Instead of going for the Why Is There Air type of review, let's make it specific since the Rockhouse doesn't believe the Union is real and it's only held together by placing defense contractors and military bases in all of them, the same way America does it with NATO in Europe.
In support of that notion, we have seen politicians and even the ones who frequently give us fervent asseveration of liberal causes, in the background, still scrabble for military contracts and reject base closures while the non-liberals do that persistently anyway.
That's not a Union but rather, I submit, the Washington version of "Bowling for Dollars."
Another artificial binding of the states came with the death of Glass/Steagall and the ability to engage in securities was bad enough but the concern in the context of states rights is it pushed the banks over the state lines and, thereby, forced an artificial union.
It's conceivable the more cynical of the Republicans don't like the big banks either but they go with them just as with Lincoln and slavery insofar as freeing the slaves was not his purpose but it held the Union together.
Frankly, we're not much concerned about what's wrong with it in terms of radical cultural differences and little actual reason for a Union. The interest is in what keeps it together mechanically and possibly even fixing that so cultural differences can manifest however they may.
We do not see any 'holy purpose' in holding the Union together when there is or is not any actual reason to do it beyond Washington wants it that way. If there is a reason then, fair enough, go forward with it but, if not, why does it still exist except for the mechanical gimcrackery forcing it.
There was a brief love tap regarding conformity in America in which Lotho strongly contended the country is drilling it into people. There's no point in arguing that since we can see it anywhere. That aspect of forced conformity, no matter how benign it may appear, is part of the perception of why an artificial construct of a Union may be yet more destructive than it appears.
By the way, love that Clinton haircut you got (swoons).
It's understood from the top there are substantial differences in perception of the situation and I pedantically reiterate there mustn't be any biting, scratching, or gouging of eyes.
Ed: is that an advisement to yourself?
Fair enough (larfs).
Note: I'm trying to flush that journalistic affectation of referring to myself in plural since it may make me appear as a competitor to some in an implied relationship with Yevette. There won't even be a tiny detail on that beyond she's my good friend and I only want to see her happy. I'm not a competitor.
The Rockhouse position on this aspect of states rights seems stated well enough so there you have the game if you wish to play.
In support of that notion, we have seen politicians and even the ones who frequently give us fervent asseveration of liberal causes, in the background, still scrabble for military contracts and reject base closures while the non-liberals do that persistently anyway.
That's not a Union but rather, I submit, the Washington version of "Bowling for Dollars."
Another artificial binding of the states came with the death of Glass/Steagall and the ability to engage in securities was bad enough but the concern in the context of states rights is it pushed the banks over the state lines and, thereby, forced an artificial union.
It's conceivable the more cynical of the Republicans don't like the big banks either but they go with them just as with Lincoln and slavery insofar as freeing the slaves was not his purpose but it held the Union together.
Frankly, we're not much concerned about what's wrong with it in terms of radical cultural differences and little actual reason for a Union. The interest is in what keeps it together mechanically and possibly even fixing that so cultural differences can manifest however they may.
We do not see any 'holy purpose' in holding the Union together when there is or is not any actual reason to do it beyond Washington wants it that way. If there is a reason then, fair enough, go forward with it but, if not, why does it still exist except for the mechanical gimcrackery forcing it.
There was a brief love tap regarding conformity in America in which Lotho strongly contended the country is drilling it into people. There's no point in arguing that since we can see it anywhere. That aspect of forced conformity, no matter how benign it may appear, is part of the perception of why an artificial construct of a Union may be yet more destructive than it appears.
By the way, love that Clinton haircut you got (swoons).
It's understood from the top there are substantial differences in perception of the situation and I pedantically reiterate there mustn't be any biting, scratching, or gouging of eyes.
Ed: is that an advisement to yourself?
Fair enough (larfs).
Note: I'm trying to flush that journalistic affectation of referring to myself in plural since it may make me appear as a competitor to some in an implied relationship with Yevette. There won't even be a tiny detail on that beyond she's my good friend and I only want to see her happy. I'm not a competitor.
The Rockhouse position on this aspect of states rights seems stated well enough so there you have the game if you wish to play.
6 comments:
I would use the dissolved USSR as a decent example of the benefit of the union. The constant in fighting of the new countries is constant and ongoing.
Since it is an ongoing and constant desire of countries to expand and dominate others, this is the only example of my driving instructor's law of bigness. Whatever is bigger has the right of way. That is not to say the biggest is right just has the ability to impose its will
So I restate that the Union is meant to defend the Members of the Union not the Union itself (they should be allowed to leave at will)
And settle disagreements between memebers.
Outside of that get out of my life and leave me alone
The Soviet Union fell apart so it really doesn't show me there's any inherent goodness in terms of that large-scale governance. For my score, that one goes to 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall.' No need to analyze why they fell as we see it hit the rocks.
I agree with some innate drive to expand but it appears to me all the long-established countries have brutalized each other so many times their borders are largely fixed now. In other words, they can want it all they like but, assuming the balance of power remains stable, I really don't believe it's practical and probably not even possible.
OK, you raise a fair reason to keep it together in terms of providing for a better defense overall. No need to argue whether that really works since the point is what holds the Union together and that one needs to be part of why people want it relative to my contention it's forced upon them. I don't see any of these thoughts will obviate any of the others but amount to a collection of things to identify what is the glue.
China is island grabbing as we talk. Putin is on a mission to reestablish the USSR. While America can not change its borders it is constantly trying to expand it is control over other lands.
So I do not see where the Big 3 has stopped any intention of expansion.
I dont see alot of talk of dissolving the Union as England will probably find out it is bad for business
Those islands have been disputed since WWII and probably before. Rate that up with the current worst (e.g. Israel) but they do not seem commensurate, in my view. Unknown about a Putin mission. Ukraine tried to snag Sevastopol and there was no chance he would let them. There needs to be a better example of their imperialism than that.
The talk of breaking up the EU is all over France as well with Le Pen saying it's her first priority to pull out. As to dissolving the US Union, it's probably not been more than a year since Texas was trying to go for secession and California has been talking the same within the last six months. As we reviewed previously, I don't believe secession is even possible for the reasons we considered already.
I agree it wont happen as too breaking up the union.
And just because it has been a previous dispute doesnt lessen the desire to expand
I agree on whatever drives expansion but, in my view, the balance of power holds it in abeyance and any upset to that gets me steaming since it never comes out well.
Post a Comment