(June 26, 2016 at 5:31 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Pity you're not big enough to repay in kind.  But on the positive side, I've gotten better measure of you. Hope you feel better for this exchange.  

Much better, thanks.

(June 26, 2016 at 5:28 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 5:22 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: We wouldn't be that. Such perception is only that -- perception, fueled by media.

Indirectly, I would say. If I were onlly going by the media, well, there were some nice playmates coming from there.

But, even as a European, it's hard to overlook Louie Gohmert or Rick Perry, or Shrub, for that matter. If one is interested at all in American politics.

There are too many backwards districts here, no doubt. But a broad brush is only suitable for house-painting, not accurate portrayals.

(June 26, 2016 at 5:32 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: We also elected Ann Richards.

Yes, you know, after my post, I remembered her. Not by name, but that there has actually been a better one at one point.

(June 26, 2016 at 5:34 am)Bella Morte Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 5:31 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Pity you're not big enough to repay in kind.  But on the positive side, I've gotten better measure of you. Hope you feel better for this exchange.  

Much better, thanks.

That's great, have some milk and cookies, there's a good lad.

I see the same arguments used against Texas here as used against any separatist movement.

I'm a firm believer in the right to self determination. There's a shared sense of comradeship between separatists from Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec. If the Texans want to leave then I say good luck to them.  I certainly don't buy the whole argument about there being no legal means by which to leave. That argument has been used on Scotland in the past. It's false because it's only relevant to the current political and framework. If the people demand to leave then the country will leave and the rule book gets ripped up and replaced.

Saying that though, there is no chance in the short term of Texas leaving. These things take a long time to build. Many decades. What's more, there needs to be a real sense of identity behind the grass roots movement. National identity very often stems from both geographical areas and cultural history. For example, you can tell when you have entered Scotland because the landscape changes dramatically. I don't know about the geography of Texas but it doesn't have the cultural history of being a separate country.

You could argue the same with Quebec in Canada, but their cultural history is a continuation of France's culture.

Dammit, Thump...I was hoping to see some good crying, and here you come along chasing all the butthurt away with cookies.

F'k's wrong with you? You don't mess with a man's rituals. You don't mess with the things that get him through the day.

Well I'll be damned. I just agreed with Mathilda for once.

(June 26, 2016 at 5:36 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 5:34 am)Bella Morte Wrote: Much better, thanks.

That's great, have some milk and cookies, there's a good lad.

Not a "lad", but thank you.  

(June 26, 2016 at 5:42 am)Mathilda Wrote: You could argue the same with Quebec in Canada, but their cultural history is a continuation of France's culture.

And so is Louisiana's for that matter. It was Napoleon selling it off to the states. The Cajun culture is french - at least colonist french.

I don't know much on the American constitution, apart from the oftenly mentioned articles and ammendments, but it obviously doesn't offer the right for any state to leave the union. Which was most obvious in 1861, although it was the Confederates firing the first shots at Fort Sumter.

(June 26, 2016 at 5:42 am)Mathilda Wrote: I see the same arguments used against Texas here as used against any separatist movement.

I'm a firm believer in the right to self determination. There's a shared sense of comradeship between separatists from Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec. If the Texans want to leave then I say good luck to them.  I certainly don't buy the whole argument about there being no legal means by which to leave. That argument has been used on Scotland in the past. It's false because it's only relevant to the current political and framework. If the people demand to leave then the country will leave and the rule book gets ripped up and replaced.

Saying that though, there is no chance in the short term of Texas leaving. These things take a long time to build. Many decades. What's more, there needs to be a real sense of identity behind the grass roots movement. National identity very often stems from both geographical areas and cultural history. For example, you can tell when you have entered Scotland because the landscape changes dramatically. I don't know about the geography of Texas but it doesn't have the cultural history of being a separate country.

You could argue the same with Quebec in Canada, but their cultural history is a continuation of France's culture.

Maybe in the future secession won't start a bloody civil war. But the Federal government has both asserted that power and enforced it by arms, and that is the reality on the ground any secessionsists must face. And when push comes to shove, it won't happen.

Ultima ratio regis, and all that.

(June 26, 2016 at 5:48 am)abaris Wrote: I don't know much on the American constitution, apart from the oftenly mentioned articles and ammendments, but it obviously doesn't offer the right for any state to leave the union. Which was most obvious in 1861, although it was the Confederates firing the first shots at Fort Sumter.

Even a redneck like me is sharp enough to understand Mao's dictum that all power emanates from the barrel of a gun.

Any question of secession was settled 150 years ago. The hopeful schadenfreude in this thread, I think, is that of Brexiters looking for validation.