First Came Brexit, Now Comes Texit

[Keith&Co.]

Of course they wouldn't need a world-spanning military,

But, really, would Texas consider a rational military size?

I mean, it was Wyoming that had the bill to consider buying an Aircaft Carrier for when the government collapsed. The general belief was that they were going to need a big military for defense when they could no longer count on Federal Forces to protect or help protect their citizens from the Apocalypse.

Would Texas really use Mexico or Canada as a template for the size of the military they're going to need?
Or will they turn to Mad Max?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of course they wouldn't need a world-spanning military,

But, really, would Texas consider a rational military size?

I mean, it was Wyoming that had the bill to consider buying an Aircaft Carrier for when the government collapsed. The general belief was that they were going to need a big military for defense when they could no longer count on Federal Forces to protect or help protect their citizens from the Apocalypse.

Would Texas really use Mexico or Canada as a template for the size of the military they're going to need?
Or will they turn to Mad Max?

No, that's not what happened in Wyoming. They did have a bill to create their own independent military, and then an opponent of the bill inserted the Aircraft Carrier as a poison pill amendment so that people like you would laugh at Wyoming for having a bill to get an Aircraft Carrier.

And you're falling for it.

 

[bilby]

Seriously? Are you kidding? That's the best argument for being part of the US people here have?

Best? I don't notice anyone offering it as the best argument... Certainly nothing like the ONLY argument.

But it IS something else to think about.

...

Have you learned nothing from the Brexit referendum?

The important thing in these cases is that under no circumstances should anyone think about the likely (or even just the possible) consequences of the decision until it has been made.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ah yes, there's the conceit.

Those who voted yes did so out of emotion and ignorance. None of them did so because they thought the likely (or even just the possible) consequences would be good.

 

[bilby]

Ah yes, there's the conceit.

Those who voted yes did so out of emotion and ignorance. None of them did so because they thought the likely (or even just the possible) consequences would be good.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Lots of people voted 'leave' because they believed that the likely (or even just the possible) consequences would be good. And they believed that because they were ignorant, and/or because they allowed their emotions to overrule their reason, or their inquisitiveness. They believed it because they either didn't think; or because they started thinking from a position of ignorance, and based their reasoning on falsehoods; or because they consider their emotions to be more important than their long term self-interest.

Lots of 'leave' voters STILL want so badly for Brexit to be the best thing since the heyday of the British Empire that they can't see that the harm MASSIVELY outweighs the good.

They are mostly fuckwitted racist morons, with no idea about the actual facts of the situation, much less the ability to predict the consequences of those facts in the event of a 'leave' vote. None of that means that they don't honestly and sincerely believe that the likely (or even just the possible) consequences would be good.

So you can take your glib accusations of conceit, and shove them. Brexit is an observably and objectively bad thing for the UK, for Europe, and (to a lesser degree) for the rest of the world. It's not even close. The ONLY benefits I have heard any Brexiter claim for leaving are either untrue "We will save millions and spend them on the NHS"; or purely emotional "We will make Britain Great again".

If you can come up with a fact based reason why Brexit was good for the UK, I would love to hear it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But, really, would Texas consider a rational military size?

I mean, it was Wyoming that had the bill to consider buying an Aircaft Carrier for when the government collapsed. The general belief was that they were going to need a big military for defense when they could no longer count on Federal Forces to protect or help protect their citizens from the Apocalypse.

Would Texas really use Mexico or Canada as a template for the size of the military they're going to need?
Or will they turn to Mad Max?

No, that's not what happened in Wyoming. They did have a bill to create their own independent military, and then an opponent of the bill inserted the Aircraft Carrier as a poison pill amendment so that people like you would laugh at Wyoming for having a bill to get an Aircraft Carrier.

And you're falling for it.

Okay.
But, really, how does that impact whether or not Texas will get the military they need or the military they imagine they need?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Ah yes, there's the conceit.

Those who voted yes did so out of emotion and ignorance. None of them did so because they thought the likely (or even just the possible) consequences would be good.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Lots of people voted 'leave' because they believed that the likely (or even just the possible) consequences would be good. And they believed that because they were ignorant, and/or because they allowed their emotions to overrule their reason, or their inquisitiveness. They believed it because they either didn't think; or because they started thinking from a position of ignorance, and based their reasoning on falsehoods; or because they consider their emotions to be more important than their long term self-interest.

Lots of 'leave' voters STILL want so badly for Brexit to be the best thing since the heyday of the British Empire that they can't see that the harm MASSIVELY outweighs the good.

They are mostly fuckwitted racist morons, with no idea about the actual facts of the situation, much less the ability to predict the consequences of those facts in the event of a 'leave' vote. None of that means that they don't honestly and sincerely believe that the likely (or even just the possible) consequences would be good.

So you can take your glib accusations of conceit, and shove them. Brexit is an observably and objectively bad thing for the UK, for Europe, and (to a lesser degree) for the rest of the world. It's not even close. The ONLY benefits I have heard any Brexiter claim for leaving are either untrue "We will save millions and spend them on the NHS"; or purely emotional "We will make Britain Great again".

If you can come up with a fact based reason why Brexit was good for the UK, I would love to hear it.

If people feel they are constantly being treated unfairly, they will act to punish those who have wronged them, even to their own detriment.

 

[dismal]

No, that's not what happened in Wyoming. They did have a bill to create their own independent military, and then an opponent of the bill inserted the Aircraft Carrier as a poison pill amendment so that people like you would laugh at Wyoming for having a bill to get an Aircraft Carrier.

And you're falling for it.

Okay.
But, really, how does that impact whether or not Texas will get the military they need or the military they imagine they need?

I would guess, if anything, less than Canada or Mexico and more like the Constitution imagines. A limited standing army and a citizen militia.

Plus, all you do is talk about getting get a few nukes and then the US government gives you all the money you need to field whatever army you want.

 

[Sarpedon]

One thing the framers of the constitution imagined was that the thing would have to be changed periodically, so they wrote that into it.

What they didn't write into it was a way for a state to leave the union, because that is just stupid. They wrote it for a perpetual, perfect union.

The USA is different than the EU in that the latter is a an alliance of pre-existing states, and thus contains rules for leaving. The USA states are not sovereign nations. State Sovereignty is a myth invented by John C Calhoun and his slaveowner faction in the early 19th century. It has no part of the Constitution. While Texas was technically independent prior to becoming part of the USA, there is no comparison to the independent states of the EU. Texas was colonized by American colonists, rebelled against mexico, and had a brief period of independence while its admission to the USA was negotiated. It was not accepted and considered to be one of the family of nations, being recognized only by Belgium, Mexico, the United States, the Netherlands, and the similarly short-lived republic of Yucatan. It was a temporary entity who's creators fully intended it to be absorbed by the United States, no different than the Republic of West Florida. The only US state that had real independence prior to becoming a state was the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

 

[Playball40]

There is the succession of Key West 34 years ago which is really a perpetuating joke

http://www.conchrepublic.com/

They actually succeeded in succession, although it was aimed at making a statement as opposed to anything else. It wasn't a "joke" so much. Friends of mine actually wrote the National Anthem of the Conch Republic. Ahhhh those were the days. We used to celebrate every year.

 

[bilby]

Those are not mutually exclusive. Lots of people voted 'leave' because they believed that the likely (or even just the possible) consequences would be good. And they believed that because they were ignorant, and/or because they allowed their emotions to overrule their reason, or their inquisitiveness. They believed it because they either didn't think; or because they started thinking from a position of ignorance, and based their reasoning on falsehoods; or because they consider their emotions to be more important than their long term self-interest.

Lots of 'leave' voters STILL want so badly for Brexit to be the best thing since the heyday of the British Empire that they can't see that the harm MASSIVELY outweighs the good.

They are mostly fuckwitted racist morons, with no idea about the actual facts of the situation, much less the ability to predict the consequences of those facts in the event of a 'leave' vote. None of that means that they don't honestly and sincerely believe that the likely (or even just the possible) consequences would be good.

So you can take your glib accusations of conceit, and shove them. Brexit is an observably and objectively bad thing for the UK, for Europe, and (to a lesser degree) for the rest of the world. It's not even close. The ONLY benefits I have heard any Brexiter claim for leaving are either untrue "We will save millions and spend them on the NHS"; or purely emotional "We will make Britain Great again".

If you can come up with a fact based reason why Brexit was good for the UK, I would love to hear it.

If people feel they are constantly being treated unfairly, they will act to punish those who have wronged them, even to their own detriment.

My younger brother had, as a child, some eye problems, which limited his peripheral vision.

One day, when he was about four years old, we were walking down the street, and he walked into a lamppost.

He immediately turned in a rage, and punched my sister, who was three years older than him, twice his size, and completely blameless. She gave him a black eye; both of them got in serious trouble with dad, and the lamppost suffered no punishment or discomfort of any kind.

I understand why he acted as he did; but you can't honestly say it was a rational, rather than an emotional, response.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A half-blind four year old running into a lamppost and bashing someone who happened to be standing next to him at the time is actually a fairly good analogy for the Brexit.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And there's that smugness again. Darn those idiots who didn't know how to vote correctly. People should always vote as their betters tell them and not for what they think is right.

 

[Sea of red]

Well, it's kinda true.

Whether you think it was good or bad, it's pretty sad that after they voted people began asking what the EU was.

http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-the-eu-trends-on-google-in-the-uk-as-the-country-votes-to-leave/

This shit reads like fucking fiction.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And there's that smugness again. Darn those idiots who didn't know how to vote correctly. People should always vote as their betters tell them and not for what they think is right.

There that libertarianism again, thinking that freedom of choice means freedom from criticism. People can vote how they want, but if they vote to have a methed out giant bash them over the head with a brick, they deserve to be mocked for the choice they made.

 

[J842P]

Well, it's kinda true.

Whether you think it was good or bad, it's pretty sad that after they voted people began asking what the EU was.

http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-the-eu-trends-on-google-in-the-uk-as-the-country-votes-to-leave/

This shit reads like fucking fiction.

Ugh, not this again:

https://medium.com/@dannypage/stop-using-google-trends-a5014dd32588#.ezykwp94k

But it’s giving plenty of people cover to insult the entire country, when it’s likely just a few people searching for something in a way that they always search for something. It makes “The British are frantically Googling what the EU is, hours after voting to leave it” absurdly disingenuous without better numbers. Update: Remy Smith points out this out: The peak was merely ~1000 people! It’s ludicrous that so few people get turned into a massive story, but it underscores the need for context.

 

[Sea of red]

Ugh, not this again:

https://medium.com/@dannypage/stop-using-google-trends-a5014dd32588#.ezykwp94k

But it’s giving plenty of people cover to insult the entire country, when it’s likely just a few people searching for something in a way that they always search for something. It makes “The British are frantically Googling what the EU is, hours after voting to leave it” absurdly disingenuous without better numbers. Update: Remy Smith points out this out: The peak was merely ~1000 people! It’s ludicrous that so few people get turned into a massive story, but it underscores the need for context.

Not really. It shows there was a trend after the vote IE: people were fairly ignorant about the issue. People in the UK are just like in the US - they're not very informed. This bullshit worship of all things that voters will and believe is pretty unhealthy for critical thinking.

 

[J842P]

Ugh, not this again:

https://medium.com/@dannypage/stop-using-google-trends-a5014dd32588#.ezykwp94k

Not really. It shows there was a trend after the vote IE: people were fairly ignorant about the issue. People in the UK are just like in the US - they're not very informed. This bullshit worship of all things that voters will and believe is pretty unhealthy for critical thinking.

The peak of that trend was a measly 1000 people. It doesn't show shit.

 

[Sea of red]

Not really. It shows there was a trend after the vote IE: people were fairly ignorant about the issue. People in the UK are just like in the US - they're not very informed. This bullshit worship of all things that voters will and believe is pretty unhealthy for critical thinking.

The peak of that trend was a measly 1000 people. It doesn't show shit.

Did you see the idiots being interviewed afterwards? It's pretty obvious these people just drank some nicely prepared kool-aid. It may only have been 1000 people but it shows there was a trend of ignorance.

 

[J842P]

The peak of that trend was a measly 1000 people. It doesn't show shit.

Did you see the idiots being interviewed afterwards? It's pretty obvious these people just drank some nicely prepared kool-aid. It may only have been 1000 people but it shows there was a trend of ignorance.

No, it doesn't show shit. And anyone can go out and find videos of idiots on any side. I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, but just because someone on the right can go to a rally and find a bunch of clueless people doesn't mean jack shit.