meant everything I said in that post. If I'd been accused of flaming for that last remark, about spending a lifetime working at being so lame, I wouldn't be as upset; that quip really went too far. But - as for the rest of it - the truth is the truth: In thread after thread after thread, we've seen the same ignorance of the Constitution by people who claim to believe in the "strict" interpretation of that document; we've seen facile economic analyses by people who adhere to a school of economic belief that is actually based on the premise that economic truth can only be discovered by a rejection of the scientific method and willful dismissal of real-life data and real-world results (which amounts to saying, "if my theories don't match reality, then reality be damned - my theories are right, a priori!"); we've seen Christians who talk about God's righteous wrath and cite the Old Testament without the slightest idea of what it means to live under Grace, who fail to appreciate - and less than half a century after the Charismatic Movement, no less - that Faith is a seed that grows within us, rather than a sword to impose our will on others. With this crop of radicals, everything is upside down and inside out, until the mind is left spinning in bewilderment. Never has a mass political movement so heavily relied on the redefinition of terminology, the dismissal of logic and consequences, a willful ignorance of history, and an open appeal to the worst aspects of human nature, as does this one.

And so, since I believe this, it is time for me to leave.

Some people are good at street protest; some are good at political organization. I have tried to make a difference online; it is where I believe I can best make a difference, spreading ideas and provoking thought; I must therefore keep doing it to make a difference, even if I make that difference somewhere else. And, at this hour in our national history, it is time for everyone who cares about the future to make a difference. It's also time for our foreign friends to try to help us, rather than shake your heads in shock at the illness that has befallen our body politic, or malign us for our benighted attitudes; for should America fall under the power of these radicals, trust me, those of us living under their heel will be safer than the rest of the world. I'd rather face domestic oppression than be squarely in the sights of a nuclear-armed American military. No, for your safety and survival, you need to reach out, break through the lies, and touch minds as well. This fights is as much yours as it is ours.

I will make a difference elsewhere. I will argue against the distortions and outright lies, against the illogic, against the ignorance, and most of all against the false choices. This is not a fight between Liberty and Marxism; Marxism is dead. This is a fight between a vision of a moderate society run for the benefit of all, and an oligarchy run for the sake of the fortunate few. Taxes aren't tyranny, and wealth does not entitle you to more rights than your neighbor; being robbed of your voice is tyranny, and human rights are universal.

[Farnhamia]

*** Warned for trolling. ***

---

Time for me to take a month off.

I'm sitting here in a State where the Republican-held Legislature has just created a mechanism for depriving citizens of their right to home rule if the municipalities in which they live are financially challenged, and where that same Legislature is about to cut aid to those same municipalities in half in spite of the fact that there is supposed to be a long-standing agreement between the State and municipalities for them to provide such aid in compensation for revenue they took away from said municipalities as part of a tax limitation measure they engineered 17 years ago. On top of that, they're going to pass another law forcing a 15-25% tax cut on those municipalities on top of the cut to State aid.

Why? Call me cynical, but I'm guessing it's so that they can force those municipalities and their school districts into "financial martial law", in which a State-appointed czar comes in and takes over complete control of the community and its schools, with unlimited authority to cut, privatize, and even legislate to his hearts content, and where the people of that community no longer have any right whatsoever to remove or challenge him, vote him out, or even force him to confront us in a public meeting and explain his actions. It's already started happening in Benton Harbor, MI, and the State has over two-hundred more newly trained Emergency Financial Managers waiting to assume dictatorial powers due to "financial emergencies" in other communities.

While people whine about how, with the lowest tax rates since the 1950's and more wealth concentrated in the hands of the top quintile of the population than God Himself could imagine, my ability as a voter to exercise a voice in local affairs is about to vanish. How do people respond to this? By pontificating about how this is somehow best for society. Never in my life did I imagine that so many of my fellow countrymen would believe that democracy ought to be destroyed in favor of oligarchy, and never in my life did I imagine that they would have the chutzpah to do it in the name of "liberty".

So yeah, I'm emotional about all of this. Why? Because this is not an academic exercise. This is not some intellectual game. These are my voting rights, this is my government, and this is my future. Do I get passionate about it? Oh, Hell, yes. If it were your freedom, you would be passionate, too.

Well, it is your freedom, America. This is the nation that your grandparents and great-grandparents bequeathed to you - after fighting for it in faraway places like the jungles of New Guinea and the bocage of Normandy - and it's about to get taken away from you. People who believe that "liberty" is something only a very small minority of very rich people ought to enjoy are working as we speak to strip you of your voting rights and steal away your right to have a voice in your government. Once that happens, the game is over: They will "rebuild" America in accordance with their ideals - simultaneously striving to turn it into a Dickensian Hell-hole and into a Fundamentalist Protestant version of Iran.

These are the people whose forebears used to say "the South will rise again" - only back then, we just thought it a silly, quaint expression. Evidently not. They would tear down the Union your forebears fought for and replace it with a new Confederacy, uglier and more vile than the old one. Their leaders claim that they're not racists, but many of their greatest philosophers and their most notable opinion leaders quite demonstrably are, and at the very least these are people who thought that the NACCP was on the wrong side of the Civil Rights battles of the 1960's. Whether they are bold enough to admit it or not, getting rid of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and gutting the 14th Amendment are part and parcel of these peoples' agenda.

Ask yourself why there are all these new threads about a Second Civil War and secession: Do you think this is coincidence? It isn't. On the sesquicentennial anniversary of the outbreak of the American Civil War, the Rebels are back, like zombies from the grave - and they are every bit as foetid as ever. Of course, the greatest irony is that they call themselves Republicans, so to my above characterization I could add "Republicans who renounce Republicanism". Listening to today's faux-Republicans, you'd never imagine that the GOP was the party that gave us Women's Suffrage and, from 1940-1980, made ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment a platform plank; you'd never imagine that it was a Republican President - and a conservative one, no less - who signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and created the EPA. These people who call themselves Republican have no idea what the GOP used to stand for; these days, it's indistinguishable from the Democratic Party of Nathan Bedford Forrest's day. Indeed, any day now, I'd expect to hear today's Republicans begin extolling Forrest's great virtues as a hero. It's just one more bit of madness to flavor the stew.

I meant everything I said in that post. If I'd been accused of flaming for that last remark, about spending a lifetime working at being so lame, I wouldn't be as upset; that quip really went too far. But - as for the rest of it - the truth is the truth: In thread after thread after thread, we've seen the same ignorance of the Constitution by people who claim to believe in the "strict" interpretation of that document; we've seen facile economic analyses by people who adhere to a school of economic belief that is actually based on the premise that economic truth can only be discovered by a rejection of the scientific method and willful dismissal of real-life data and real-world results (which amounts to saying, "if my theories don't match reality, then reality be damned - my theories are right, a priori!"); we've seen Christians who talk about God's righteous wrath and cite the Old Testament without the slightest idea of what it means to live under Grace, who fail to appreciate - and less than half a century after the Charismatic Movement, no less - that Faith is a seed that grows within us, rather than a sword to impose our will on others. With this crop of radicals, everything is upside down and inside out, until the mind is left spinning in bewilderment. Never has a mass political movement so heavily relied on the redefinition of terminology, the dismissal of logic and consequences, a willful ignorance of history, and an open appeal to the worst aspects of human nature, as does this one.

And so, since I believe this, it is time for me to leave.

Some people are good at street protest; some are good at political organization. I have tried to make a difference online; it is where I believe I can best make a difference, spreading ideas and provoking thought; I must therefore keep doing it to make a difference, even if I make that difference somewhere else. And, at this hour in our national history, it is time for everyone who cares about the future to make a difference. It's also time for our foreign friends to try to help us, rather than shake your heads in shock at the illness that has befallen our body politic, or malign us for our benighted attitudes; for should America fall under the power of these radicals, trust me, those of us living under their heel will be safer than the rest of the world. I'd rather face domestic oppression than be squarely in the sights of a nuclear-armed American military. No, for your safety and survival, you need to reach out, break through the lies, and touch minds as well. This fights is as much yours as it is ours.

I will make a difference elsewhere. I will argue against the distortions and outright lies, against the illogic, against the ignorance, and most of all against the false choices. This is not a fight between Liberty and Marxism; Marxism is dead. This is a fight between a vision of a moderate society run for the benefit of all, and an oligarchy run for the sake of the fortunate few. Taxes aren't tyranny, and wealth does not entitle you to more rights than your neighbor; being robbed of your voice is tyranny, and human rights are universal.

Well said, ASB, well said, indeed. I hope you will come back in time. We need your voice here, as we need TCT's and Bottle's and Dya's and the voices of others. Without you and them, the lies win out. I've always enjoyed your posts and I'll miss them in the meantime.

[Pottslande]

One word.

MEM.

Mass Exodus of Minorities.

[Nazi Flower Power]

All x are y. He is negatively characterizing all conservatives.

all nazis support genocide.

Like Hell I do!