Summoning the Ghosts of Blue State Federalism
But the discussion also reminds me of the encouraging pro-federalism chatter we heard from the left shortly after the Democrats were trounced in the 2004 election. For all the heat he's taking, Texas Gov. Rick Perry might want to consult with MSNBC analyst and former West Wing writer and producer Lawrence O'Donnell, for example, who favorably used the word secede on the McLaughlin Group back in November of '04. O'Donnell helpfully pointed out that secession needn't necessarily be violent, explaining that, "You can secede without firing a shot."
Lefty pubs like Salon, the Nation, and the Stranger ran think pieces that called for (sometimes begrudgingly) a new debate over the benefits of more parochial control. A couple of lefty-penned op-eds in the New York Times also argued for decentralized control and weakening the federal government's ability to influence local policy.
Alas, it was all rather short-lived. Nothing invigorates interest in federalism like losing a national election. And nothing smothers that interest like winning one.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The states could call a convention. Congress would more or less pass the amendment before letting the states reach their 3/4 majority. Co-opting someone else's goal is a favorite of politicians. Didn't an the 17th amendment get passed this way?
Right on, which is why I wish libertarians would get the hell off the political bandwagon altogether. The LP keep hoping for a seat at the trough, and wonders why it can't even get itself out of the wilderness. It's just a game; left or right, the ones in power already have power. "Movement libertarians," to the extent that there even is a movement, don't have anything Washington wants. They need to go start their own game. A hundred years from now the secessionists may have had their way, and the LP will be wondering why they didn't have a piece of that, either.
Joel,
I said it yesterday but I'll say it again for you.
There will be NO secession. None whatsoever. The federal government has already proven it will utterly destroy all pretenders to its throne.
This reminds me of the theme song to 2,000 Maniacs for some reason.
"Blue state" note Bue, unless I am missing something.
Episiarch! Teh AWESome!!! It's going on the list!
I understand the whole decentralization thing, but honestly were each state to make its mind up about all the contentious issues out there you'd get a lot of crappy consequences. I'm not sure the aggregation of state legislatures would be any better, from a libertarian or from a liberal or from a conservative etc. perspective would be any net gain from the federal consensus on these issues at the moment. You might get lower taxes in Texas, but you'd get more environmental regulation in california; you might get tort reform in Alabama, but you'd probably get a return to slavery, mandatory church attendance and dueling in Georgia, etc.
In fact, as the national consensus is something of a compromise on most big issues what you would see are all kinds of serious deviations from that, often in the wrong way (think South Carolina and Mass.).
Georgia, everyone by law must keep an assault rifle in their home.
Massachussets, everyone must by law keep a gay married couple in their house.
South Dakota, everyone must by law keep an embryo in their home.
Etc.
Shit, give me the federal government any day.
A return to slavery? Are you fucking kidding me?
Dear God, who was it on this board who said that "To a liberal, every day is Selma, 1965"? So true.
MNG, why don't you just state it plain out? you want the states to be nothing more than administrative districts of the federal government. Right?
MNG,
Are you suggesting dueling is a bad thing? I'm appalled! If dueling wasn't illegal I'd challenge you to a duel and revenge upon your trespass with a roundshot in the face!
Also, while my thoughts on secession is posted upthread, I would just like to say . . . everything you posted is more or less the norm anyway . . . minus the GA stuff.
MNG,
Stop projecting your bizarre liberal fears as acurate outcomes. Funny as hell though. 😉
MaunderingNannyGoat sez:
"Pleeze, Mistah Boss Man, tell me what to do. Otherwise, there will be CHAOS!"
"the states to be nothing more than administrative districts of the federal government."
TAO - I know people who've said as much already.
If California wants more economic regulations and less property rights, let them try it. I relish the opportunity to mock states as they continually try to legislate prosperity by various means.
Oh hell, MNG, what are we doing dicking around with countries? Let's just get the One World Government in here and get it all fucking over with already.
what you would see are all kinds of serious deviations from that, often in the wrong way (think South Carolina and Mass.).
Massachusetts *is* totally fucked up, I'll grant you that.
"but you'd probably get a return to slavery, mandatory church attendance and dueling in Georgia"
I call BS on the first one, consider the second one a fair point, and don't see why the last one is a problem, as long as neither party can coerce the other into doing it (traditionally, both parties had to agree to a duel).
"A return to slavery? Are you fucking kidding me?"
Yes. Calm down bro. I'm just having some fun at the expense of the South's backwardness. Of course though Georgia wouldn't return to slavery if they could, not for a few decades at least...
But lets just say this: if I were black, or gay, I sure as hell would rather have the feds in control than Georgia...
"Oh hell, MNG, what are we doing dicking around with countries? Let's just get the One World Government in here and get it all fucking over with already."
You think so small, AO. I want to create a Galactic Federation of Planets.
"but you'd probably get a return to slavery, mandatory church attendance and dueling in Georgia"
Now I do understand that you were trying to make a joke but it was a bigoted one lobbed in my direction.
Not particularly appreciated.
"I relish the opportunity to mock states as they continually try to legislate prosperity by various means."
The problem with this is that California and New York, two states at (in your eyes) the "wrong" end of the liberty continuum, are much more prosperous than Kansas and South Carolina, two states that are relatively low in government control...
MNG,
GA sucks. Now stop with the generalizations over how backwards the South is to you. All states have their civil rights problems.
"you want the states to be nothing more than administrative districts of the federal government. Right?"
It's good to have some variation to fit regional cultures, but on fundamental rights and sound policy, then yes I trust the feds better than the states. Yes.
"I relish the opportunity to mock states as they continually try to legislate prosperity by various means."
No one can legislate prosperity. They can legislate equality, and in so doing lose their prosperity, but it's largely a one-way process. Kind of like conversion of mechanical energy to heat.
"All states have their civil rights problems."
Well, yes when you live in the hellhole that is Mississippi, that is quite easy to say...
"Naga Sadow, resident of Mississippi
GA sucks."
Just put a "U" in front of the "GA",and I'll agree wholeheartedly.
"it was a bigoted one lobbed in my direction. "
Lord you have to love these Southern conservatives who have learned the language of victimization!
2,000 Maniacs
Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.
I've always thought that we should let Mexico annex the Deep South, but for the amount of money we would have to pay them to induce them to do so...
Alternatively we could develop a time machine and return the Deep South to the 1680's where they could be a slight example of Progressivism to the rest of the colonies...
if I were black, or gay, I sure as hell would rather have the feds in control than Georgia
Considering blacks and gays make up approximately 102% (some cross over) of the population of Atlanta....
Warty
That's 8,000 maniacs less than LW supports. But it's just the beginning of the Reconquesta by said Maniacs, the first wave if you will.
I consider it one of the great historical tragedies that the idea of secession was first tried by the Southern States to protect slavery. It didn't necessarily have to turn out that way. For example, a significant movement in New England agued for secession over the War of 1812, and William Loyd Garrison argued that free states ought to secede over the fugitive slave act.
"Lisa, I'd like to buy your tiger-repelling rock".
See also: post hoc ergo propter hoc, commonly known as "false cause".
But lets just say this: if I were black, or gay, I sure as hell would rather have the feds in control than Georgia...
If it ever got that bad, what the hell are you doing living in Georgia? On the other hand, if things get that bad on a federal level, I have to flee the country instead of being able to just move states. I mean, our ancestors moved when things got bad enough. I don't think it's legitimate for governments to get that bad, but standing there and whining about it and using the federal government to force an ill-fitting "one size 'fits' all" standard.
Warty, Natalie Merchant makes my ears bleed. It's not good. It's very telling that LoneDorkwad loves her so much.
I wholeheartedly support torture against that second wave, MNG.
"I've always thought that we should let Mexico annex the Deep South, but for the amount of money we would have to pay them to induce them to do so..."
Actually, I had a similar idea for California. Of course, the government of Mexico would also have to assume California's state debt and proportional share of the national debt.
but on fundamental rights and sound policy, then yes I trust the feds better than the states
Yes, lord knows a massive federal bureaucracy is soo much more accountable and responsive to the needs of localities than the various governments of said localities.
Which is why Mexico would never go for the deal, I should have added.
oh lord, MNG, you *barely* live in the North as it is. Lincoln had to exempt your state from the Emancipation Proclamation.
Politicians are hypocritical douchebags?
Who knew?
MNG,
Uh . . . you do realize that most of what constitutes the "Deep South" is mostly black people.
Gated community prick!
The problem with this is that California and New York, two states at (in your eyes) the "wrong" end of the liberty continuum, are much more prosperous than Kansas and South Carolina, two states that are relatively low in government control...
Such a comedian . . .
But it's just the beginning of the Reconquesta by said Maniacs, the first wave if you will.
LoneAssmunch is Cade Foster?
"post hoc ergo propter hoc, commonly known as "false cause". "
TAO, as always, you're a victim of a little bit of knowledge being worse than none at all.
You can certainly conclude that the systems California and New York have are not sufficient causes of poverty and other parades of horribles, and liberty as you cherish it is not a sufficient cause of said prosperity. Sorry reality didn't confirm your ideology like it should have...
"I don't think it's legitimate for governments to get that bad"
You had me up to there.
"but standing there and whining about it and using the federal government to force an ill-fitting "one size 'fits' all" standard."
Is what? "Bad?" Bah humbug. If the one size fits all standard is better overall in liberty and fundamental rights, then bully for it.
This entire conversation is moot, as Naga Shadow intends to take control of the South as Lord Protector.
"you *barely* live in the North as it is"
Hey, politically I'd rather live in Vermont or Oregon, but hey, where you live is not, and should not be, all about which place you ideologically agree with the most.
That's sort of my point.
engineer,
Indeed. Rule by the gun, sword, and flagrum in my realm. But only as a first step to conquering the rest of the continent. I shall then install myself as "First Citizen".
"If the one size fits all standard is better overall in liberty and fundamental rights, then bully for it."
Yes, but is it really better for liberty and fundamental rights? It seems that the government whose citizens can most easily leave should be the governemnt with the most incentive to respect the rights of its citizens.
Naga, as Lord Protector, will you mandate cole slaw on all pulled pork sammitches?
"as Naga Shadow intends to take control of the South as Lord Protector"
You could totally do that Naga. Here are some steps that will help you:
1. At your rallies, drop coded references to race quite a bit ("welfare queens" is a good one)
2. Carry around a worn, floppy Bible. Talk about secular humanism and UN helicopters taking away our guns and New Testaments
3. Be crooked
4. Portray any minority lifestyle group as scary and bad
"will you mandate cole slaw on all pulled pork sammitches?"
As long as you mandate the use of Virginia barbecue sauce over NC sauce, you're taking a step in the right direction.
The South has some cooking, I'll give you that.
"Hey, politically I'd rather live in Vermont or Oregon, but hey, where you live is not, and should not be, all about which place you ideologically agree with the most."
Agree on the second part, disagree on the first part. Politically, I'd prefer Alternate Universe Luna in 2076. But then again, living on the moon seems like it would suck.
If the one size fits all standard is better overall in liberty and fundamental rights, then bully for it.
It isn't, yet you will shill for it as blindly as if you got poisoned and Obama's dick was full of the antidote.
Naga Shadow intends to take control of the South as Lord Protector.
I will settle for first Prime Minister of the Semirepublic of East Virginia. We may be small, but we have the aircraft carriers.
MNG,
You have no problem with the slave fugitive act, right?
BTW, we still need a godwinesque word for the first use of chattel slavery in a thread.
MNG, you're not making any sense. You made an implied argument that greater government = greater prosperity.
I, on the other hand, believe that it is a frequent occurrence that locales become economically prosperous, attract more people and are then subsequently burdened with a heavy regulatory state.
If the one size fits all standard is better overall in liberty and fundamental rights, then bully for it.
When are you going to start advocating One World Government? That the United States start colonizing? Why not that?
It may be the case that, right now, the federal government is "better" (it's not, but OK), but that doesn't mean it has to be that way forever.
Actually, there is a salient counterpoint to this: medical marijuana dispensaries, where double-digit states have legalized and you have the All-Benevolent Federal Government throwing those guys in prison.
What a win for liberty, guy.
Where will we find our Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson?
MNG,
The wonderful thing about being Lord Protector is not having to cater to the hoi polloi. The downside is that they often overthrow their rulers and behead them.
"Uh . . . you do realize that most of what constitutes the "Deep South" is mostly black people.
Gated community prick!"
Sorry to not live up to the liberal caricature, but I don't have some mooney-eyed romance with black people per se, though I do think the rights of minorities ever need vigorous protection. To the extent that the Deep South represents a rural idiocy this nation could do without Mexico can have it, black, white or what have you.
Make it a capital offense to put sugar in cornbread and I'll defend you to the death, Naga.
Mmmmmmmmm, cornbread.
What is the libertarian theorist's view on federalism anyway?
I well understand that most libertarians or people who call themselves libertarians in any event, hold themselves true to Federalism and the importance of the States.
But would this hold true if some libertarian policy was implemented nationally by the Federal government against the wishes of some of the states?
What if some federal law was passed that declared all forms of professional licensure were declared null and void at the state and local level?
What if a law were passed that limited the level of taxation at the state and local level?
What if a law were passed (or perhaps more likely a Supreme Court decision ruled) that set the stage for same sex marriage?
All of of these would be favor as policy by libertarians but would be opposed by some perhaps most of the state governments.
In the liberal north, you can use coded racism and differing lifestyles to whip up prejudice, too.
1. Use coded words like "zoning", "gun laws" and "we have to maintain property values using eminent domain". Be 'astonished' that these disproportionately affect black people.
2. Talk about "bitter gun clingers" and stereotype wide swaths of the nation you've probably barely spent time in.
3. Talk about how much you love the "urban poor" and then implement and ardently defend policies that keep them in bad housing and poor schools (see: Obama).
Naga, as Lord Protector, will you mandate cole slaw on all pulled pork sammitches?
PORK CHOP SANDWICHES!!!
AO,
Given that the Northern States complain constantly about the Southern states taking their jobs (as opposed to Southerners complaining about immigrant takin' thur' jerbs), I think MNG's got cause and effect confused.
the Deep South represents a rural idiocy this nation could do without
Dude, drive from Philly to Pittsburgh on back roads some day. There's no idiocy like Penndiocy.
No, Epi, you don't use chops, you big silly goose. You roast a pork butt for many hours, fat side up. Goddamn, I need to make another batch.
Not a Libertarian,
Most libertarians support federalism as a means to greater liberty, since it is generally easier to leave a state or locality where the government abuses one's rights than to leave a country. Naturally, we don't want either one, but realistically we have to understand the old adage about power and corruption and hope for a government structure that best allows citizens to best evade the inevitable corruption of power.
Lest we forget that Maryland rejected the Nineteenth Amendment. What a sexist group of pigs, those Marylanders. And lest we forget that Thurgood Marshall had to sue the state to integrate its law school.
"You made an implied argument that greater government = greater prosperity."
Ah, ah, ah citizen, not so fast. I know nuance is not a big thing for you, but I never did so. I simply said that empirical reality does not seem to fit with YOUR argument that the higher government states lead to less prosperity.
"locales become economically prosperous, attract more people and are then subsequently burdened with a heavy regulatory state."
OK, now you're being a bit more nuanced (your original implication was much more simplistic). You realize that were I as silly as you I could cry "post ergo hoc" as if the concept was some magic talisman and claim that even were to show, which you could not, that the prosperity that many high government states currently have is a consequence (or residue) of earlier low government policies in their history (and you can't show that btw; states like NY have been on the "cutting edge" of regulation since the get-go) that this does not prove it was the low government policies that led to said prosperity, right?
Make that "Fugitive Slave Act" in my previous.
Damngodded dyslexia.
"Sorry to not live up to the liberal caricature, but I don't have some mooney-eyed romance with black people per se, though I do think the rights of minorities ever need vigorous protection."
Yeah, that's joe, and he only had a mooney-eyed romance with the Chosen One.
Why are we dicking around with "separate" powers? Let's give all the power to one man.
MNG, one thing you're forgetting is that, despite the fact that there are some terrible state actions, it is still better as on overall policy to diffuse power rather than concentrate it.
Of course, I'll note you haven't addressed how the states are more liberal on marijuana than the federal government.
Oh TAO, if you want to argue there has been an equivalency between the South and the North in racial policy, then by all means climb that mountain.
Of course MD is not perfect, currently or historically. But it's better than Alabama, yes.
MNG,
Tell you what. When I turn warlord I'll call my bureacracy "the feds". You'd be cool with it, right? Hell, you could be just one of those guys who "follow orders". We cool now?
Xeones,
Very well. You shall be Marchwarden of Virginia. Your responsibilities? Collect my share of the loot . . . er . . . I mean taxes. Recruit soldiers for my armies, keep the peasants in line, etc.
A multitude of rulers is not good. Let there be one king, one ruler."
What is the libertarian theorist's view on federalism anyway?
I am not a *doctrinaire* libertarian (someone else can deal with the question of whether such a creature exists).
The federal government ought to restrict itself to dealing with issues (such as DEFENDING the nation) which are not easily carried out by state or local entities. School curricula, to randomly select one of thousands of examples, is not properly the business of the feds.
You roast a pork butt for many hours, fat side up.
Now I'm hungry.
Whoa! I just realized MNG is being a bigger dick than ever today . . . someone lose out on a job promotion, MNG? Maybe you thought you were cut out to be a member of the Federal Bureacracy but they simply turned away your application? I bet if you were in charge, things would be so different.
No, Epi, you don't use chops, you big silly goose.
Please tell me you know what I was referring to.
"Of course, I'll note you haven't addressed how the states are more liberal on marijuana than the federal government."
Oh, but I did. Not my fault if you could not catch it because of the trouble you have honestly constructing the arguments of your opponents. But let me help, I answered you way upthread at 11:38 ("better overall in liberty and fundamental rights", key word OVERALL; and at 11:15 "not sure the aggregation of state legislatures would be any better" key word AGGREGATION). See, pointing out one example is pretty poor arguing in response.
Libertarians can't explain why a state government is less oppressive than the federal government.
My state government is ignoring its fiscal problems in favor of erecting 10 commandments monuments, outlawing stemcell research, and trying to give all power over public education to school boards populated by theocratic whackjobs.
"State's rights" has never been about anything but a reaction to racial progress. The current incarnation of the Republican party owes its existence to stoking racial resentment. If you're going to jump on the state's rights or secession bandwagon you can't ignore this history.
Though seriously, MNG, you should love Georgia. It's got lots of the fashionable liberal programs, like a full-tuition college scholarship resident students with 3.0+ GPA, universal Pre-K, etc.
*Of course, the scholarship is funded through a lottery and is merit-based, so maybe it's not cutting-edge liberal.
MNG, you're from Maryland? No wonder you're so loathsome. I bet you're a Ravens fan, too.
Oh, of course I know Fenslerfims, Epi. HELP COMPUTA
"I just realized MNG is being a bigger dick than ever today"
Because I don't like the South or states rights? WTF?
As to the job, nope, same one. My firm is fairly collegial, there is really no "promotion" except to "owner/manager", which I would not wish on anyone, including my boss. He does it out of a sense of duty to the rest of us...
"Why are we dicking around with 'separate' powers? Let's give all the power to one man."
The Chosen One is the Voice of the People. Why should have these discordant voices in Congress interrupting our national harmony?
"you should love Georgia"
It's got some pretty good tail, I'll give it that. The warm weather in the South breeds a lot of hot girls.
"I bet you're a Ravens fan, too."
Fuck no. I hate them most of all in the NFL. I'm a Steeler fan at the pro level, a fan of the Big Ten in college football, and Duke in college basketball. I don't support teams for regional reasons.
You're still not addressing it, or, at least, you're now appealing to some nebulous and vague "overall", which is a concept we cannot define, now can we?
There's absolutely no way to quantify what "overall" looks like. For one, you're going to say that the 1964 CRA was a totally good thing; I'm going to say that it infringes on freedom of association. You're going to say that the ADA or the ADEA or the federal minimum wage are all good things; I'm not going to agree.
I would say that given the federal regulatory burden, the federal government is NOT better overall.
And yes, I know, every day is Selma, 1965 to you. I get it.
"I bet you're a Ravens fan, too."
MNG's not evil, just misguided, and there's no need to toss insults.
"Why are we dicking around with 'separate' powers?"
Seperate powers and federalism are not necessarily the same thing. I adore the former. I'm not as hostile to the latter as you may think, but I'm not sold on its virtues either. When I lived in VA I found overall the national consensus to be better than the VA consensus. It demystified any states rights ideas for me.
I'm a Steeler fan
God, you're worse than I thought.
I don't support teams for regional reasons.
BANDWAGON
"BTW, we still need a godwinesque word for the first use of chattel slavery in a thread."
THIS is the important issue here.
MNG, here I am telling people you're not a bad guy, and you admit to being a Steeler's fan? WTH?
Very well. You shall be Marchwarden of Virginia.
I don't think you understood me. We are seceding from your South, and we have the aircraft carriers. Molon labe, beyatch.
you can't ignore this history
This is rich, from a guy who ignores every single thing that is written here in favor of his own particular strawmen.
TAO
Overall means after subtracting the costs from the benefits. You and I would probably disagree over what goes in which category, but this is not really an impossible concept. The federal consensus is worse in some areas, like medical mary jane, that implementing that consensus to all states would be a cost or loss for me, but it's outweighed by the fucked up things that would exist were Georgia able to define 4th Amendment rights for itself, for an example.
Crap, class in twenty minutes on the other side of campus. Gotta go.
godwinesque word for the first use of chattel slavery
How about Uncle Tommed?
"BANDWAGON"
Nope, been a fan of all for over a decade now. Not being regional in your support does not equal being fluid with it.
Lunch guys. Later
godwinesque word for the first use of chattel slavery
"My name is Ash, and I am a slave."
Oh yes, and what a difficult decade it's been to root for the Steelers. You are a weak, weak man, MNG. Weak.
Weak.
Xeones,
(yawns)
What? What was that? Aircraft carriers? Oh, what will I do? Maybe throw a couple dozen missles your way, maybe?
(Uncle) Remussed?
I didn't mention the Aegis cruisers, Naga? A bunch of those are here, too. Also, submarines.
As a benevolent, hands-off style of Prime Minister, my one major perk of office will be driving around in one of these.
Liberals can't explain why the federal government is less oppressive than a state government. It's a hell of a lot easier to hold a state or local official accountable than a federal official. It's also a hell of a lot easier to leave a state than a country, providing an additional incentive for state governments to tread lightly (no such incentive at the federal level).
My federal government is torturing people, eavesdropping on its citizens, nationalizing businesses, and driving the worst policy to happen to civil liberties since segregation (the War on Drugs).
Anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. We get it. Give it a rest.
"My federal government is torturing people, eavesdropping on its citizens, nationalizing businesses, and driving the worst policy to happen to civil liberties since segregation (the War on Drugs)."
I can't believe you forgot the national debt.
I would have mentioned it, but Liberals consider that a feature, not a bug.
"'State's rights' has never been about anything but a reaction to racial progress."
I'm calling BS on this one, too. In fact, if you had read my earlier post, rather than stopping by to take a quick dump on the thread:
"It didn't necessarily have to turn out that way. For example, a significant movement in New England agued for secession over the War of 1812, and William Loyd Garrison argued that free states ought to secede over the fugitive slave act."
"I would have mentioned it, but Liberals consider that a feature, not a bug."
But like just a little while ago they were tellling us it was a huge...Oh, wait, they weren't in power then. Huh. And that explains the Righties...OK, I get it, it's all OK as long as the right people do it. My youthful naivete has been destroyed. I hope you're all happy.
Xeones,
It is not my place to discuss weapons systems that I intend to use against you but feel free to speculate on the awesomeness of what I have in store for you.
Decentralized solutions are sexy when you're not in the center.
Oh, how I love to troll...
Shut up! You're all racists because you don't agree with me! SHUT UP! Get out of my head!
I'll bet you all think it's real funny to spoof me, you stupid libertardian Bush shills!
To be fair, Tony, he (she?) didn't spoof you. It was a pseudo spoof.
@Paul-That tony was also spoof.
"but it's outweighed by the fucked up things that would exist were Georgia able to define 4th Amendment rights for itself"
georgia is the scotus?
as an aside, i think hit and run is where liberals come to get attention. mng is averaging about 20% of the posts in this thread, mostly over an offhand comment made in order to be a dick. which is emotionally satisfying for him, and probably for others involved - a la the joe/john lovefests that would stretch on for dozens of posts because they had some kind of strange strangle-porn fixation on each other.
shorter version: feed a fever, starve a troll.
dhex,
In all fairness, I think MNG usually argues in good faith, and *rarely* comes up with good points. All in all, he's not a bad commenter to have on the boards. Tony, on the other hand, is a less intelligent version of joe, who in my mind oscillated between the status of respectable poster and troll (mostly because of his reliable Team Blue shilling), until settling, roughly sometime between Obama's election and his own storming out in a huff, into the "troll" category.
As long as you mandate the use of Virginia barbecue sauce over NC sauce . . . i>
That's a Goddamned heresy!
Except when Suki dares to post something. Then he loses any semblance of sanity.
3. Talk about how much you love the "urban poor" and then implement and ardently defend policies that keep them in bad housing and poor schools (see: Obama).
4. Or, express how you don't find the suburbs interesting.
Anyway, to address the subject, I doubt that succession as a political concept has much resonance in the nation, the vast majority of people in all states are nationalist, including myself, however, as a practical matter there maybe something to it, eventually.
Those who argue the Federal government is too big to fail and deficits don't matter as a matter of history have been wrong. With the Obama metastasing of debt on top of Bush era reckless spending that outcome becomes more possible, and as a practical matter regions may find it necessary to disentangle themselves from the Federal government as a means of self preservation to avoid long term impoverishment.
Damn, I already figured out to just roll my eyes when MNG goes on about the South, but:
mandate the use of Virginia barbecue sauce over NC sauce
is maybe the dumbest thing he's ever said.
I've got a pork roast sitting in a slow cooker waiting for me when I get home tonight. Been thinking about it all day. Probly use a SC style mustard sauce with it, though, even though a good NC vinegar sauce on pulled pork alchemically transmutes it into delicious crack cocaine.
Thursday is fish night for me (deliberately shifted from Friday after getting out from my old man's thumb).
Here is a recipe:
1 lb fresh sushi grade salmon
chives
3 green onions (scallions)
1 half sprig of garlic
1 tbls capers
tamari sauce
1-2 lemons
1 tbls crushed ginger
Now, whip up two egg whites, dip the salmon in it, coat the salmon in a Lousianna style breader mix, and FRY in a skillet of Crisco on each side for 8 to 10 minutes. Remove oil, reduce heat, place Salmon back in the pan and cook in a mix of the rest of the ingredients. I imagine it will be absolutely delicious, but haven't really tried it yet (ducking Epi's thrown shoe).
Serious note: this may actually work with grilled salmon.
Wow - I've said for a while that liberals seem to be more racist and sexist than other groups due to the sole fact that they consistently encase into law the fact that minorities and women can't survive on their own.
It's nice to see this play out on a thread.
What? Let states decided things? Then minorities and women will suffer!!
MNG/Tony - I hope you realize it's the height of arrogance to think people can't handle themselves.
IE - I might agree with you that my 12 year old daughter needs some protection - I'll let adults handle themselves, be they male, female, black, or even the worse thing ever:
Southern!!!!
F-ing bigots.
MNG is a Maryland resident who roots for the Steelers and Duke.
HOLY SHIT.
You really can't make this stuff up.
If I actually wrote half of what I'm accused of writing I'd say I was a batshit troll too.
I'm not calling anyone a racist. I'm saying the modern state's rights movement, like the modern Republican party, has its primary origins in backlashes against racial civil rights progressivism. If you have to go back to the early 19th century to find a counterexample then I think I my point is made.
I'm a Steeler fan at the pro level, a fan of the Big Ten in college football, and Duke in college basketball.
Good God. 3 more reasons to despise you.
The only thing worse than a Steelers fan is a skins fan.
Big 10 football is boring (and I mock fans of conferences in general)
Duke sucks. Um, yeah, that is the worst possible team. Were you born in Jersey or something?
Hmm, Tony says opposing government-mandated racial quotas in favor of traditional meritocracy is backlash against civil rights. He says criticizing the modern welfare-state is racist. Calling on inner city blacks to truly accept responsibility for their actions instead of blaming "whitey" and the supposed legacy of slavery and Jim Crow for all their problems is against "civil rights progressivism" (which I am not really sure what that is).
Wow, for liberals everyday is like Selma, 1965. Accept for liberal black men who think everyday should be like a scene from an interracial porno.
I'd rather live in Vermont
No, you really wouldn't.
"If I actually wrote half of what I'm accused of writing I'd say I was a batshit troll too."
Tony...You wrote that invocations of states' rights are only used as an excuse for racism, ON A THREAD DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT SOME ON THE LEFT (YOUR BUDDIES), GAINED SOME APPRECIATION FOR THE CONCEPT DURING THE BUSH YEARS!
This isn't even like the Ron Paul secession thread, where you could have said "OMG states rights are RACIST!" without seeming like a complete tool. This is the fucking VERMONT SECESSION THREAD! This is the "When lefties are not in control of the central government,even they can appreciate decentralized government" thread. But you didn't deign to consider this before making your statement because you saw "federalism" and "secession" and said "OMG RACISTS!"
You are stupid, you are a troll, and you are the biggest douche to ever post here consistently.
Seriously, I really wish Tony would follow through on his "threat" to leave if we keep calling him a troll. He's like joe, except he's always been a dick, and consistently reinforces it, and he's not even particularly clever or intelligent.
Holy Cripes, where is Neu Mejican. He usually had something interesting or intelligent to say (although I rarely agreed with him). At least, it was something other than "YOU'RE TEH RACISTS! I HAT U GUYZ!" and then acting offended when other posters called him a troll.
Maryland is Washington, D.C.'s septic tank. That clearly applies to the intellectual sewage it flushes, as well.