Setting the stage for WWIII...Obama as Chamberlain.....Armageddon coming?

[Eddie Coyle]

  5-grins! The most I have ever given!

   I'm auditioning for Hallmark.

[21st Century Man]

Most, if not all, of North Korea's nuclear technology and materiel came from Pakistan (though the Pakistani government lies that they had nothing to do with it and it was the result of the rogue A Q Khan).  I have no doubt that North Korea had the money to pay for this irrespective of the sanctions.


This happened under Clinton (1998) but it was in September of 2003 when North Korea finalized their bomb, after the U.S invaded Iraq and almost certainly at least partly as a response to that invasion.


I don't disagree that 'appeasement' has had a mixed track record, but war has had a much worse track record.  Care to come up with another option?

Appeasement has a mixed track record?  I don't recall any criticisms that Reagan was appeasing the Soviets.  All of the liberals over here had their mouths fixed on Gorbachev's bulge waiting to take their turn.  I have always liked Gorbachev myself.  I could clearly see that he was far different from his predecessors.  I'm surprised he wasn't assassinated by the Politburo.

I really can't believe that you are making excuses for Chamberlain.  It is likely more people were killed because of his stupid policy.  They could have nipped the Holocaust in the bud had they acted then.  Not to mention save the poor Poles. I understand the arguments that Great Britain was not yet ready to act and that the Soviets were not exactly opposed to German expansionism at this time. I forgot what the French were thinking around this time. Not to mention the fact that Americans did not want themselves in any European War.  However, surely Great Britain had the air power to make the Germans think twice.  Action then could have dealt a deadly blow to German plans of bombing Britain.  Surely something else could have been done rather than appeasing Hitler.

[21st Century Man]

I believe you meant to say: Harper's 'job' has been ruining Canada, or didn't you notice ?  Likely just a typo.

I am actually a long time supporter of the Federal Liberal Party though I would vote for anybody who had the best chance of beating Sleazy Stephie's (AKA he who cowers in closets) Party, even Calm Tom's NDP.

Typical right wing bullying that anybody who doesn't support the CONS must be on welfare.  You are a dimwitted Canadian Rethuglic (though in Canada even a slim majority of Conservative voters would vote for Obama/Democratic.  Hillary Rodham Clinton has over 80% support of Canadians to something like 15% for the highest backed Republican Jeb Bush.)  I am truly ashamed that you are a citizen of Canada.

I have a full time job.  Are you employed? and have you ever been on welfare?

Don't get me started on Hillary.  The Clintons are the most corrupt politicians in the world.  However, I can understand the support for Canadians for Hillary over Bush.  I'm not voting for him.  I'll vote 3rd party before I vote for him.

[ACE of CLUBS]

No .... you're the typical westcoast Canadian Lib-tard.  Lots of blather about things you know nothing about .....
This thread and your posts make that point quite apparent.
It's cretin-esque people like you that give Canadians a bad name.
So you're able to hold down a job .....  Good for you!  A barista?  Or perhaps you're in the trough with a govt. 'job' ..... ?
Filling your pockets with tax-payer dough ...... ?  Perhaps welfare is considered a job ...... by you ?

Carry on gasbag ...

[albrecht]

Jobs would actually decline considerably from the loss of foreign trade.  Also, the loss of rare earth minerals from China would be devastating to much of the high tech industry.


Turning inward was also very bad for China from the 1400s to the 1900s, though you haven't suggested entirely turning inward, and China turned its back on progress entirely, which you also don't suggest.


I also don't see how this would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if it desired.

None the less, according to Noory, your writing of this today can't be a coincidence, as one person who likely agrees with virtually everything you wrote, Gerald Celente will be on Coast to Coast tonight, unless, of course, Noory has suddenly changed his economics adviser. 


(If anybody takes that literally, and I actually think most people get my 'joke',  I'm fully aware that Noory has four 'economics advisers' who appear seemingly at random on his show: Celente, Fitts, Egleshon and Shedlock.)


Were you aware that Celente would be on tonight?  I have to say I'd be surprised if you were.

I was not aware of Celente being on tonight. But, I must have been aware subconsciously or via a remote viewing- since, as we know- there are no coincidences. The "American Plan" of Clay, Hamilton, etc lead to some of the best growth of the USA and it consisted of high tariffs, subsidies for infrastructure, support for farmers, etc. (Though would need to be updated for modern times.) But I'm not advocating a complete autarky (though arguably with a country as large as we have it could work with some serious planning and some hardship) but simply trading only with "good" people and looking after ourselves first. And avoiding foreign wars unless directly impacted (self-defense.) Western Nations, right now, have the edge. Don't give it up for political correctness, white guilt, or thinking that other countries/culture's will "appreciate" our help and be thankful for it. They will/are using our openness, trusting nature, weapons, and honestly against us. Given the other side of the coin they would annihilate, or at least take severe advantage of, us in a heartbeat.

Our priorities should be, first, after looking after one's family, is protecting the borders, our people, our waters, and then our friends. But no more aide to the 3rd world- humanitarian, militarily, or otherwise- and no more technology transfers and immigration. End the wars there and let them sort it out. China likewise, their society would crumble before ours (though it is true that they would, as a centralized authority, be quick to "deal" with any problems with people- so could survive, but not thrive anymore.) Then, when they all grow up, maybe trade with the rest of the world again. A combo of NATO, EU, Nordic Countries, OZ, NZ, and especially with Russia on board could successfully trade and survive and thrive. But I'll bet even a "North American Island" could do as well. Remember we would still have advantage of nukes, bio/chem, and tech to repel/dissuade invaders. And that is all I'd want. I don't want world domination or police man/nanny to the world.

[21st Century Man]

I was not aware of Celente being on tonight. But, I must have been aware subconsciously or via a remote viewing- since, as we know- there are no coincidences. The "American Plan" of Clay, Hamilton, etc lead to some of the best growth of the USA and it consisted of high tariffs, subsidies for infrastructure, support for farmers, etc. (Though would need to be updated for modern times.) But I'm not advocating a complete autarky (though arguably with a country as large as we have it could work with some serious planning and some hardship) but simply trading only with "good" people and looking after ourselves first. And avoiding foreign wars unless directly impacted (self-defense.) Western Nations, right now, have the edge. Don't give it up for political correctness, white guilt, or thinking that other countries/culture's will "appreciate" our help and be thankful for it. They will/are using our openness, trusting nature, weapons, and honestly against us. Given the other side of the coin they would annihilate, or at least take severe advantage of, us in a heartbeat.

Our priorities should be, first, after looking after one's family, is protecting the borders, our people, our waters, and then our friends. But no more aide to the 3rd world- humanitarian, militarily, or otherwise- and no more technology transfers and immigration. End the wars there and let them sort it out. China likewise, their society would crumble before ours (though it is true that they would, as a centralized authority, be quick to "deal" with any problems with people- so could survive, but not thrive anymore.) Then, when they all grow up, maybe trade with the rest of the world again. A combo of NATO, EU, Nordic Countries, OZ, NZ, and especially with Russia on board could successfully trade and survive and thrive. But I'll bet even a "North American Island" could do as well. Remember we would still have advantage of nukes, bio/chem, and tech to repel/dissuade invaders. And that is all I'd want. I don't want world domination or police man/nanny to the world.

You are not advocating a North American Union are you, Albrecht?

[136 or 142]

Appeasement has a mixed track record?  I don't recall any criticisms that Reagan was appeasing the Soviets.  All of the liberals over here had their mouths fixed on Gorbachev's bulge waiting to take their turn.  I have always liked Gorbachev myself.  I could clearly see that he was far different from his predecessors.  I'm surprised he wasn't assassinated by the Politburo.

I really can't believe that you are making excuses for Chamberlain.  It is likely more people were killed because of his stupid policy.  They could have nipped the Holocaust in the bud had they acted then.  Not to mention save the poor Poles. I understand the arguments that Great Britain was not yet ready to act and that the Soviets were not exactly opposed to German expansionism at this time. I forgot what the French were thinking around this time. Not to mention the fact that Americans did not want themselves in any European War.  However, surely Great Britain had the air power to make the Germans think twice.  Action then could have dealt a deadly blow to German plans of bombing Britain.

1. In their book on foreign-policy, analysts Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke observed: "from 1983 onward, Reagan devoted more of his foreign policy time to arms control than to any other subject." Reagan spoke of peace when he addressed Soviet students in Moscow in 1988. Norman Podhoretz, the neocon godfather, denounced Reagan for "appeasement by any other name."
He was just one, I recall many neocons (anticommunist hardliners as they were called at the time denouncing Reagan although others were reassured by Thatcher's declaration that 'we can do business with Gorbachev) http://nationalinterest.org/feature/betrayed-why-reagan-would-be-ashamed-the-neocons-12732

Had a Democratic President negotiated with Gorbachev, not only would every Republican have denounced him then, they would still be denouncing him to this day.

2.The Holocaust could only have been prevented and the Poles could only have been saved had the Nazis been defeated which they couldn't have been in 1938.  The Germans listened to the American General Billy Mitchell and the Italian war theorist Giulio Douhet on the importance of air supremacy while the Allied Nations ignored him.  I realize that Churchill disagrees with me, but I and many others regard Britain as having been in a weaker position in 1938 than it was in 1939/1940.

3.The French thought they were secure behind the Maginot line.  Most of their leaders didn't care about anybody else.

[albrecht]

You are not advocating a North American Union are you, Albrecht?

Ha, sorta, but more like an Articles of Confederation; local politics, laws, regulations, social issues, welfare schemes, currency, etc are up to the sovereign States (and/or states, provinces, etc) but a mutual protection and trading bloc consisting of Western Nations with a, relatively, common background and culture. And cutting off trade, and help in any form, to others. A pipe-dream, of course, and the course has been set because genies are notoriously hard to get back into the bottle. But maintain our technology, medical, and military supremacy and let the other nations fail due to in-fighting, famine, disease, and corruption, or, succeed, on their own internal merits. A 100years, or so, too late now. Though we could still take some measures (like with immigration and limiting/eliminating foreign wars and better trade pacts only with decent people.)

[136 or 142]

Albrecht, I should just add that if the U.S only traded with democracies, not only would it lose trade (and the jobs from them) with the dictatorships, it would also lose some trade and probably a considerable amount of trade with the democracies.


Companies buy inputs from the dictatorships.  No doubt American made replacements could be found in most cases (though not with the rare earth minerals the U.S mostly gets from China) but they would either be at a higher cost or be of lower grade or quality.  How do I know this? Because I assume that most businesses know what is in their own best interests when they are deciding who their suppliers will be. So, given the higher prices and/or lower quality of the inputs, U.S goods will be less competitive on the world market and this will result in a loss of trade to the democracies. 

[136 or 142]

Don't get me started on Hillary.  The Clintons are the most corrupt politicians in the world.  However, I can understand the support for Canadians for Hillary over Bush.  I'm not voting for him.  I'll vote 3rd party before I vote for him.

You told me earlier that you thought all politicians were equally bad, so how can the Clintons be more corrupt than any of the others.

In the case of the Clintons, I don't know if they are more or less corrupt than the others, but I'm sure you only regard them as being more corrupt because you are less aware of the other politicians.


Jeb Bush for instance has allegations of dealing with corrupt people when he was a property developer prior to getting into politics.  As governor he favored Christian institutions and businesses over non Christian ones.  He also may have also played a role in the illegal scrubbing of the electoral rolls to help his brother win Florida,which I have mentioned before.


Marco Rubio has allegations of corruption in regards to his using taxpayer money to benefit private universities.


Scott Walker used a private email server as Milwaukee County Executive and his subordinates illegally deleted emails (and were either fined or went to jail over it), though Walker denies any knowledge of this.


Chris Christie has too many corruption allegations to list here.

Donald Trump also has corruption allegations relating to some private university he owns.


Mike Huckabee as Governor of Arkansas gave pardons to convicted murderers who would later murder again and is also alleged to have mixed his private and public dealings.


Of the top ranked candidates I believe that leaves only Rand Paul and Ben Carson, who has never been previously politically active.


You may argue that HRC has more corruption allegations but she has been investigated far more than any of the Republican candidates and what I wrote above is only the thus far known corruption allegations.  I would also argue that while some of the things HRC may have did were unseemly, with the likely exception of the bizarre Rosewater billing document case, I don't believe any of the other things she is alleged to have done rise to the level of corruption.  Even her keeping a private email account as SOS was not illegal at the time, and though I dissaprove of it,  as I like 'transparent government' every major Republican governor running for the Presidency did the same thing, not just Scott Walker.

[albrecht]

Albrecht, I should just add that if the U.S only traded with democracies, not only would it lose trade (and the jobs from them) with the dictatorships, it would also lose some trade and probably a considerable amount of trade with the democracies.


Companies buy inputs from the dictatorships.  No doubt American made replacements could be found in most cases (though not with the rare earth minerals the U.S mostly gets from China) but they would either be at a higher cost or be of lower grade or quality.  How do I know this? Because I assume that most businesses know what is in their own best interests when they are deciding who their suppliers will be. So, given the higher prices and/or lower quality of the inputs, U.S goods will be less competitive on the world market and this will result in a loss of trade to the democracies.

Sure, the problem of all attempted cartels (or similar) or socialist/communist plans. That is why it would need to be something above simply profits as motivation. Like common defense, culture, religion, etc. But also simply the savings of our military costs (protecting other country's borders, all our wars, protecting shipping lanes around the globe) and no more foreign aide (in any form) should off-set the higher prices.

Currently they depend on our trade more than our economies do (we export less.) How would the Saudi, Qatar, Mexico, Venezuela, etc etc handle it if we didn't buy their gas and oil? Or China if we didn't buy their cheap (and now better) crap? Reckon they could control their population, maintain their social structure with the imbalances of wealth, or even feed themselves? For how long? Africa would be be screwed, but that's the norm. And we have greater resources naturally than China or most other countries, especially more immediately needed stuff (one can do without an iPhone but without oil or food? (Which is why it would be great to get Russia involved as they have rare earth in addition to oil&gas and AG production, when run efficiently, that Europe needs though if protected from immigration or wars, it could likely still survive with some hardship and trade with us, even if not.)

As I said, with my crazy theorizing, the genie is out of the bottle due to our friendliness and trusting nature (and avarice) so with things already "out there" like nukes, bio/chemical technology, and a 5th column of immigrants already in our borders my "plan" would likely not work. But, who knows, some measures could be adopted to at least stem the tide, a bit.

[FightTheFuture]

People are overlooking the obvious as it pertains to this "nuc deal."  Why were we treating those backwater psychopaths like they're Brezhnev's Soviet Union?

Here we have a third-world country who's economy is on life support. They are the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism. They have no Air Force, no Navy, a subpar army at best.  And we capitulate to their every demand. Frankly, it's incredibly embarrassing. Hell,we didn't even bring up the prospect of returning our people being held prisoner there!! Just embarrassing.


We can now only hope that Israel and her neighbors are able to form  some kind of loose coalition that applies adequat pressure on the Iranians to ensure they never get their filthy mitts on nuclear weaponry or the ICBMs to carry them to our shores.

[21st Century Man]

You told me earlier that you thought all politicians were equally bad, so how can the Clintons be more corrupt than any of the others.

In the case of the Clintons, I don't know if they are more or less corrupt than the others, but I'm sure you only regard them as being more corrupt because you are less aware of the other politicians.


Jeb Bush for instance has allegations of dealing with corrupt people when he was a property developer prior to getting into politics.  As governor he favored Christian institutions and businesses over non Christian ones.  He also may have also played a role in the illegal scrubbing of the electoral rolls to help his brother win Florida,which I have mentioned before.


Marco Rubio has allegations of corruption in regards to his using taxpayer money to benefit private universities.


Scott Walker used a private email server as Milwaukee County Executive and his subordinates illegally deleted emails (and were either fined or went to jail over it), though Walker denies any knowledge of this.


Chris Christie has too many corruption allegations to list here.

Donald Trump also has corruption allegations relating to some private university he owns.


Mike Huckabee as Governor of Arkansas gave pardons to convicted murderers who would later murder again and is also alleged to have mixed his private and public dealings.


Of the top ranked candidates I believe that leaves only Rand Paul and Ben Carson, who has never been previously politically active.


You may argue that HRC has more corruption allegations but she has been investigated far more than any of the Republican candidates and what I wrote above is only the thus far known corruption allegations.  I would also argue that while some of the things HRC may have did were unseemly, with the likely exception of the bizarre Rosewater billing document case, I don't believe any of the other things she is alleged to have done rise to the level of corruption.  Even her keeping a private email account as SOS was not illegal at the time, and though I dissaprove of it,  as I like 'transparent government' every major Republican governor running for the Presidency did the same thing, not just Scott Walker.

   Of course I don't trust most politicians but the Clintons are in a league of their own.  How corrupt are the Clintons? Let me count the ways. Let's see Benghazi, the server incident, the death of Vince Foster, Whitewater, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick.......I could go on and on.

Let's not discuss this on this thread.  I'd like to stay on topic.

[21st Century Man]

1. In their book on foreign-policy, analysts Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke observed: "from 1983 onward, Reagan devoted more of his foreign policy time to arms control than to any other subject." Reagan spoke of peace when he addressed Soviet students in Moscow in 1988. Norman Podhoretz, the neocon godfather, denounced Reagan for "appeasement by any other name."
He was just one, I recall many neocons (anticommunist hardliners as they were called at the time denouncing Reagan although others were reassured by Thatcher's declaration that 'we can do business with Gorbachev) http://nationalinterest.org/feature/betrayed-why-reagan-would-be-ashamed-the-neocons-12732

Had a Democratic President negotiated with Gorbachev, not only would every Republican have denounced him then, they would still be denouncing him to this day.

2.The Holocaust could only have been prevented and the Poles could only have been saved had the Nazis been defeated which they couldn't have been in 1938.  The Germans listened to the American General Billy Mitchell and the Italian war theorist Giulio Douhet on the importance of air supremacy while the Allied Nations ignored him.  I realize that Churchill disagrees with me, but I and many others regard Britain as having been in a weaker position in 1938 than it was in 1939/1940.

3.The French thought they were secure behind the Maginot line.  Most of their leaders didn't care about anybody else.

I'm preparing to read The Last Lion books on Churchill. I think I'll go with Churchill over you, 136.  No disrespect intended.  I really haven't read very much on the war. I've become far more interested in it during the last few years.

[21st Century Man]

Ha, sorta, but more like an Articles of Confederation; local politics, laws, regulations, social issues, welfare schemes, currency, etc are up to the sovereign States (and/or states, provinces, etc) but a mutual protection and trading bloc consisting of Western Nations with a, relatively, common background and culture. And cutting off trade, and help in any form, to others. A pipe-dream, of course, and the course has been set because genies are notoriously hard to get back into the bottle. But maintain our technology, medical, and military supremacy and let the other nations fail due to in-fighting, famine, disease, and corruption, or, succeed, on their own internal merits. A 100years, or so, too late now. Though we could still take some measures (like with immigration and limiting/eliminating foreign wars and better trade pacts only with decent people.)

I can go along with the Articles of Confederation. I'm just rather wary of The North American Union. I think you have an excellent idea. Well-done!

[Eddie Coyle]

I'm preparing to read The Last Lion books on Churchill.

  Careful on the final one, Manchester's name is on it, but his contribiutions were meager(dying and death can do that) and it's severely lacking overall. Churchill's post WWII career/life is short shrifted and rushed over.

[21st Century Man]

  Careful on the final one, Manchester's name is on it, but his contribiutions were meager(dying and death can do that) and it's severely lacking overall. Churchill's post WWII career/life is short shrifted and rushed over.

Yeah, I heard that.  Still it is Manchester's research. I might start with that one first just to get it over with.  Its too bad he didn't  have time to get that one finished.  He should have entrusted the research to someone else who cared for Churchill as much as he did.

I read an amusing story about a meeting between Churchill and Cecil B. DeMille after DeMille finished The Ten Commandments.  Churchill seemed to be a genuinely funny and personable fella.  The story is related in Empire of Dreams by Scott Eyman.  Now I have to go back and reread the passage.  Eyman writes about classic movie figures but he really has a gift describing Churchill.  He would do an excellent job if he wrote a Churchill book. My Mom read the first two Manchester books when they came out.  She just loved Churchill after reading those books.

[Juan]

I'm most concerned that the deal will make it easier for the Saudis to get a bomb.  Remember 15 of the 19. 


If we're talking about confederations, how about an Anglosphere one - UK, US, Canada, India, Australia, NZ, Bahamas, Belize, etc?

[FightTheFuture]

The only thing that truly makes sense is an United States and Canada merger.

[Jackstar]

The only thing that truly makes sense is an United States and Canada merger.

That would trigger those yearned-for race riots in a New York minute. Have you ever been to Quebec? Or Montreal? Oh shits, excuse me, I didn't spell those correctly. Where's my Character Map app? Fuck it, get me a carbine.

[136 or 142]

The only thing that truly makes sense is an United States and Canada merger.

You are aware that would shift the New USA considerably to the left and completely marginalize the U.S South and diminish the 'religious' right even further?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Jackstar]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIMk3DDQf9A


I'm ready to blend in to the new paradigm.

[albrecht]

You are aware that would shift the New USA considerably to the left and completely marginalize the U.S South and diminish the 'religious' right even further?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

More on my crazy idea:
Yeah, but I would be ok with that because under my paradigm the self-defense treaty (and trading bloc) is common language, race/culture, not based on religion- although all Islamic states would be prohibited from joining or trading and immigrants kicked out and deported. (So basically an Anglo-European based group of nations) but the individual countries (or States/Provinces depending on how each country decides) still control their language, laws, social issues, welfare programs, currency, borders, etc. (So if Texas want to have a "Christian state" and prayer in schools or California wanted a "homosexual state" and circle-jerks in class it would be their citizen's decision, if Germany wanted to ban guns but UK wanted to bring them back? Fine. Individual countries (or states/provinces) make own laws. Movement within countries is still allowed (and movement between bloc countries is allowed depending how each country decides, there could be borders, or not, or even mini-treaties, like Schengen inside the bloc.) Non-white countries (Japan, Common-Wealth countries, etc) if proven stable, could join up, at least for trade, and maybe defense if they prove themselves willing. The main idea though is allow more local rule, focus on defense (of countries, border, fishing, mineral, oil&gas rights) and to cut-off the bad regions, religions, and countries until they grow up or kill each other off.

[136 or 142]

Those opposed to this deal should be aware that George shares their concerns.  That alone should tell you something.

[Quick Karl]

You all smoking pot again with these fairytale dreams?

I hope the South secedes and forces the liberal states to pay for their own housing and dinner while we get to watch them sink into the muck of their own moronic ideas.

It is simply beyond astonishing that in the face of the fact the liberalism has and is failing, immensely (Greece), everywhere it has ever been tried, some philosophical belligerents still insist it is "the way to go," so long as someone else is paying for something they are consuming, somewhere along the way...

It is just stunning how stupid people really are - even the so-called "smart ones"...

[136 or 142]

You all smoking pot again with these fairytale dreams?

I hope the South secedes and forces the liberal states to pay for their own housing and dinner while we get to watch them sink into the muck of their own moronic ideas.

It is simply beyond astonishing that in the face of the fact the liberalism has and is failing, immensely (Greece), everywhere it has ever been tried, some philosophical belligerents still insist it is "the way to go," so long as someone else is paying for something they are consuming, somewhere along the way...

It is just stunning how stupid people really are - even the so-called "smart ones"...

With the exception of Virginia and North Carolina (and Florida and Texas which are barely southern states, much of Florida has completely different demographics and Texas is actually in the south west) the South is by far the poorest region in the United States, even when taking into account purchasing power parity, which is somewhat dubious anyway.


I think many Americans in the rest of the U.S wouldn't care one way or the other if the south succeeded.

[albrecht]

With the exception of Virginia and North Carolina (and Florida and Texas which are barely southern states, much of Florida has completely different demographics and Texas is actually in the south west) the South is by far the poorest region in the United States, even when taking into account purchasing power parity, which is somewhat dubious anyway.


I think many Americans in the rest of the U.S wouldn't care one way or the other if the south succeeded.

I would the more ideal break-up would be to individual states to have more autonomy or along cultural/political lines (say the South, SW, MidWest, Mountain West, Inland Empire NW, and some of Northern California) as a bloc and the Eastern Seaboard and most of the coastal west coast as a block.) With some treaty between us for mutual defense and trade but allow the individual areas, or states, to determine their culture and society and laws and to control immigration, since the Federal government won't do so at all.

[136 or 142]

I would the more ideal break-up would be to individual states to have more autonomy or along cultural/political lines (say the South, SW, MidWest, Mountain West, Inland Empire NW, and some of Northern California) as a bloc and the Eastern Seaboard and most of the coastal west coast as a block.) With some treaty between us for mutual defense and trade but allow the individual areas, or states, to determine their culture and society and laws and to control immigration, since the Federal government won't do so at all.

I'd rather be a resident of Cascadia than of Canada.

[albrecht]

I'd rather be a resident of Cascadia than of Canada.

Yeah, I think people would be happier in smaller, more homogenous countries. They would also be more democratic and people's vote would actually matter.

It also would, if we still had a good defense pact and trade and means to move, mean less wars (or at least less "bad" wars.) Go to a country like Norway, Switzerland, etc and it is so clean, people are happy, the economy is good, the wages (but prices) are high, etc. There are many good places in the US and Canada also, mainly smaller towns, where it is clean and nice, people are friendly and hardworking, sense of community, etc. But the multicultural wastelands of our cities, now even larger towns, with the smells, violence, traffic, cultural problems, poverty, crime, etc suck. Even in good countries the bigger cities (like Oslo has areas that are awful due to bad immigration policy and being too nice to other cultures and taking in refugees who won't assimilate, rape, etc. Sweden now has one of the highest rape rates in the world, especially developed countries directly due to the types of immigrants and refugees they took in.)

[NowhereInTime]

You all smoking pot again with these fairytale dreams?

Smoking the legalized marijuana of truth, justice, and the American way.

I hope the South secedes...

Tried and failed.

... and forces the liberal states to pay for their own housing and dinner while we get to watch them sink into the muck of their own moronic ideas.

Well, as it happens, the South "forced" us into the industrial revolution, into becoming a maritime power, into acquiring the West, Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.  Oh, wait, no they didn't.  They couldn't "force" us into anything.  They lost.

It is simply beyond astonishing that in the face of the fact the liberalism has and is failing, immensely (Greece), everywhere it has ever been tried, some philosophical belligerents still insist it is "the way to go," so long as someone else is paying for something they are consuming, somewhere along the way...

Except this statement is baseless.  Greece?  Really? How about Germany? France? Norway?  Even Sweden, which is questioning its taxation burden, still acknowledges success in their socialized system:


http://www.thelocal.se/20150711/trust-not-high-taxes-have-made-sweden-a-success-opinion

It is just stunning how stupid people really are - even the so-called "smart ones"...

What's amazing is how the conservative bile machine of these threads post assertion after assertion without any corroboration.  How about demonstrating any evidence of these so called "failures" instead of code like "Greece"?