Texas - please go away. Except Austin.

This sounds good to me. Where can I sign up to do my part to make it happen?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/us/politics/with-stickers-a-petition-and-even-...

or

http://now.msn.com/austin-files-petition-to-secede-from-texas

They're like the 15 year old who threatens to run away from home. The rest of us are like, "There's the door!"

I've always wondered what would happen if we broke up into two parts, the red and the blue. Imagine that: the country splits and you have 6 months to decide which one you want to call home, a red state or a blue state. And you couldn't change your mind; once you chose Oklahoma you could still move to Texas or Arizona but not to California or New York or Connecticut.

It would be funny for maybe two years, right up until the red states declared bankruptcy.

> 3

I'd opt to stay in the good old U.S.A. on account of my pension and SS (besides MANY other reasons, of course.) I'm one of the 47 per cent that Rmoney and Ayn Ryan identified as beneath their richboy contempt.

Florida stays in, right? Well, I'd be moving to Key West. Either that or I'd head on up to northern Virginia - somewhere near D.C., but not too close. - Or maybe as far as Portland (either Oregon or Maine would be fine).

Lots of good places to choose from in the blue states. Red states? - not so much.

It would be a shame to lose New Awlins, though. Maybe they could opt out of the secession, like Austin.

no way New Orleans and Cajun country could survive without US support they would wash away.

#2: They're like the 15 year old who threatens to run away from home.

Actually, according to Google Trends, the previous all-time high for talk of secession was in November 2004 in the wake of Bush's reelection. Then there were also those juvenile amateures who signed the Declaration of Indpendence in 1776. But I'm sure you think that Obama's White House petition website should stick to answering bullshit questions like what's the White House's beer recipe. Now that's some rather adolescent tripe.

#4: no way New Orleans and Cajun country could survive without US support they would wash away.

Are you kidding? The whole reason people built in the flood-prone areas of New Orleans was because of the fucking United States. The original French colonists figured out which were the appropriate places to build within their first few years. Why else do you think the French Quarter survived Katrina?

5> Well, the Boston Tea Party does seem pretty childish.

Lunar>

The reason I used the 15 year old as an analogy is because the passion behind succession may be strong but there's absolutely no logic behind such a move. If Texas actually were to succeed, it would be a second world country in less than 5 years.

Texas succeeding as a 2nd world country. Possibly it would.
Funny.
I think you mean secede.

> 8

Or suckseed.

8>

Oh, yeah--I typed it fast and then it doesn't correct me because succeed is actually a word.

They need to create it so that it corrects both on spelling AND context.

But you're right: Texas would succeed as a second world country because it would not make it as a first world country. That IS true.

I don't see any reason why Texas would not be viable as an independent country. It is larger than many European countries, both in area and population (and economy), it has natural resources, a strong tech sector, seaports, and borders two countries. If it was part of NAFTA, and could trade freely with both Mexico and the RUSA (Rest of USA), it might actually be better off.

Meanwhile... Puerto Rico just voted to join the U.S. as the 51st state. So you might not have to change the number of stars on your flag, after all.

#11: Meanwhile... Puerto Rico just voted to join the U.S. as the 51st state.

Kinda... sorta... not really. It was a tricky ballot with two questions on the issue. The first question asked if the voters wanted to maintain their current status which 54% of voters said "No" to. But then the following question was skipped by almost a third of the voters and asked if they wanted to become a state, independent, or a ""sovereign free association" and no option for those who wanted to remain a territory. So not all of the 54% who voted "No" to keeping the current status were saying yes to statehood. Also, in the same election they ousted their pro-statehood governor.

Demographics indicate that Texas will eventually go Democratic. It'd be fun to let 'em secede and then watch them go all liberal.

Texas couldn't make a go of it as an independent country in the first place; it's why they joined the United States. I don't see any changes in place that would permit them to survive this time.

Texas is basically Norte Mexico right now. In 30 or 40 years they will BE Mexico, for all intents and purposes. LOL.

They should have a referendum to see what per cent bona fide knotheads there are in Texas. I would guess only 10 per cent or so. I.e., the majority of Texans may have their problems but I don't think that a majority of them are deep dish stupid.

Of course that is just my opinion. And I've been wrong before.

I don't see any reason why Texas would not be viable as an independent country. It is larger than many European countries, both in area and population (and economy), it has natural resources, a strong tech sector, seaports, and borders two countries.

Because Texas is a net importer of Federal dollars. In other words, Texas receives more in Federal money than its citizens pay in Federal taxes and fees to the Federal government. Texas, like many other primarily rural states, depends heavily upon Federal largess to keep its economy going. If Texas were to secede, then that influx of money would stop and Texans would be forced to pay for all of the services they consume. I doubt they could do it.

"Dear Red States:

"We're ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we've decided we're leaving: "Legitimate rape." is almost reason enough!
"We in the Blue States intend to form our own country and we're taking the other Blue States with us.
"In case you aren't aware that includes California, New York, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the rest of the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country, The Enlightened States of America (E.S.A).
"To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
"We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
"We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren.
"You get Bobby Jindal and Todd Akin.
"We get the Statue of Liberty.
"You get OpryLand.
"We get Intel and Microsoft.
"You get WorldCom.
"We get Harvard.
"You get Ole' Miss.
"We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.
"You get Alabama.
"We get two-thirds of the tax revenue.
"You get to make the red states pay their fair share.
"Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families.
"You get a bunch of single moms.
"Please be aware that the E.S.A. will be pro choice and anti-war and we're going to want all our citizens back from Afghanistan at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We wish you success in Afghanistan, and possibly Iran as well, but we're not willing to spend our resources in these sorts of pursuits.
"With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy League and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
"With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
"We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
"38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than us lefties.
"We're taking the good weed too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,
Citizens of the Enlightened States of America
.

> 17

Well since something over 40 per cent on average of people voting in the red states vote democrat the logistics of separating the good from the bad from the ugly nationwide seems rather problematic.

I think the solution will be a combination of the actuarial tables, differentials in birth rates and the shifting demographics - which all show a liberal bias, just like reality in general. LOL.

Actual secession? So far it's just talk - I say someone needs to put up or STFU. LOL.

#17

Ouch...

That is so good, Arctic -- we secede.

Robert

Brilliant, Arctic... brilliant.

I just have one question: aren't YOU yourself from the one of reddest of the red states? Where would you relocate to, exactly?

>16 StormRaven:. Texas is not 'primarily rural'. Its rural population is only 17%. More than 80% of Texans live in cities.

My daughter lives in Bend Oregan. I would miss Alaska....but given the last election, maybe not so much.

>14 BruceCoulson: Texas couldn't make a go of it as an independent country in the first place; it's why they joined the United States. I don't see any changes in place that would permit them to survive this time.

Really? You don't think maybe Texas has developed a bit in the last 170 years? In 1845, Texas had a larger territory but a tiny population, and was in constant danger of being re-annexed by a hostile Mexico. Oil had not yet been discovered, and there were no roads or railways connecting Texas to the U.S. Now, Texas has over 22 million people, the 4th largest city in the U.S. (Houston), and a developed, diversified economy. Times have changed.

But hey, I'm not a Texan, or an American, so I don't really care if Texas secedes or not. I understand how this would be an emotional issue for Americans. But if you look at Texas' independence pragmatically, there's little reason to think it wouldn't succeed.

Were Texas to secede, they would have to establish a slew of government offices they currently do not have--for example, a state department. Also, during this last, devastating drought, I believe they have recieved a bit of federal aid...that would dry up.

Would Texas succeed if it seceded? I seriously doubt it.

24>

Arctic's right: in spite of great success in places like Houston, Texas is made up predominantly of haves and have-nots--with virtually no in-betweens. The very rich would have to pay for and bail out the have-nots in a way only the federal government has done before. Not only would that drain the state financially, but it would make for some serious animosity between two classes of people that are very very far apart.

Of course the have nots could leave for a place that had a better social system, but then who mow the haves' yards?

I do want to point out that there is at least one major (well, major to birders) error in the list of wonderful things Blue States have. California Condors are found in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, as well as in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, AZ/UT. Andean Condors are not found in the United States (although they were released in the United States during the time all remaining California Condors were in captivity, they were rounded up at the end of the test period, and returned to Colombia).

Ok, back to booting Texas out of the Union...

>25 Arctic-Stranger: Also, during this last, devastating drought, I believe they have recieved a bit of federal aid...that would dry up.

Unlike New York and New Jersey, which received $billions in federal aid after Hurricane Sandy? I guess if Texas secedes, they'll be out of luck too. Texans won't be giving their tax dollars to repair beach communities on Long Island.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/hurricane-sandy-aid-fema_n_2191703.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/push-42b-federal-aid-pols-sandy-worse-katrin...

29>

While you make a good point that other states need bailouts as well, keep in mind that those are acts of God you're referring to. With the exception of droughts, virtually all of the federal money that goes to Texas is due to social inequality. Two other states have higher wealth disparity than Texas (NY and CT) yet neither of those states have poverty levels close to Texas, where more than 17% of the entire state's population lives below the poverty level.

New York and Connecticut have quite a few 'haves' but as liberal states they're forced to at least balance that out with the 'have nots'. Texas basically shakes its head at its poor--something it certainly could not do if it were separate from the rest of the country.

>30 jasonseidner: Well, it was an act of God- drought- that ArcticStranger was referring to.

It's true, there is a problem with wealth disparity, and large numbers of Texans living below the poverty line. But that is Texas now, as a state in the United States. One could use that as evidence of how federalism has failed Texas. Perhaps an independent and sovereign Texas, with more control over its own resources and taxes, would be more equitable. Maybe having decisions that affect Texans being made far away, in Washington, D.C. (which, incidentally, has an even higher poverty rate than Texas) instead of Austen, is part of the problem.

#17--pretty damn good but as a NY state resident I don't think as much of Andrew Cuomo obviously as you do. That's my quibble.

>16 StormRaven:

StormRaven, (admittedly I'm being a bit lazy about looking for it myself), you seem to have some interesting stats there about net importers of fed dollars etc.

Do you have a link or a reference to where I could find this kind of information for all states? Thanks.

#16: Because Texas is a net importer of Federal dollars... If Texas were to secede, then that influx of money would stop and Texans would be forced to pay for all of the services they consume. I doubt they could do it.

What a bizarre leap in logic. To think that the consequences of secession would be any more extensive than a readjustment in spending here and there is just batshit insane. It's like saying that the bursting of the housing bubble made all the houses disappear instead of merely changing people's spending choices.

Oh, and Texas is a net exporter of dollars, as if that's supposed to tell us anything either. According to that info it's actually tied for 4th place among top exporter states of government dollars. And look at Vermont! They take in almost twice as much as they pay out and you don't see me claiming they'd go *poof* if their hippie secession went through. For all I know, the numbers might change from year to year, but either way that was a big load of bullshit you left on your keyboard. They're not self-cleaning, you know?

#33: You can follow the link I gave above in #34. Stormraven's claims don't seem to be backed up by the stats.

Those are close to the stats I found on another site. Of course, Texas would now have to pay for policing its borders, but red staters seem to find it easier to spend money on thing like that, rather than spending on, say, schools or health care. It'd be bad to be a poor person in an independent Texas, but maybe no worse than being poor in Mexico?

>35 Lunar:
Thanks for the link.

>36 RidgewayGirl:
Don't think it would take long before the boarder between Texas and Mexico would be nonexistant. Feeling some relief that we did not invest in a huge fence along our boarders.....we would be spending money to move it !

Why was Austin excluded from the proposed country of Texas ? I missed the reasoning.....I have some suspecions but don't know for sure.

Wonder how long it would take until Tom Delay would run for President ?

There's been talk of secession ever since the Confederacy. It's really never gone away, especially if you visit the South as I have. I hear this kind of talk all over, you can find it online, after an election, before an election, etc. I don't take it seriously.

It's like when a celebrity says he will leave the country if a Republican is elected president. He never leaves, unless he has a second or third mansion in Italy or France.

No one is seceding.

#40

Of course not; this is a temper tantrum thrown by adults, who didn't get their way and are now throwing a fit, hoping that someone will give them (candy) something to make them be quiet.

You'll notice that most of those in the business of making the government work are simply ignoring the whiners, knowing that if you ignore them long enough, they'll realize that no one is paying attention and stop.

I think the point of bringing up natural disasters is that if Texas secedes than the next time it was hit by a hurricane it would have to pay for the clean-up by itself, possibly needing to raise taxes to do so. But since the whole point of the Republican party these days is lowering taxes would they be able to do that?

I think it is nothing but the press trying to make something out of nothing to stir up trouble, which they are very good at (to exacerbate the "red/blue" division which is so titillating?). You could run this story any day of any year and it would still be meaningless.

Once the secessionists discover the Cowboys and Texans would no longer play in the NFL, this will all go away.

Just so everyone knows, post #17 is satire. I live in a state that is known for constantly complaining about the feds. The only thing we do better than complain about the feds is take their money. (Actually it is YOUR money. We end up getting much more than we pay.)

>44 theoria:
Are you sure ? Texas does have two NFL teams now....the could play each other and Texas would always have a "winning" team.

22: Which, in terms of U.S. states, makes it more or less average in terms of urbanization. And as a result, can be considered to me more rural than the states like Massachusetts and New Jersey who are 90-95% urbanized.

And that doesn't change the salient point, which you seem to have sailed past, that Texas consumes more Federal largess than it pays over to the Federal government in taxes. It is "in the red" in terms of its balance sheet. An independent Texas would need to raise a lot more revenue than it pays out now in order to continue operating as it does.

To think that the consequences of secession would be any more extensive than a readjustment in spending here and there is just batshit insane.

To think that Texans, who are used to getting all kinds of benefits from the Federal government, would suddenly decide that they don't want those any more, is batshit insane. Pretending that Texas' economy isn't propped up by the influx of Federal dollars is batshit insane.

In FY 2009, the IRS collected about $163 billion from Texans. The Federal government spent about $224 billion in Texas. You do the math. Between 2003 and 2009, Texas received more federal dollars than it paid out in taxes in five out of seven years.

Pretend all you want that Texas is solvent, but the numbers show it simply isn't.

Not to mention a little matter known as 'national defense'. Volunteer militias don't work in the modern era to protect national interests.

And as I stated before, the Republic of Texas was going broke, which is why they joined the U.S. in the first place.

-38; the reason to keep Austin, is that Austin is....different. Despite the fact that it is our capital, and our Good Hair Governor, and State Lege resides there, there is a faction of Austin that beats to a different drummer. The city motto is "Keep Austin Weird". A certain section of the city (Sixth Street area in particular) is a trove of bars, tattoo, piercing and henna parlors, bars, live entertainment, restaurants, bars, art galleries etc. Also some of the best music you'll find, of every kind: country, hip hop, jazz, blues, you name it.

I've also heard Austin described as "Berkeley, but with Baptists."

50 - Asheville would be the exception to a mostly right leaning North Carolina (perhaps the Triangle too, but it's not as fun an example). Asheville has the drum circle every friday night, the wiccan population, the tatoos artist, street performers, unusual but fun events, strong green, all natural, organic, movements, active LGBT community, etc. it's been called the lone liberal island in the sea of conservatism. If the red states are going, Asheville is staying and they are keeping their mountains too.

Our states are much more purple than red/blue and thus I think any real movement to break away would fail from the start. It's not that everyone loves the US government, but I don't think collectively they are ready to jump into the unknown of starting over on your own. IMO most people are more optimistic of fixing the current mess than making a whole new one.

>16 StormRaven: Texas, like many other primarily rural states, depends heavily upon Federal largess to keep its economy going.

> 47 Which, in terms of U.S. states, makes it more or less average in terms of urbanization. And as a result, can be considered to me more rural than the states like Massachusetts and New Jersey who are 90-95% urbanized.

So, which is it? A 'primarily rural state' that 'depends heavily on Federal largess', or a state with an 'average' level of urbanization?

In fact, Texas has 6 of the 20 largest cities in the U.S. (Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Ft. Worth and El Paso). That's more than any other state, including California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

Most Texans aren't cowboys wrangling steers on the ranch. Your concept of the state is a little outdated.

>34 Lunar: Nice map, Lunar! It looks like only 14 states are net contributors. And they wonder why the U.S. has a trillion dollar deficit...

Stormraven: Where are you getting your numbers? IRS data only? The Texas economy is much more complicated than that. How much does the federal government take on energy taxes from Texas sources distributed throughout the country? How much of the federal spending in Texas is really for national purposes, such as NASA, the DoD (quite a few military bases spread across Texas), and protecting the Mexican border (there’s more of the border in Texas than New Mexico, Arizona, and California combined)? Further, many people would be shocked to learn how much in federal welfare programs allocated to Texas (as well as other border states) actually go straight to Mexico. That shouldn’t be considered Texas consumption of federal funds. Determining the economic impact of secession would be quite a project, but I’m thinking Texas would come out ahead. Even so, the petition is mere entertainment. The number of signers is less than 1/2 of one percent of the Texas population, and it appears to be open to anyone anywhere, but it’s sure generated a lot of attention outside of the state.

Regardless, I enthusiastically encourage continued bashing of all things Texan. Everyone not currently in the state should be warned that Texas is a God-forsaken wasteland unfit for human habitation, populated by nothing but yahoos and rednecks. It’s a terrible place and you’d have to be crazy to even consider moving there....and that includes Austin. I recommend staying away from the place.

#48: To think that Texans, who are used to getting all kinds of benefits from the Federal government, would suddenly decide that they don't want those any more, is batshit insane.

No, actually I think if secession became a real possibility a lot of the people who had spent a certain amount of time paying into social security would freak out and worry that secession would endanger their eligibility. Not that Texas would actually move anywhere that would make it impossible for social security payments to keep operating. I never said anyting about that. Rather it's your infantile economic logic about how an economy the size of Texas' is supposedly not economically viable that I find to be batshit insane. People can live without pork from the almighty corruptionfest in DC.

Where are you getting your numbers?

PolitiFact is the main source, but their sources are the Census Bureau, the National Association of State Budget Officers, the Tax Foundation, and some other sundry sources.

How much does the federal government take on energy taxes from Texas sources distributed throughout the country?

That is included in the figure described as being paid by taxpayers. Did you think "taxpayers" only referred to individuals paying income tax?

How much of the federal spending in Texas is really for national purposes, such as NASA, the DoD (quite a few military bases spread across Texas), and protecting the Mexican border (there’s more of the border in Texas than New Mexico, Arizona, and California combined)?

First off, some of that is spending that Texas would have to pick up itself if it were an independent nation. Unless you want to argue the somewhat dubious proposition that an independent Texas would have an open unpatrolled border with Mexico and no military of its own.

Secondly, even if that spending is "for national purposes" it directly benefits Texas that those dollars are in fact spent in Texas. Why do you think Senators and Congressmen work so hard to get military bases and federal agencies located in their states and districts? Take NASA for example, which has the Johnson Space Center in Houston. That facility employs a lot of people and requires a lot of services. Those people spend money in their local community - buying houses, cars, groceries, and other things. They help support the local economy. The Center itself requires support, and a number of businesses exist to fulfill those needs. And businesses exist to fulfill their needs, and so on. Get rid of NASA, and that economic activity all goes away.

Now, on a national scale, government spending is at best a wash, since the government has to raise the revenue to begin with, and that requires them to tax or borrow the money. But in the case of Texas, or any other state that gets more federal spending than its inhabitants pay in taxes, its local economy is artificially goosed by the process (and conversely, the states that pay more than they get back have their economies artificially depressed). Pretending that a $60+ billion influx of cash in a $1.3 trillion economy has no effect, as Lunar seems wont to do, is simply childish. That's about a 4.6% gift to the Texas economy, which may not sound like a lot, but that is almost the same as the amount of annual GDP growth that Texas has has over the last decade. Take ~5% away from the Texas GDP each year for the last ten years and their GDP is flat rather than growing.

Also note that despite its vaunted booming economy, Texas is still ranked only twenty-fifth in average household income. The Texas economy is huge, in large part because Texas is huge and not because it is fundamentally somehow more sound than any number of other places in the U.S. It also has a huge income disparity. Texas, on its own, would probably look, in the best case, a lot like Spain or Greece, and in the worst case, a lot like Egypt.

>50 theretiredlibrarian:
I have a brother living in Austin....haven't spoken to him since the election. He has lived in Austin for a long time, over 20 years, he works for the city as a benefits coordinator. He is gay.....Austin has a pretty sizable gay community. If Texas takes Austin along...they would have what they would perceive as a problem from the get go.

#55

"Rather it's your infantile economic logic about how an economy the size of Texas' is supposedly not economically viable that I find to be batshit insane."

Texas had a chance to prove itself in the economic arena as an independent country. They failed. So, the evidence seems to support the concept that Texas cannot survive independently. That hardly fits the definition of 'insane', batshit or otherwise.

It's not a question of size; there are numerous countries far smaller than Texas who manage to stay afloat. Just as countries larger than Texas have gone bankrupt. It's a question of 'given what the needs of Texas would be as an independent nation, and the demands the citizens would make upon the government, could Texas maintain a balanced economy?' I frankly doubt that it can, not that it will ever become a real issue.

Since signing the petition was not restricted to Texans, I would like to know how many people were signing it in a "get Texas out the US" kind of way and how many just thought it was a fun thing to do. I'm thinking that that would account for most of the signees.

59: There were petitions in many (if not most or all) states. None were sanctioned by any actual authority, and were all little more than a temper tantrum following the election. Anyone who thinks Texas, or any other state, will really secede is deluding themselves.

Yes, of course no state is going anywhere. It will be live or die in the good old U.S.A. But of course the crazy talk will continue in the more unedumacated hick parts of the country.

As time goes on the U.S. will either become more and more blue, or it will become more and more a third world country. The internecine philosophical/political warfare will be entertaining. I hope to live to see a few decades of it.

I am predicting the good guys will win in the long term. And by good guys I don't mean teabagger redneck jerk-off losers.

I will point out that framing the conflict as one between 'good' and 'evil' is both typically American; and a major part of the problem.

> 62

Is that you Obama? If so, use your real name.

Defining your opponents as 'evil' is satisfying. But it also means you are shutting off communication; insulting your opposition, and making it much harder to work with such people when (not if) the necessaity arises. After all, how can you justify working with, or compromising with, evil? So, you get the Tea Party, which defines its opponents as 'evil' and refuses to have anything to do with them. We can all see how well that works.

You end up with a very narrowly-defined set of people, with limited resources and capabilities. It's all fun and games to deride the tea-party redneck as a loser and evil; but what if that's the guy sent out to repair your plumbing? Going to refuse his work because he's evil and a loser? Hmmm?

Keep in mind that if you define any who oppose you as evil, your opposition may well do the same. And so you sit, glaring at each other and insulting each other, while your house collapses.

This is practical politics; figuring out how to work with people you don't like, with people who have ideas you despise, with people whose values you detest. Organizations of any size who fail to accomplish this fall apart.

> 64

Well, it IS you, Obama. Welcome to the board. No need to use the pseudonym anymore.

Not terribly funny, especially since I don't care for President Obama. But he IS an effective practical politician, despite my dislike of many of his policies. Which is why he won both times.

And now, for something completely different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0

>58 BruceCoulson: Texas had a chance to prove itself in the economic arena as an independent country. They failed.

In 1845. 167 years ago. As I've pointed out before, Texas is a different place today.

Besides, whether they 'failed' is a matter of debate. Sure, they had a huge debt. But so did many of the 13 Colonies at independence. The U.S. government tottered on the edge of insolvency for decades following independence. Texas chose to join the U.S. partly because the U.S. promised to absorb its debt, and protect it from Mexico. But they principally joined the United States because that's what most Texans had wanted all along.

". . .join(ing) the United States . . .(is) what most Texans had wanted all along."
RIght. And in the other state* which had something of an independent history (and for a much longer time than Texas, it was what most of the so-called
"revolutionaries" (NOT, however, most of the population) wanted. In Hawaiʻi, a "republic" was set up in 1893 to replace the deposed monarchy, but it was little more than a "holding operation" awaiting annexation to the U. S.

*A third state, Vermont, is also sometimes put by historians in this category of "once independent" --with less attention to the independent period than TX and HI rereceive -- not that their
independent eras usually get adequate coverage.

Texas is indeed very different than it was as a republic in 1845, with significant resources that would now make it very competitive as an independent entity. In this hypothetical premise of secession, it is true that one of the most pressing financial burdens would involve border control....very likely to prevent Texas from being inundated with American immigrants seeking a government that would encourage self-reliance while limiting federal intrusion, taxes, and overbearing controls on individuals and industry. Even as a state, those Texas values are a major factor in why the state is attracting businesses and people from states with failing socialist leanings: http://news.investors.com/112112-634339-obama-embraces-calif-as-citizens-u-haul-....

“Texas will again lift it's head and stand among the nations. It ought to do so, for no country upon the globe can compare with it in natural advantages.”
-Sam Houston

very likely to prevent Texas from being inundated with American immigrants seeking a government that would encourage self-reliance while limiting federal intrusion, taxes, and overbearing controls on individuals and industry.

You're out in fantasy land now. The Federal tax burden right now is at a historic low. The Obama administration has spent much of its time reducing regulations (much more so than the Bush administration did in a comparable time period). Texas would be forced to substantially raise its own taxes - the state has no income tax right now, which would be unsustainable without Federal money flowing in. I suspect that an independent Texas would look a lot more like Venezuela than you expect.

>71 StormRaven:: Well of course this is fantasy land--Texas isn't leaving the union. However, you're deep in fantasy land yourself if you actually think Obama is removing federal barriers to private industry. His unprecedented executive meddling is hindering businesses and economic growth, and it looks to me like Obama, if given absolute authority, would be thrilled to emulate Chavez and turn all of America into another Venezuela.

> 72

Well that is certainly not mere fantasy. It's more like paranoid delusion.

But if you are happy being unhappy - hey, that's the main thing.

72: You've been deluded by the conservative hysteria machine. Obama's administration has been decidedly business friendly. But you're wedded to the fictional idea that he's some kind of demonic socialist.

That's absolutely not true. I've never had an idea that he's demonic.

> 75

The idea that Obama is a socialist is also crack-brained.

Weren't the election results enough to make FOX viewers sit up and realize that what they were watching was not "news" or "facts", but propaganda? I'm not referring to the fact that Obama was reelected, but that the story FOX (and unskewed polls and the like) was telling was wrong, not based on facts, and utterly misleading.
Why would anyone continue to trust that source?

>77 RidgewayGirl:
"Why would anyone continue to trust that source?"

I don't know. I think I've mentioned before that my husband and I have a "mixed" marriage. He is a "hold your nose Republican" (I should have done more research before saying "I do") He was very very quiet for two weeks after the election....last night he was right back on the "Class Warfare" garbage and all who voted for Obama "Want Free Stuff" BS. The level of denial is unbelievable. When asked how he could continue to listen to the same people who were so fast and free with the truth his answer was "that was the past...this is today"
Can't speak for the rest of the Republican party but there is a peek into the mind of one of them.

77: The answer, at least for some Fox News viewers, is that Fox News was right, but Obama "stole" the election. I saw one writer claiming that it was obvious to anyone that Obama had stolen the election via fraud. His evidence? The fact that Fox News had predicted that Romney would win. Because the actual result was so at variance with what Fox News had told him, his conclusion was not that Fox News had deceived him with misinformation, but rather that the Democrats had engaged in skullduggery to overturn the "true" result.

And even if they do accept the actual result, some try to spin it into something it is not. I believe it was fake historian/professional liar David Barton who was talking about the results in the various gay marriage initiatives in the last election who characterized the loss of the anti-gay marriage amendment as "very close, almost 50-50" when in fact the amendment lost by six points. At the same time he described the gay marriage propositions that passed as having "just barely squeaked by", when in reality they passed by an average margin of about three points.

Reality is a foreign country to many Fox News viewers. They've been told so many times that Obama is a secret Muslim socialist who stole the election that they think it is true.

I do like your description of David Barton. Accurate and brief. Mine requires quite a bit of vigorous eye-rolling.

Well, I'm a Fox viewer, an educated person, semi-intelligent for a man of my height and weight, a reader and observer of the human condition, an all round decent guy, lover of music and football, friend to animals, fully grounded in reality when I'm not reading (aren't books just an escape from reality?).

I'm not sure why so many people are making a big deal that Karl Rove and Dick Morris were wrong in their predictions. It's a prediction. The word suggests "guess." Other pollsters were closer, others were farther off.

It does not undermine the credibility of Fox News. If you want to understand Fox News, then watch it. Watch Bret Baier and Shepard Smith and Charles Krauthammer and Steve Hayes and Bill Kristol and Byron York and Kristen Powers and Greta Van Susteren and tell me that these are not intelligent, thoughtful people.

Stop getting your information and your prejudices from The Huffington Post and other left-wing blogs (blogs are not news sources), The Guardian or the BBC (both left-wing), Salon and The Daily Beast and Daily Kos. Fox has been demonized for so long (I first heard a fanatical warning from a girl, a journalism student in 1991, before my cable even got Fox) that you have accepted the prejudice without making up your own mind. Stop letting other people do your thinking for you. That's the cheater's way.

I'm a Fox viewer, an educated person, semi-intelligent for a man of my height and weight, a reader and observer of the human condition, an all round decent guy, lover of music and football, friend to animals, fully grounded in reality when I'm not reading (aren't books just an escape from reality?).

The first statement may be correct. The rest seem at odds with your posting history. Also: if books are an escape from reality, please explain nonfiction books.

I'm not sure why so many people are making a big deal that Karl Rove and Dick Morris were wrong in their predictions.

It wasn't that Dick Morris and Karl Rover were wrong. It was that they were colossally wrong. Wrong by so much that they clearly didn't pay any attention to the available data. When it comes to things like elections, you don't have to "guess". You can make a prediction based on the data at hand, and be more reliable than just "guessing". But it wasn't just that Rove and Morris were wrong, every other Fox News pundit was similarly wrong. And by similarly large amounts.

I should also note that Fox News employed David Barton. That alone destroys any claim of credibility the channel has.

And it isn't that people are getting their news from the Huffington Post. Almost no one does. People get their news from the Washington Post, the New York Times, CBS, CNN, and other reliable news sources. And those sources actually turn out to be correct on a regular basis, unlike Fox, which routinely reports misinformation.

I read The Drudge Report and the Fox news website. Along with many other sources. Often the straight news is reasonably accurate, often it's not. I also often listen to talk radio, which has a right-wing bias.

Interesting that you'd count the BBC as a biased news source. I find the opposite to be true, as well as being a good source of international news not skewed toward American interests.

deniro, do you regularly read all those sources you claim are too biased to have any value?

Another option would be for the USA to sell Texas back to Mexico. The proceeds would go to paying down the Federal debt.

83 -- I heard the left-wing view all my life from network TV (even back when there were only 4 channels), newspapers (I was employed at one), books, magazines, movies, and school. I am familiar with it in detail. There's no way to prove it, so you'll just have to take my word for it. I am at least to some degree educated in political, social, cultural, and literary matters. But I never could understand Geometry.

Because of internet links, I occasionally read the left-wing The New York Times and the left-wing The New Republic and the left-wing The Atlantic and the left-wing Washinton Post. At Library Thing, I end up reading left-wing comments of its dominant left-wing bookworms and their various quotes and links from the left-wing BBC, the left-wing Guardian, and the left-wing Huffington Post. I watch the left-wing 60 Minutes. I read articles through the links at RealClear Books and RealClear Politics.

I do not read The Drudge Report or listen to talk radio. I find MSNBC highly offensive and corrupt.

Boy, this topic has wandered...

All First World economies (and most Second World) are 'managed economies', with the government exerting considerable influence on how business operates. It has been this way for a long time; I pick the arbitrary year of 1850, because it's a nice round number and pretty close to when the railroads started becoming prominent in the national (and international) economies. Obama is no different in this regard than any of his predecessors. It's too late to go back to a pure capitalistic economy, and the major players don't want to, anyway.

Texas could have made the hard decision 150+ years ago to deal with its debt problems. It didn't. They were (like most people, tbf) lazy and took a shortcut. I don't think Texas, Texans, or people in general have changed that much.

All mass media is a business. FOX News makes money, and as long as they continue to make money they will carry on with their current policies. And the difference is between 'right-wing' slants and 'moderate' slants; there are no liberal (or actual conservative, for that matter) major media outlets. (Again, not surprising; businesses are conservative by nature.)

Mexico is a failing country; but I suspect they have more sense than to buy Texas, even if they could afford it.

there are no liberal (or actual conservative, for that matter) major media outlets

An odd remark. You haven't been paying attention I guess. There are obvious liberal outlets, so obvious I'm not sure I can even explain it, but I don't think there are any conservative ones. I don't consider Fox conservative.

87: You're like a poster child for the ignorance of the typical Fox viewer. Believing that Fox is somehow not conservative is about as deluded "in the bubble" as one can get.

I think MSNBC is proudly on the liberal side. It seems to me that they must think of themselves as the counterpoint to Fox.

CNN is supposedly in the middle, but it gets really frustrating when they jettison all integrity by presenting the two sides as if they were equally valid, even when the two sides are global warming experts and anti-global warming nuts.

Having Karl Rove (head of the American Crossroads SuperPac that spent $300 million on behalf of Republican candidates) on their election night coverage is a good example of Fox News' fair and balanced reporting.

>85 barney67:

If Fox is not conservative than MSNBC is not liberal.

Will admitt that MSNBC has it's own slant....but for the most part....though the MSNBC talking heads may let one know that they are leaning left...they do not inhabit a bubble....FOX NEWS operates inside a bubble. They make up their own reality and continue to push on when all evidence is to the contrary. Heard a Republican the other day on some show...wish to heck I could remember his name.....older gentleman. He said that if the Republican party wants to survive they need to get rid of Limbaugh, Beck AND Fox News......they are doing the party no favors.

Ever read Glen Beck's online news site ? The Blaze ? High anxiety articles structure to ramp up the rage !

Many people see most media as liberal....a hazard of being a media outlet is the fact that people would not be working in such jobs if they were not interested in what is going on....just the fact that a journalist is curious as to what is happening and the how and why or it, is pretty much a liberal attribute.....

Trouble is that especially since G.W. was in office, the definition of "Left-Wing" is just about any one who doesn't lock step with the Right-Wing agenda. No room for disagreement with anything. Can't even get the entire Right-Wing on the Right-Wing agenda.

"Because of internet links, I occasionally read the left-wing The New York Times and the left-wing The New Republic and the left-wing The Atlantic and the left-wing Washinton Post. At Library Thing, I end up reading left-wing comments of its dominant left-wing bookworms and their various quotes and links from the left-wing BBC, the left-wing Guardian, and the left-wing Huffington Post. I watch the left-wing 60 Minutes. I read articles through the links at RealClear Books and RealClear Politics."

Given the results of the last election....I would guess that the "left-wing" concerns reported on all of the "left-wing" media outlets were valid enough to well over half of the population who turned out to vote for Obama.

Some journalists may well be liberal; their news employers, however, are not. And the fact that rather moderate media outlets such as the NYT and Washington Post are considered 'liberal' is a sad commentary on how that term has been altered through the years; just as the fact that Fox News et.al. are considered 'conservative' is a sad commentary on how that term has been mangled as well.

#87: I'm sorry, but none of the outlets considered 'liberal' (Huffington Post, etc.) are anything of the kind. Moderate, yes; liberal, no.

This has nothing to do with his reporting biases or lack thereof, but Charles Krauthammer is the textbook example of flat affect.

If Fox is not conservative, Emily Post is not a woman, up is down, and Romney won the election by a huge margin, and has just announced tax cuts for the wealthy. That there is a conservative news outlet is one thing. That they bill themselves as otherwise makes them deceivers from the get-go.

Well, I really do find Fox News fair and balanced, but I know that it is an unpopular view. I have noticed it is easier to call names and question motives than it is to make an argument or refute facts. This is one of the biggest problems in talking with liberals. They will never give conservatives the benefit of the doubt for having sincere motives. Or even for being decent, thoughtful human beings. Always "the enemy." And Fox is the enemy. So it is dismissed like a reflex.

92 -- Ah, a purist when it comes to politics and terminology. Good luck. I am well aware of the multiple strains of conservatism (traditional conservatism, social conservatism, cultural conservatism, neoconseratism, paleoconservatism, postmodern conservatism, libertarianism), some of which conflict, there are plenty of books about it, as well as the old use of the term classical liberal from the 19th century which some libertarians claim as their own. Much of that debate, who is the fairest of them all, is pointless in today's politics. Politics is art, not math. It is compromise and push and pull, not the laying down of etched in stone moral absolutes. You and lawecon should have a talk. He thinks conservatism ended with Barry Goldwater. I tried to bring him into the 21st century but failed.

93 -- I have had a flat affect for most of my life. If Charles Krauthammer is depressed, which is very possible given his history, then his flat affect would be one symptom. I wonder how many people know that Krauthammer was raised in Montreal before heading to Oxford and to Harvard Medical School. At Harvard, he was paralyzed when, while diving, he hit his back on the diving board. He continued his classes, sometimes professors would lecture in his hospital room, and became the first paralyzed man to graduate from Harvard Med. He took his M.D. in psychiatry, co-wrote an article about bipolar disease which wound up in a class textbook. Soon after he became a speechwriter for Walter Mondale.

More from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

This is the man you all consider an idiot.

Simply because someone calls themselves (or their network) 'conservative' does not, in the immortal words of Captain Picard, make it so.

Many of the people claiming to be conservative these days are merely overblown tyrants, eager to impose rules on others that they would be unwilling to live under personally. That's not a 'conservative political philosophy'; that's 'I know better than you what is right for you to do, and I'm going to ask for force to be used to make you do the right thing.'

I am aware that things change (and sometimes actually for the better). And that politics, like all means of communication and expression, is an art form with some hard science underpinnings. But Lawecon, despite my many disputes with him, was correct in that if a word gets distorted too much, it ceases to have any real meaning. I'm afraid you may well be correct, and that terms such as 'liberal', 'socialist', 'conservative', 'moderate', and others have been so misused that there's no hope of salvaging them. But until someone comes up with new words whose meanings we can agree upon, we're forced to rely upon the old ones, battered though they may be.

I would define Fox News as to the right (far to the right) of any real conservative thinking, for instance.

The problem is not, as Arctic observed, that Fox News isn't fair and balanced; a quick look at 19th Century papers is enough to show that partisan media is hardly a modern invention. The problem is that Fox represents itself as non-partisan, and some people believe that. This doesn't mean that Fox can't be truthful and accurate in a news story (especially one that has little to do with their core concerns); but it does mean they are engaged in lying to the public from the beginning; perhaps not the best way to engender trust in their news. Whereas a 'liberal' source that openly admits to its bias can be read and judged based on that stance.

It's ridiculous (imho) for the vast majority of news sources to claim they are 'unbiased' about any story. The reporters, the writers, the anchors; they all have an opinion on what a given story might mean in a larger social sense. Were the members of the various Occupy movements lazy bums, protestors against inequity, confused citizens? All of the above? How the story was presented depended in part on what the writer thought; what the editor thought, and what the publisher wanted to see. All of the biases and opinions are in any given story we read in the news. Along with the most important, primary motive; will people be interested enough to buy?

We all have our biases. To what degree do they influence our judgment? Some. Maybe not 100 percent. I don't know what degree. I suppose every person is different when they read, perceive, or judge. They draw on their faculties.

One simple point: fair and balanced is just an advertising slogan. Do you expect to be surrounded by supermodels when you open a can of Bud Light? Does Bud Light really make you into player as claimed?

To be more serious, I don't see it as black or white: 100 percent bias versus 100 percent objectivity. It's more of a spectrum or continuum. It's a question of how close you can come to being objective, how hard you are trying, rather than not trying at all or not being aware of your biases. Liberals are often unaware of their biases because they have never been educated in the intellectual history of liberalism or in the intellectual history of conservatism, or, for that matter, American history in general. In general, the best and brightest don't go into journalism. The hours are long, the work dizzying, and the pay terrible. Our brainiacs go into medicine, engineering, computer programming, Wall Street, business.

I have seen plenty of liberals on Fox to know that both sides of an issue are being heard. So if you mean fair and balanced 100 percent? Probably not. But as fair and balanced as other networks and, in my opinion, better than other networks? I can live with that.

This is the man you all consider an idiot.

That statement is FoxNewsworthy. No where did I describe him as an idiot. I just said he had flat affect, which, given his profession, is pretty unique. But you heard what you heard, and reported on that, not on what was actually said.

This is the man you all consider an idiot.

No one has said Krauthammer is an idiot. And I'm sure that when dealing with issues related to his medical training he is an excellent resource.

What is being said is that Krauthammer is biased, and I don't think that there is anyone who would dispute that. And I would go further to say that when Krauthammer is opining on topics outside of his educational background he is very often quite misinformed, which should come as a shock to nobody except Fox news viewers.

Okay, that was my assumption. I assumed that you assumed that everyone who is on Fox or watches Fox is an idiot.

Why on earth would you make that assumption?

I don't a lot of watch Fox News, I disagree with some of their reporting, I don't think it is always factual, but that does not mean I think they are idiots.

(Although in my experience, people often attribute attitudes to others that they themselves harbor.)

Arguing with faux "news" Kool-Aid drinkers may have a certain amount of entertainment value. But many times it does not even rise to that level.

This thread, for example.

I myself do not intend to bash my beautiful valuable head against some brick wall of sheer brainwashed ignorance.

I put brick walls on ignore.

To quote the ASPCA: It's the kindest thing we can do.

99: Many Fox News viewers are in fact idiots. Some of the Fox news hosts are idiots. Glenn Beck, who used to be on Fox, is an idiot. Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. Many of the pretty female hosts are idiots, and there is evidence they are selected to some extent because they are idiots.

But what most Fox news viewers are is misinformed, because they are getting their news from a source that is consistently biased and deceptive. In poll after poll Fox news viewers have been shown to be the most misinformed segment of media viewers. When a news channel's viewership is consistently the least informed collection of media consumers around, that is a pretty good indication that the channel is slanting and biasing the news improperly.

Many of the Fox news hosts are not idiots. But they are lying to you. They think you are stupid and they can get away with it.

Just for shits and giggles, I channel flipped for several weeks after the three debates and prior to the election...went from Fox to MSNBC and then on to CNN.....It was actually laugh out loud funny to listen to Fox after listening to MSNBC.....CNN was probably the most neutral.
Fox was horrible.....MSNBC commentators were very liberal but at least they pulled in guests from the Right.

Just watched Fox cut someone off the other night. Guy was talking about the recent embassy deaths.....he told the commentator that he felt the channel was ginning up the story....then asked the commentator if he knew how many contrators died in Iraq and Afghanistan.....was cut off.

That was Tom Ricks, who recently wrote a fascinating book on Generals. (An excerpt can be found in this month's Atlantic Magazine.) It was shameful on Fox's part to pull the plug on him.

>104 Arctic-Stranger:
"It was shameful on Fox's part to pull the plug on him."

They were doing everything in their power to be "fair and balanced"

> 103

Yes, the interview was with Pulitzer Prize winning author Thomas Ricks, as opposed to just some putz.

Ricks told the truth and the fox people, both in front of and behind the camera, almost shit their pants. They couldn't get that particular guest off the air fast enough. They cut the interview after 90 seconds and only two questions.

I have seen other TV interviewers cut off guests but only because the guests started shouting or would not stop talking over other people or had become threatening or may have said something libelous and thus legally actionable.

Thomas Ricks did nothing like any of that. He just told the truth. And the fox "news" people could not stand the truth being told on their network which only exists to spew out right wing propaganda, with attempts at both objectivity and truth be damned.

The fox propaganda machine is becoming more and more of a known joke with each passing day. Their viewers are on average old as dirt and will die off more and more and will not be replaced in sufficient numbers. The fox clown "news" network is like the teabagger republican party. Their days are numbered.

". . .the teabagger republican party('s). . .days are numbered."

Hope your prediction is right, JGL,
but I'm curious about what, in current events, you base it on?

Fox News has a business bottom line, not a political one. It sells a political tendency until it stops selling. Hence, Beck was dumped and Palin has been marginalized. And, based on Megyn Kelly's dismissive takedown of Karl Rove, the "Architect" may be on the way out. It is good at offering a quality conservative product to a conservative audience.

> 107

- Just a general conviction that reality has a liberal bias. Thus truth will win out in the end. One must have faith. LOL.

It may take a few tens of thousands of years, sure, for complete fruition of sanity to take place - I just can't see fox as having a future much more than a few more decades.

Reality has no bias. It simply is. It's only people who attempt to make the facts fit a particular agenda.

> 110

Ok. Reality - human political reality - is liberal, as opposed to illiberal, in the fullness of time. E.g., compare the liberalness /illiberalness - on average - of societies/governments today to that of a thousand years ago. Or even 100 years ago.

See a trend?

No, I'm afraid I don't. The reason governments have become more open in certain ways has far more to do with an abundance of necessities and luxuries, rather than human politics.

If we accept a theory made in Guns, Germs and Steel that most human governments are successful kleptocracies, then the abundance of resources becomes even more important; you can only steal so much, so fast. Which leaves lots left over for everyone else.

It's easier to be lenient about variances from the norm when everyone has more than enough; in contrast, limit the resources (naturally or artificially) and watch the bars come down.

You can accomplish the same limits by creating the 'other'; a shadowy group of evil and menace, which requires sacrifices and restrictions in order to defeat. (Said sacrifices to come from the general populace, of course; the leaders require those controlled resources to maintain 'our' safety.)

The most prevailing delusion in politics is 'It can't happen here.' Don't fool yourself and think that somehow because we are 'advanced', that we have become 'more liberal', that we simply know 'too much', that it's impossible for us to reverse our course and speed towards a closed, controlled society.

> 113

That's all very nice - I guess - but what does any of it have to do with my previous post?

Oh, yeah, I see - you took a caricature of what I said and then you shot that down. Well, that was fun was it not?

I used a lot of qualifiers. A LOT. Which you simply ignore.

Question: Are you a republican? If not, then they could sue you for copyright infringement. THEY have the monopoly, have you not heard, for ignoring what has been said, then setting up straw men and knocking them down, then patting themselves on the back for being such clever people.

BTW - do you even know to what the word "trend" refers? If not there is dictionary.com - as close as your fingertips.

The only qualifier I noted was 'on average'. And I actually agreed with your statement; I merely provided an alternate explanation for the cause. So, I didn't 'shoot anything down' in terms of your idea that society have become more open (or 'liberal', to use your term) over the past few millenia.

You are, of course, free to disagree with my explanation (greater resources = more openess in societies). So, I'm not sure where you got the idea I was responding to a caricature; I was offering an explanation that sadly, does not paint an entirely rosy picture of the future, as opposed to your vision, which implies (perhaps incorrectly) that human societies automatically tend to advance towards more liberal versions (over a long enough stretch of time).

I seriously doubt that any current member of the Republican Party in good standing would support my thesis that fear-mongering is a way to control the allocation of resources, denying them to the undeserving poor and stealing...err... gratefully providing them to the honored elites in return for their thankless service in our behalf.

Yes, I know the meaning of the word trend. I also realize that simply because has happened, and is continuing to happen, is not a guarentee that it will continue into the future for any given length of time. And since the trend you are referring to is one I believe is fueled by ever-more abundant resources, a sudden decrease in those resources could easily lead to a reversal of that trend.

Oh, yeah, I see - you took a caricature of what I said and then you shot that down. Well, that was fun was it not?


And we all know that you never use caricatures!

Sure - if a worldwide catastrophic ends civilization as we know it, then all bets are off.

Lacking that I will go with reality has a liberal bias - meaning democracy amongst humans seems to grow in time, as autocracy diminishes, on average, as a general trend. Barring global warming or an asteroid strike ending civilization in general. Something like that. Something somewhat open-ended.

Let's just say "reality has a liberal bias." as a sort of poetic expression, not be taken as a statement of absolute logic.

Would all that be OK?

On Thanksgiving Day, we spent the day with church members. They had a mutual friend in attendance...actually they were former the pastor and his wife (my husband is the current pastor)...anyway, the wife and I began conversation and somehow politics came up (she brought it up first), beginning a tirade against Obama. I quickly interupted her as politely as possbile to let her know that I am a Democrat and tried to politely change the subject. She would not let it go...and spouted every ridiculous teabagger charge: he's a Muslim; he's pure evil; he supports abortion, yadda yadda yadda. I tried to rebuff her every charge as politely and neutrally as possible. I even pointed out that my husband is a Republican, but we've managed to stay married for over 30 years...it's simply not an issue with us. She "couldn't believe any informed person" could possibly have voted for Obama. It was just incredibly rude; basically calling me stupid to my face. She acted as though I had grown two heads, or was something found on the bottom of her shoe. Could it be she has never actually met a Democrat before??? Fortunately, another person joined the conversation, and the subject was changed. I then moved away from her as quickly and politely as possible. Thanksgiving dinner at a friends' house IS NOT the place to discuss such a thing with a total stranger. Very very rude.

She, of course, entitled to her opinion. But the rudeness of it all still ticks me off. And, in her position of a pastor's spouse, makes it doubly repugnant. There was NOTHING Christian, tolerant, or loving in anything she had to say. I guess I am something of her peer...but what if she spouted off like that to a church member? Very offensive. As a pastor's spouse, I pretty much keep my political views to myself to the congregation.

I think I showed remarkable self control. :)

Yes you did. I remember many times when I bit my tongue as a pastor, because someone was going off on a political rant, and it was not place, as pastor, to correct their politics. That was one of the freeing things about leaving parish ministry.

> 117

Ninety per cent of white people in the state where I live - Mississippi - are pretty much (in the majority) just like your ex-pastor's wife.

You might want to avoid the place like the plague, as you seem like a sensitive individual.

Myself - I like swimming with the sharks.

Nah, not particularly sensitive. I live in Texas after all, lol...I am aware that my politics are in the minority here. I'm ok with that. I just found the woman incredibly rude.

There's another church member who is the leader of the local teabagger group. She and I get along fine. We simply don't discuss politics.

I've been able to have intense but polite conversations with conservatives before. I don't mind political debate. What I don't like are rude people who think they are the only ones who are right. As an American, it is my right to vote for whoever I want. It is not someone else's right to tell me I'm stupid for doing so.

> 120

No disagreement here. Agree to disagree as needed and skip the subject(s).

But white people in the south, especially in rural areas but also in many urban and suburban settings, see things quite differently. And many of them have violent ideations - obviously.

Two women having a radical disagreement regarding politics in a church setting - that seems mild enough.

But here's the thing. I didn't put an Obama sticker on my car. The reason is I don't wish it to be vandalized.

If I am in a large group of (white) people and religion or politics come up as a subject, I am somewhat cautious in expressing my unpopular opinions. Before I do I calculate if I can single-handedly take on the whole crowd if "things get out of hand". So then I generally only express my opinion here in a crowd such as my local Unitarian church, or my atheist meet-up group or a couple of similar groups I've been known to hang out with.

As another e.g., my late father was, at various times in his life, a leader in the local KKK chapter and/or a deacon in the southern baptist church a block from the house in which I grew up. I rapidly figured out when I could express my individual and divergent views - and when that would just be a really bad idea.

So, rather than rudeness, worse things can happen. You either adapt to the environment, which you are not going to change, or you change your environment in the sense of finding another one to live in.

So - other than Unitarian I stay away from churches. That really helps a lot here in Mis-sip-pee.

>120 theretiredlibrarian:
Actually it IS their right. What is important to remember is often what they are saying says more about their own intellegence than yours. If you listen carefully, what you hear is primarly fear. People who experience enough fear tend to lose their filters....

My youngest son was working as a service caller for a BMW motorcycle dealership during the election. Just the other day he looked at me and said.."Why is it that Republican's are so rude about what they say when they talk politics....it's like they do not care about anyone's feelings or thoughts what so ever."

First I had to remind him that not ALL Republicans are rude. But he had a point....my son's best friend is an East Indian young man. He is a Muslim and practices his religion. He has taught my son a great deal about the faith and he has also been very supportive at times when my son has needed a role model (Aasif is a bit older than my son) I was told that sometimes, several times a day, my son was subjected to customer's referring to Muslim's this or Muslim's that.....or terroist brown men and stuff I won't even repeat.
My son's conclusion "They must think that everybody thinks the same way they do...or they don't give a damn" He thought for a while and said he really didn't know which was worse.

121-- I thought long and hard about putting the Obama magnet on my car, but eventually decided to do it anyway. I did have a few people I knew do dramatic double takes, but my car remained unkeyed.

Despite being in a more-conservative-than-average part of SC, our three most immediate neighbors are all Democrats.

> 123

The person across the street from me put an Obama sign in her yard back in 2008 and no one bothered it in our mainly white neighborhood.

Unlike the Kerry sign I put in my yard in 2004. Someone stole it and put a Bush sign in its place.

And, sure, I saw ten or twelve Obama stickers on cars this year -three or four on white people's cars.

I'm not saying things aren't getting better. E.g., Obama got 43 per cent of the vote in Mississippi this year, as opposed to 41 per cent in 2008.

LOL.

If I am still alive at age 93 in about thirty years I will check back with you. I could be living in a liberal paradise by then.

2XLOL.

70> "...limiting federal intrusion, taxes, and overbearing controls on individuals and industry. "

How can you say this of a State where you can be jailed for selling vibrators?

From what I have see of it Pox new is not conservative.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/
is conservative.

Forbes is conservative.

Fox is from what I have seen Tabloid pure and simple.

#86: Mexico is a failing country

Wow, I think some people are using some pretty absurd parameters for what constitutes a "failing country" then. I mean, it would be nice if the US weren't outsourcing the drug war south of the border, but it's not like the Mexican economy is head towards any kind of collapse.

I never put political stickers on my car; they become outdated too fast. So far, my C'thulhu Fish hasn't attracted any negative responses.

The problem with free speech is some people are entirely too free with theirs, while trying to restrict yours.

You shouldn't take criticism of our neighbor south of the border so seriously; many nations are such only in name; phantasms that everyone agrees to accept as real. Pakistan and Afghanistan, for instance.

I never put political stickers on my car; they become outdated too fast.

Which is why magnets are replacing stickers.

"phantasms . . .Pakistan and Afghanistan, for instance." (128)

The problem with Pakistan and Afghanistan as nation-states is that
they have no one language* and no
nation-wide ethnicity to base it on.
Ever meet a speaker of "Afghan"? or an "Aghan" who was "Afghan" first and something else only secondarily? "Yugoslavia" had
the same problem, and you see where they are now -- reduced to being only "Serbia" which had been the politically dominant ethnicity all along, under their various governments.
Other than that, the two " 'stans"
don't have much in common. Some of the ethnicities do spill over the border -- a border that nobody was paying much attention to. Wartime displacements and realignments of war lords' forces have caused the "border" to be even more insignificant.
Afghan independence, though, is almost 3 decades older than India/Pakistan independence. And about two decades older than that of Iraq, the "integrity" of which has been much touted in the West. But independence is not synonymous with full-fledged de facto nation-statehood. Even the U. S. had
Americans -- both North and South as late as the 1820s.-- who took for granted that the
individual state is more important than the nation.

*I heard in a TV interview an English-speaking Northern
"Afghan" who referred to his native language as "Persian" --a usage that is a no-no in the media and, I think, to many Iranians. (You're supposed to say "Farsi" -- the equivalent of being required to say
"Deutsch" instead of "German", and "francais" instead of "French".