Lasher Loc: Georgia

Oldroy has too much time on his hands. This forum is his only source of entertainment.

straightUp Loc: California

Well, that's what I was referring to... I converse on the basis that a "state" is defined by it's leaders, rather than a "nation" being defined by it's people.

The STATE of Israel is a political entity based on the notion that Jews deserve a country and have some kind of God-given title deed to Palestine. That right there is a notion that should have been denied in 1948. I do recognize the horrible atrocities that Jews suffered in the 20th century but lot's of people throughout history suffered horrible persecution and never got a country out of it. You might be familiar with how the Zionists used terrorism (ie Irgun) to gain ground in the quest for statehood. So, Israel *is* the example to extremists everywhere that terrorism *can* work.

My feeling now that several generations of people have been born in Israel and have no other home, is that Israel should be allowed to exist for their sake but I oppose the state's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. I oppose their apartheid. I oppose their methods of occupation. I oppose their exceptionalism (such as being the only nation that doesn't account for their nuclear arms) and I oppose the enormous support provided by the U.S. without which it's doubtful they would have "won" much.

Anyway - I guess this is a tangent.

Lasher Loc: Georgia

You could be right.

straightUp Loc: California

Probably the later.


1. Immediately after the 13 colonies separated from Britain, one of the highest priorities especially among the Federalists was to secure trade agreements with Britain. There's no reason why a separation from the union should deny ongoing economic links. A renegotiated contract maybe all that is required.
2. The rural states lack the heavy populations found in places like the east coast and with that the rich consumer markets, so it would be in the best interest of the rural states to foster trade agreements.
3. The rural states are not the only places to go. Basically, all the coastal and urban regions get from them is grain anyway and that can be imported from Canada just as easily.

So if anything, the rural states have the most to loose. Their massive supplies of grain isn't going to do them much good if they can't export it and their lack of population also limits their human resources, which would affect their capacity in many ways, such as innovation and defense.

History suggests that when countries divide, it's the agricultural half that suffers the most. Examples... The Industrial North vs the Agricultural South after the Civil War or the similar situation between the industrial counties of Northern Ireland vs the agricultural counties of the Republic of Ireland.

In any case... I would think the most beneficial type of division for everyone would be based on lines other that current state lines. Probably more along the lines that are currently emerging in socio-economic studies being referred to a megalopolis, although from a political process point of view that would be harder to achieve.


Well, I was referring to a more generalized perspective, rather than specific personalities. You are always going to find those exceptional individuals. Defining the Democrat Party by the likes of Schumer and Reid is no different than defining the Republican Party by the likes of McCain and Powell. In general, I believe both parties have similar objectives... basically, to protect free-enterprise and private property. I think there is a difference in the approach. Democrats still tend to look for compromise in typical "progressive" fashion. The Republicans... well, the new Republicans anyway, tend to be more impatient and are finding that a dogmatic approach is more effective.


Such as?


Not sure I agree.


Not sure I even follow.


Again, once you can confirm that they actually spent $100 million in non-business expenses for the family-members I will comment on that specifically, until then I am only stating that like it or not Obama AND his family by virtue of his presidency are symbols of America and it's good practice for them to visit other nations as a sign of trust, interest and goodwill. This is why I mentioned the role of "head of state" and the British royal family which functions exclusively in that role. The Royal Family is largely misunderstood in America but they are loved by people all around the world and their visits have always been a benefit to international relations for the UK.


Well, let me know when you actually have some evidence.


The ONLY money the British taxpayers spend on the Royal Family is for security. Everything else the Royal Family spends comes out of their own pockets. They are an aristocratic family with many private investments not unlike the Bush family or the Walton family. Even Buckingham Palace is a privately owned home, not a state funded "palace". This is something that again, not many Americans are hip to. A monarchy has always been an exercise in private ownership. We are a republic, which is a system that advocates a more democratic shift from private ownership to public ownership. You may have noticed all the "socialist republics" out there... Indeed, every socialist is working toward a republic not a kingdom. As such, a republic is going to shift a greater share the expense to the people. Basically, you elect 'em, you pay for 'em.

This is why we spend more on our "First Family" than the Brits spend on their "Royal Family".


Don't pin that on me brother... I never said I advocate an increase in the number of representatives. I only explained that situation, strictly from an academic point of view.


No. The original quota was for representatives not senators.


Perhaps that's one of the remaining imperfections in the design. Perhaps the founders already knew this hence the phrase "In order to form a MORE perfect union." More perfect as opposed to less perfect, neither being absolute perfection.


Yeah, I don't agree. If you were a liberal you would probably be more familiar with the positive effects of the Constitution as applied to current arguments. With regard to any situation like what we see in Egypt today, I don't think Americans have come to the critical conditions yet which I think are primarily economic not political. In another words our middle class is still pretty fat and happy. Fat and happy populations bitch and moan but they don't revolt.