Greetings from Absolom_Absolom
Oct 6, 2013 01:15:38 #
Greetings from Dixieland,
I pray this finds you all well. I have been reading this forum for some time and find much of interest, meat both for thought and discussion. In politics, I am neither Democrat nor Republican (I am registered as an Independent) I identify most with the Tea Party~ if only they were a real political party instead of a political *movement* In t***h however I am a DEVOUT Antifederalist and as the name implies a fire-eating Southern secessionist. I look forward to interesting, and I hope, constructive dialogue here.
Your servant and compatriot
A_A
I pray this finds you all well. I have been reading this forum for some time and find much of interest, meat both for thought and discussion. In politics, I am neither Democrat nor Republican (I am registered as an Independent) I identify most with the Tea Party~ if only they were a real political party instead of a political *movement* In t***h however I am a DEVOUT Antifederalist and as the name implies a fire-eating Southern secessionist. I look forward to interesting, and I hope, constructive dialogue here.
Your servant and compatriot
A_A
Oct 6, 2013 03:20:46 #
Absolom_Absolom wrote:
Greetings from Dixieland, br br I pray this finds... (show quote)
Welcome to you, Absolom_Absolom,
You can find constructive dialogue on this forum, as wheat which must be separated from the chaff.
The Tea Party may well be the country's last best hope, if able to organize, and to locate articulate, intelligent candidates with integrity, authentic convictions, and the necessary determination to win their race.
Again, my sincere welcome, your individualism is needed here to counter those who attempt to reduce us to class warfare.
Oct 6, 2013 08:52:26 #
Absolom_Absolom wrote:
Greetings from Dixieland, br br I pray this finds... (show quote)
If you're interested in dialogue, just mention "Tea Party." Misconceptions abound, many of them held by people who have no intention of learning anything that might change their minds, or rattle their complacency.
Oct 6, 2013 09:52:48 #
banjojack wrote:
If you're interested in dialogue, just mention "Tea Party." Misconceptions abound, many of them held by people who have no intention of learning anything that might change their minds, or rattle their complacency.
Welcome Absolom...your name is an integral part of a prayer so your one of the good guys!
Oct 6, 2013 12:12:19 #
Welcome. Lot's of people like you, v**e person not party and there are democrat ops that will argue until their blue in the face no matter how much proof you have, I call them non-thinkers.
Absolom_Absolom wrote:
Greetings from Dixieland, br br I pray this finds... (show quote)
Oct 6, 2013 13:25:43 #
bmac32 wrote:
Welcome. Lot's of people like you, v**e person not party and there are democrat ops that will argue until their blue in the face no matter how much proof you have, I call them non-thinkers.
I am not exactly a secessionist, but I am a firm believer in State's Rights, and the Tenth Amendment. I am weary of the Federal Bureaucracy's usurpation of State's Rights, I am tired of being forced to swallow their " one size fits all (poorly)" bureaucratic crap. I believe that most things are more properly left to State and Local government. They are more aware of what is necessary.
Oct 6, 2013 14:51:28 #
banjojack wrote:
I am not exactly a secessionist, but I am a firm believer in State's Rights, and the Tenth Amendment. I am weary of the Federal Bureaucracy's usurpation of State's Rights, I am tired of being forced to swallow their " one size fits all (poorly)" bureaucratic crap. I believe that most things are more properly left to State and Local government. They are more aware of what is necessary.
I would take it one step further and say your local government knows best for it's locality. CO's current state government being a prime example of poor consideration for the whole state.
Oct 6, 2013 15:51:34 #
jonhatfield
Loc: Green Bay, WI
You will find much Tea Party company here with your devout antifederalist ideology and perhaps even with your eccentric southern secessionist viewpoint. ha. Welcome to political fantasy land!
Me, I'm a Hamiltonian conservative, which makes me a federalist. That was a choice made in a high school American history class e******n exercise choosing between the Federalists and Jefferson's Republican-Democrat Party. I had been a devout Taft Republican as a freshman at Central High School, Fountain City, Tennessee, so the conservative vs. liberal choice seemed obvious then. It's not quite so obvious now, because the "liberals" now represent the status quo (conservative position) and the "conservatives" would turn everything upside down (not exactly "liberal" but certainly radical). It wasn't until after Reagan's first term that I realized the two parties had reversed sides (probably during the Depression)--that the Democrats descended from Jefferson & Jackson had become the present-day Federalists and that the Republicans in historical line from Federalists to Whigs to the GOP had become the present-day Jeffersonians. It's somewhat remarkable that the basic divide in American politics still comes down to pragmatic federalist vs. antifederalist ideology--but very confusing because the parties have circled to opposite positions on government action.
As an anti-federalist you might want to commit yourself to the GOP. As a secessionist I'm not sure what's out there in reality, but political fantasy land here will be comfortable. Of course, you could also reconsider joining political reality and the necessity of national programs like the interstate highway system, perhaps reconstruction of a national rail passenger network on a high speed model, national defense and foreign relations, bank regulation, etc., etc. Simple to second-guess or say get rid of, and complicated to put together, but some central government area of action are real necessities in the end.
An historical footnote on secession--East Tennessee was unionist, not secessionist, although it would have seceded from Tennessee like West Virginia did from Virginia but was prevented because it was literally occupied by the Confederacy during the Civil War. Tennessee's 2nd Congressional district is the only Congressional seat that has remained Republican for 150 some years. Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was an East Tennessean.
Fountain City, now part of Knoxville, was in the 1950s before annexation the largest unincorporated city in the world (population 25,000), and got along quite well with minimal county services and no local government decisions of its own and arguably today is paying city taxes with no noticeable benefit over what it had before annexation and higher taxes. That's the situation with many suburban situations as opposed to urban situations--even more so if one lives out in the country.
I'm not sure how these localized examples might be used for anti-central government and secessionist argument (should Ftn.City have the right to secede from Knoxville and other suburband enclaves in other cities, for example, to govern themselves?), but I believe there is always a larger picture to consider as well as the local one, and individual pictures in the local picture...individuals, corporate entities, organizations, local, county, state, regional, national areas of decision--all with rights in decision and limits in decision. Complicated but these are the realities. An example of complication or seeming contradictions is how our Wisconsin "Tea Party" governor & legislature (bought & paid for by the Koch brothers, according to some) are anti-federalist but back state government measures that limit local annual meeting decision on school taxes, right of public employee organizations to negotiate salaries and work conditions, etc. It is complicated. What is too much and what is too little in decisions and rights, especially when they affect others?
OK--complicated for sure. Yes, differences of opinion on extent and limitation in specific decisions is ordinary. The present extremes regarding disagreement on overall extent and limitation of all decision is not ordinary, however, and perhaps a danger to reasonable decisions in a changed word.
I suspect the extremes and almost paranoia of current politics comes from the situation of bigness of organizations and corporate entities (including government) that dwarf individual status. 100 years ago the majority of citizens were independent farmers. My grandparents in Michigan and Indiana could choose to be farmers (they did) or owners of businesses or workers for others. Over half of citizens were independent individual farmers or small business persons. Today a tiny percent are. Huge corporations (many global) are the reality and "Main Street" in effect is gone. Franchises have replaced independent businesses.
By some accident, my Central High School in Fountain City, Tennessee, had all umpteen volumes of Gibbons The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and there or perhaps in a related history of Rome I found stated as one reason for the end of the Roman Republic the consolidation of farms and the end of the independent farmer citizen class that was the foundation of the Republic. The consolidated farms became the basis of the Manorial system of the Middle Ages. Thus, my freshman English class thesis at U-T in 1956 was "The Untimely Parallel Between Farm Consolidation in the Roman Republic and in America" based on the farm consolidation that had occurred around my grandparents' and uncle's and assorted relatives' farms in Clarendon Township, Calhoun County, Michigan. My professor suggested revising the paper and having it published, but I though my idea a bit alarmist and exaggerated--and also not important because there was still a large class of independent business persons distinguishing our republic's situation from the end situation of the Roman Republic. Besides, the other main reason for the end of the Republic was inability to form a larger political representative republic incorporate the Greek, Egyptian, Celtic, etc. societies that resulted in the necessities of the empire's central government. Our federation constitution established a pattern that resolved union and rights of parts as well as various divisions of decision (not only between states and federal but also among branches and by extension between state and local and also between government and individual and corporate entities). Moreover, we created the League of Nations and then the United Nations on our model, potentially resolving the large power situation that in effect cancelled the government of the Roman Republic (same power situation had resulted in the end of the Greek republics).
Fifty some years later, it's obvious economic bigness is real and places individuals within several layers of decision-making both in regard to their own individual lives and public life. In this situation people can understandably panic and be paranoid and extreme about "politics"--or we can remain calm and see how to deal positively with changed circumstances so that individualism is bigger to match corporate bigness and organization and government bigness. Secession from society is one answer and works for the individuals themselves. Becoming more individual within society is another answer and involves interacting within the complicated larger picture.
As a "federalist," I personally hope bigger government action can balance bigger corporate presence and create occasion for bigger individual life--programs at the national, state, local, corporate, organizational, etc. levels. There are already programs that work at every level if one looks around. I believe our civilization can reach a high point where economic bigness is only a small side part in individuals' larger lives. Despite corporate bigness and government bigness, already some of us ordinary people have more choice and decision than preceding generations.
Me, I'm a Hamiltonian conservative, which makes me a federalist. That was a choice made in a high school American history class e******n exercise choosing between the Federalists and Jefferson's Republican-Democrat Party. I had been a devout Taft Republican as a freshman at Central High School, Fountain City, Tennessee, so the conservative vs. liberal choice seemed obvious then. It's not quite so obvious now, because the "liberals" now represent the status quo (conservative position) and the "conservatives" would turn everything upside down (not exactly "liberal" but certainly radical). It wasn't until after Reagan's first term that I realized the two parties had reversed sides (probably during the Depression)--that the Democrats descended from Jefferson & Jackson had become the present-day Federalists and that the Republicans in historical line from Federalists to Whigs to the GOP had become the present-day Jeffersonians. It's somewhat remarkable that the basic divide in American politics still comes down to pragmatic federalist vs. antifederalist ideology--but very confusing because the parties have circled to opposite positions on government action.
As an anti-federalist you might want to commit yourself to the GOP. As a secessionist I'm not sure what's out there in reality, but political fantasy land here will be comfortable. Of course, you could also reconsider joining political reality and the necessity of national programs like the interstate highway system, perhaps reconstruction of a national rail passenger network on a high speed model, national defense and foreign relations, bank regulation, etc., etc. Simple to second-guess or say get rid of, and complicated to put together, but some central government area of action are real necessities in the end.
An historical footnote on secession--East Tennessee was unionist, not secessionist, although it would have seceded from Tennessee like West Virginia did from Virginia but was prevented because it was literally occupied by the Confederacy during the Civil War. Tennessee's 2nd Congressional district is the only Congressional seat that has remained Republican for 150 some years. Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was an East Tennessean.
Fountain City, now part of Knoxville, was in the 1950s before annexation the largest unincorporated city in the world (population 25,000), and got along quite well with minimal county services and no local government decisions of its own and arguably today is paying city taxes with no noticeable benefit over what it had before annexation and higher taxes. That's the situation with many suburban situations as opposed to urban situations--even more so if one lives out in the country.
I'm not sure how these localized examples might be used for anti-central government and secessionist argument (should Ftn.City have the right to secede from Knoxville and other suburband enclaves in other cities, for example, to govern themselves?), but I believe there is always a larger picture to consider as well as the local one, and individual pictures in the local picture...individuals, corporate entities, organizations, local, county, state, regional, national areas of decision--all with rights in decision and limits in decision. Complicated but these are the realities. An example of complication or seeming contradictions is how our Wisconsin "Tea Party" governor & legislature (bought & paid for by the Koch brothers, according to some) are anti-federalist but back state government measures that limit local annual meeting decision on school taxes, right of public employee organizations to negotiate salaries and work conditions, etc. It is complicated. What is too much and what is too little in decisions and rights, especially when they affect others?
OK--complicated for sure. Yes, differences of opinion on extent and limitation in specific decisions is ordinary. The present extremes regarding disagreement on overall extent and limitation of all decision is not ordinary, however, and perhaps a danger to reasonable decisions in a changed word.
I suspect the extremes and almost paranoia of current politics comes from the situation of bigness of organizations and corporate entities (including government) that dwarf individual status. 100 years ago the majority of citizens were independent farmers. My grandparents in Michigan and Indiana could choose to be farmers (they did) or owners of businesses or workers for others. Over half of citizens were independent individual farmers or small business persons. Today a tiny percent are. Huge corporations (many global) are the reality and "Main Street" in effect is gone. Franchises have replaced independent businesses.
By some accident, my Central High School in Fountain City, Tennessee, had all umpteen volumes of Gibbons The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and there or perhaps in a related history of Rome I found stated as one reason for the end of the Roman Republic the consolidation of farms and the end of the independent farmer citizen class that was the foundation of the Republic. The consolidated farms became the basis of the Manorial system of the Middle Ages. Thus, my freshman English class thesis at U-T in 1956 was "The Untimely Parallel Between Farm Consolidation in the Roman Republic and in America" based on the farm consolidation that had occurred around my grandparents' and uncle's and assorted relatives' farms in Clarendon Township, Calhoun County, Michigan. My professor suggested revising the paper and having it published, but I though my idea a bit alarmist and exaggerated--and also not important because there was still a large class of independent business persons distinguishing our republic's situation from the end situation of the Roman Republic. Besides, the other main reason for the end of the Republic was inability to form a larger political representative republic incorporate the Greek, Egyptian, Celtic, etc. societies that resulted in the necessities of the empire's central government. Our federation constitution established a pattern that resolved union and rights of parts as well as various divisions of decision (not only between states and federal but also among branches and by extension between state and local and also between government and individual and corporate entities). Moreover, we created the League of Nations and then the United Nations on our model, potentially resolving the large power situation that in effect cancelled the government of the Roman Republic (same power situation had resulted in the end of the Greek republics).
Fifty some years later, it's obvious economic bigness is real and places individuals within several layers of decision-making both in regard to their own individual lives and public life. In this situation people can understandably panic and be paranoid and extreme about "politics"--or we can remain calm and see how to deal positively with changed circumstances so that individualism is bigger to match corporate bigness and organization and government bigness. Secession from society is one answer and works for the individuals themselves. Becoming more individual within society is another answer and involves interacting within the complicated larger picture.
As a "federalist," I personally hope bigger government action can balance bigger corporate presence and create occasion for bigger individual life--programs at the national, state, local, corporate, organizational, etc. levels. There are already programs that work at every level if one looks around. I believe our civilization can reach a high point where economic bigness is only a small side part in individuals' larger lives. Despite corporate bigness and government bigness, already some of us ordinary people have more choice and decision than preceding generations.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.