(03-12-2019 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Which one of these is the USA, and how do we get Texas out of the control of California and new York?

Texas is being controlled by California and New York?

That's news to me.

Unfortunately, I can believe it really is news to you.

So what state(s) are Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Harris, Nadler,and a host of other movers and shakers from? What state did hillary represent in the Senate?

Ah, so you're just pointing out how our system of government works, where representatives from states are elected to federal offices to legislate and run the country.

I guess you also want to stop Texas from controlling the other 49 states?

No, I want Texas to secede (Texit?) and run themselves.

Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Texas is being controlled by California and New York?

That's news to me.

Unfortunately, I can believe it really is news to you.

So what state(s) are Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Harris, Nadler,and a host of other movers and shakers from? What state did hillary represent in the Senate?

Ah, so you're just pointing out how our system of government works, where representatives from states are elected to federal offices to legislate and run the country.

I guess you also want to stop Texas from controlling the other 49 states?

No, I want Texas to secede (Texit?) and run themselves.

Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

One flaw in your paradigm Lad. Texas *is* a constituent sovereign with powers of a sovereign. Houston (or any other city) is *not* a constituent sovereign with co-equal powers of the state it is in.

The 'problem' is that OO understands the explicit dichotomy in co-equal sovereign powers and how many seemingly wish to simply ignore that concept that is inherent in the base document. Your comment simply ignores that.

The problem is not with representative government, it is with the whitewashing of the concept of limited central government that is part and parcel of the cornerstone of the Union. And that whitewashing of that concept is actually undertaken almost explicitly by one side of the political spectrum in the United States.

What he said.

(03-12-2019 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Unfortunately, I can believe it really is news to you.

So what state(s) are Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Harris, Nadler,and a host of other movers and shakers from? What state did hillary represent in the Senate?

Ah, so you're just pointing out how our system of government works, where representatives from states are elected to federal offices to legislate and run the country.

I guess you also want to stop Texas from controlling the other 49 states?

No, I want Texas to secede (Texit?) and run themselves.

Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

One flaw in your paradigm Lad. Texas *is* a constituent sovereign with powers of a sovereign. Houston (or any other city) is *not* a constituent sovereign with co-equal powers of the state it is in.

The 'problem' is that OO understands the explicit dichotomy in co-equal sovereign powers and how many seemingly wish to simply ignore that concept that is inherent in the base document. Your comment simply ignores that.

The problem is not with representative government, it is with the whitewashing of the concept of limited central government that is part and parcel of the cornerstone of the Union. And that whitewashing of that concept is actually undertaken almost explicitly by one side of the political spectrum in the United States.

But is it? Isn't it more that Texas is part of a country composed of states, where other states can propose legislation that is passed that Texas doesn't want to adhere to?

I think the issue OO has isn't with the limits of central government, it's central government period.

(03-12-2019 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah, so you're just pointing out how our system of government works, where representatives from states are elected to federal offices to legislate and run the country.

I guess you also want to stop Texas from controlling the other 49 states?

No, I want Texas to secede (Texit?) and run themselves.

Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

One flaw in your paradigm Lad. Texas *is* a constituent sovereign with powers of a sovereign. Houston (or any other city) is *not* a constituent sovereign with co-equal powers of the state it is in.

The 'problem' is that OO understands the explicit dichotomy in co-equal sovereign powers and how many seemingly wish to simply ignore that concept that is inherent in the base document. Your comment simply ignores that.

The problem is not with representative government, it is with the whitewashing of the concept of limited central government that is part and parcel of the cornerstone of the Union. And that whitewashing of that concept is actually undertaken almost explicitly by one side of the political spectrum in the United States.

But is it? Isn't it more that Texas is part of a country composed of states, where other states can propose legislation that is passed that Texas doesn't want to adhere to?

You are correct in the statements bolded above. But while true, they utterly fail to address (or even touch on, for that matter) the concept of limited central government is that is inherent in the Constitution. And the problem if the continual (self)-inflation of that power bubble.

As to your question, what does 'it' refer to in your question? I have no clue to what concept you are asking that question of, tbh.

Quote:I think the issue OO has isn't with the limits of central government, it's central government period.

I fail to see where you dig that last sentence up from lad. I find it odd with your broad subscription to what OO's issue is in light of your recent complaint that you are 'defending ideas that you never stated' (or somefink like that).

I find your translation of OO's statement of 'what he said' into something far different to be rather odd.

Turning back to your original dual choice:

Quote:Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

You conveniently ignore in your (incomplete) options the concept that the Federal government has grown way past the idea of a limited central government, and that growth has come at the direct expense of independent sovereign powers of the states themselves.

The problem is neither of your 'options' fits the bill.

(03-12-2019 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No, I want Texas to secede (Texit?) and run themselves.

Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

One flaw in your paradigm Lad. Texas *is* a constituent sovereign with powers of a sovereign. Houston (or any other city) is *not* a constituent sovereign with co-equal powers of the state it is in.

The 'problem' is that OO understands the explicit dichotomy in co-equal sovereign powers and how many seemingly wish to simply ignore that concept that is inherent in the base document. Your comment simply ignores that.

The problem is not with representative government, it is with the whitewashing of the concept of limited central government that is part and parcel of the cornerstone of the Union. And that whitewashing of that concept is actually undertaken almost explicitly by one side of the political spectrum in the United States.

But is it? Isn't it more that Texas is part of a country composed of states, where other states can propose legislation that is passed that Texas doesn't want to adhere to?

You are correct in the statements bolded above. But while true, they utterly fail to address (or even touch on, for that matter) the concept of limited central government is that is inherent in the Constitution. And the problem if the continual (self)-inflation of that power bubble.

As to your question, what does 'it' refer to in your question? I have no clue to what concept you are asking that question of, tbh.

Quote:I think the issue OO has isn't with the limits of central government, it's central government period.

I fail to see where you dig that last sentence up from lad. I find it odd with your broad subscription to what OO's issue is in light of your recent complaint that you are 'defending ideas that you never stated' (or somefink like that).

I find your translation of OO's statement of 'what he said' into something far different to be rather odd.

Turning back to your original dual choice:

Quote:Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

You conveniently ignore in your (incomplete) options the concept that the Federal government has grown way past the idea of a limited central government, and that growth has come at the direct expense of independent sovereign powers of the states themselves.

The problem is neither of your 'options' fits the bill.

OO said New York and California were trying to control Texas, and explained that he felt this way based on where specific senators and representatives hailed from.

I don't see how it's odd to ask him if his issue is with our form of government, that allows representatives from those states to draft legislation that will affect others, or if it is with the power the federal gov't wields, which is why I asked:

"Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up [of] officials with competing interests."

Perhaps that last items wasn't pointed enough, but it was meant to ask about federal overreach and touch on exactly what you're describing. I never conveniently ignored ****, you misunderstood what I asked. I like that you assume the worst.

(03-12-2019 03:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

One flaw in your paradigm Lad. Texas *is* a constituent sovereign with powers of a sovereign. Houston (or any other city) is *not* a constituent sovereign with co-equal powers of the state it is in.

The 'problem' is that OO understands the explicit dichotomy in co-equal sovereign powers and how many seemingly wish to simply ignore that concept that is inherent in the base document. Your comment simply ignores that.

The problem is not with representative government, it is with the whitewashing of the concept of limited central government that is part and parcel of the cornerstone of the Union. And that whitewashing of that concept is actually undertaken almost explicitly by one side of the political spectrum in the United States.

But is it? Isn't it more that Texas is part of a country composed of states, where other states can propose legislation that is passed that Texas doesn't want to adhere to?

You are correct in the statements bolded above. But while true, they utterly fail to address (or even touch on, for that matter) the concept of limited central government is that is inherent in the Constitution. And the problem if the continual (self)-inflation of that power bubble.

As to your question, what does 'it' refer to in your question? I have no clue to what concept you are asking that question of, tbh.

Quote:I think the issue OO has isn't with the limits of central government, it's central government period.

I fail to see where you dig that last sentence up from lad. I find it odd with your broad subscription to what OO's issue is in light of your recent complaint that you are 'defending ideas that you never stated' (or somefink like that).

I find your translation of OO's statement of 'what he said' into something far different to be rather odd.

Turning back to your original dual choice:

Quote:Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

You conveniently ignore in your (incomplete) options the concept that the Federal government has grown way past the idea of a limited central government, and that growth has come at the direct expense of independent sovereign powers of the states themselves.

The problem is neither of your 'options' fits the bill.

OO said New York and California were trying to control Texas, and explained that he felt this way based on where specific senators and representatives hailed from.

I don't see how it's odd to ask him if his issue is with our form of government, that allows representatives from those states to draft legislation that will affect others, or if it is with the power the federal gov't wields, which is why I asked:

"Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up [of] officials with competing interests."

Perhaps that last items wasn't pointed enough, but it was meant to ask about federal overreach and touch on exactly what you're describing. I never conveniently ignored ****, you misunderstood what I asked. I like that you assume the worst.

If you read your own words carefully, that is *not* what you asked. They only thing I assume is what is your own words. Perhaps I misunderstood what you intended to ask, but, that is *not* what you asked. I guess I should sharpen up my clairvoyant powers a tad more.

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

No.

But I would expect folks in Wichita Falls and Temple to resent the folks in Houston and Dallas running the show, which is analogous to what I said. People in Houston and Dallas do not necessarily understand what is best for Eagle Pass, but they control what is done.

(03-12-2019 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 03:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One flaw in your paradigm Lad. Texas *is* a constituent sovereign with powers of a sovereign. Houston (or any other city) is *not* a constituent sovereign with co-equal powers of the state it is in.

The 'problem' is that OO understands the explicit dichotomy in co-equal sovereign powers and how many seemingly wish to simply ignore that concept that is inherent in the base document. Your comment simply ignores that.

The problem is not with representative government, it is with the whitewashing of the concept of limited central government that is part and parcel of the cornerstone of the Union. And that whitewashing of that concept is actually undertaken almost explicitly by one side of the political spectrum in the United States.

But is it? Isn't it more that Texas is part of a country composed of states, where other states can propose legislation that is passed that Texas doesn't want to adhere to?

You are correct in the statements bolded above. But while true, they utterly fail to address (or even touch on, for that matter) the concept of limited central government is that is inherent in the Constitution. And the problem if the continual (self)-inflation of that power bubble.

As to your question, what does 'it' refer to in your question? I have no clue to what concept you are asking that question of, tbh.

Quote:I think the issue OO has isn't with the limits of central government, it's central government period.

I fail to see where you dig that last sentence up from lad. I find it odd with your broad subscription to what OO's issue is in light of your recent complaint that you are 'defending ideas that you never stated' (or somefink like that).

I find your translation of OO's statement of 'what he said' into something far different to be rather odd.

Turning back to your original dual choice:

Quote:Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

You conveniently ignore in your (incomplete) options the concept that the Federal government has grown way past the idea of a limited central government, and that growth has come at the direct expense of independent sovereign powers of the states themselves.

The problem is neither of your 'options' fits the bill.

OO said New York and California were trying to control Texas, and explained that he felt this way based on where specific senators and representatives hailed from.

I don't see how it's odd to ask him if his issue is with our form of government, that allows representatives from those states to draft legislation that will affect others, or if it is with the power the federal gov't wields, which is why I asked:

"Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up [of] officials with competing interests."

Perhaps that last items wasn't pointed enough, but it was meant to ask about federal overreach and touch on exactly what you're describing. I never conveniently ignored ****, you misunderstood what I asked. I like that you assume the worst.

If you read your own words carefully, that is *not* what you asked. They only thing I assume is what is your own words. Perhaps I misunderstood what you intended to ask, but, that is *not* what you asked. I guess I should sharpen up my clairvoyant powers a tad more.

Or maybe ask for clarification instead of assuming why I wrote something?

I don't proof read my posts on here, so there's bound to be an error or miscommunication from time to time.

(03-12-2019 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

No.

But I would expect folks in Wichita Falls and Temple to resent the folks in Houston and Dallas running the show, which is analogous to what I said. People in Houston and Dallas do not necessarily understand what is best for Eagle Pass, but they control what is done.

But in our federal gov't, we have the Senate and electoral college to balance out population imbalances. So it isn't really true that NY and California run the show.

Just like how in Texas the cities don't really run the show - if they did, you would have a lot more liberal of a House and Senate.

But your statement isn't clear, do you have an issue with a form of government that allows people in a city to generate and pass legislation that affects people in a rural area? That seems analogous to the resentment you mention.

(03-12-2019 04:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

No.

But I would expect folks in Wichita Falls and Temple to resent the folks in Houston and Dallas running the show, which is analogous to what I said. People in Houston and Dallas do not necessarily understand what is best for Eagle Pass, but they control what is done.

But in our federal gov't, we have the Senate and electoral college to balance out population imbalances. So it isn't really true that NY and California run the show.

Just like how in Texas the cities don't really run the show - if they did, you would have a lot more liberal of a House and Senate.

But your statement isn't clear, do you have an issue with a form of government that allows people in a city to generate and pass legislation that affects people in a rural area? That seems analogous to the resentment you mention.

What part of NO do you not understand?

But that doers not mean the big population centers are passing laws that are good for rural areas, and the New Yorkers and Californians don't give a flying **** about what those deplorables in the flyover states want or need. It is becoming increasingly their way or the highway, and I have already stated my preference for the highway.

and isn't it your bunch who want to do away with the Electoral College?

(03-12-2019 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 03:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But is it? Isn't it more that Texas is part of a country composed of states, where other states can propose legislation that is passed that Texas doesn't want to adhere to?

You are correct in the statements bolded above. But while true, they utterly fail to address (or even touch on, for that matter) the concept of limited central government is that is inherent in the Constitution. And the problem if the continual (self)-inflation of that power bubble.

As to your question, what does 'it' refer to in your question? I have no clue to what concept you are asking that question of, tbh.

Quote:I think the issue OO has isn't with the limits of central government, it's central government period.

I fail to see where you dig that last sentence up from lad. I find it odd with your broad subscription to what OO's issue is in light of your recent complaint that you are 'defending ideas that you never stated' (or somefink like that).

I find your translation of OO's statement of 'what he said' into something far different to be rather odd.

Turning back to your original dual choice:

Quote:Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

You conveniently ignore in your (incomplete) options the concept that the Federal government has grown way past the idea of a limited central government, and that growth has come at the direct expense of independent sovereign powers of the states themselves.

The problem is neither of your 'options' fits the bill.

OO said New York and California were trying to control Texas, and explained that he felt this way based on where specific senators and representatives hailed from.

I don't see how it's odd to ask him if his issue is with our form of government, that allows representatives from those states to draft legislation that will affect others, or if it is with the power the federal gov't wields, which is why I asked:

"Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up [of] officials with competing interests."

Perhaps that last items wasn't pointed enough, but it was meant to ask about federal overreach and touch on exactly what you're describing. I never conveniently ignored ****, you misunderstood what I asked. I like that you assume the worst.

If you read your own words carefully, that is *not* what you asked. They only thing I assume is what is your own words. Perhaps I misunderstood what you intended to ask, but, that is *not* what you asked. I guess I should sharpen up my clairvoyant powers a tad more.

Or maybe ask for clarification instead of assuming why I wrote something?

Your two points (albeit not representing what you wished to have said) were fairly clear. The problem isnt that your words were indecipherable, they were clear. It is that they didnt necessarily represent what you meant to say.

If words are clear (yours were) I typically dont feel a need to ask for clarification. I am sorry that they did not convey what you meant to convey.

Quote:I don't proof read my posts on here, so there's bound to be an error or miscommunication from time to time.

No problem, thank you for clearing that up.

(03-12-2019 05:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 04:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

No.

But I would expect folks in Wichita Falls and Temple to resent the folks in Houston and Dallas running the show, which is analogous to what I said. People in Houston and Dallas do not necessarily understand what is best for Eagle Pass, but they control what is done.

But in our federal gov't, we have the Senate and electoral college to balance out population imbalances. So it isn't really true that NY and California run the show.

Just like how in Texas the cities don't really run the show - if they did, you would have a lot more liberal of a House and Senate.

But your statement isn't clear, do you have an issue with a form of government that allows people in a city to generate and pass legislation that affects people in a rural area? That seems analogous to the resentment you mention.

What part of NO do you not understand?

But that doers not mean the big population centers are passing laws that are good for rural areas, and the New Yorkers and Californians don't give a flying **** about what those deplorables in the flyover states want or need. It is becoming increasingly their way or the highway, and I have already stated my preference for the highway.

and isn't it your bunch who want to do away with the Electoral College?

Given that your response right after no was to explain to me how my comparison was not an apt comparison, I was looking for some clarification.

So you’re just feeling mad about how government operates in general? How rural interests and urban interests don’t always align and it creates friction?

(03-12-2019 06:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you’re just feeling mad about how government operates in general? How rural interests and urban interests don’t always align and it creates friction?

Not intending to speak for OO, but this question causes me to want to interject my opinion.

No, I'm not happy with the way government works. People in government become inherently power-mad and obsessed with directing everybody else's life, and it gets worse the longer they stay o\in bureaucrat-land. A lot of it is, "I went into a government career and you went into the private sector. You made millions (or billions) and I didn't. Now I have the power to take it away from you, so that's what I'm going to do."

Take power away from government, and let rural interests live the way they want to and urban interests live the way they want to. The same gun laws don't make sense for both. The same speed limits don't make sense for both. Lots of things don't make sense for both. So don't make them be the same.

(03-12-2019 06:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 05:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 04:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

No.

But I would expect folks in Wichita Falls and Temple to resent the folks in Houston and Dallas running the show, which is analogous to what I said. People in Houston and Dallas do not necessarily understand what is best for Eagle Pass, but they control what is done.

But in our federal gov't, we have the Senate and electoral college to balance out population imbalances. So it isn't really true that NY and California run the show.

Just like how in Texas the cities don't really run the show - if they did, you would have a lot more liberal of a House and Senate.

But your statement isn't clear, do you have an issue with a form of government that allows people in a city to generate and pass legislation that affects people in a rural area? That seems analogous to the resentment you mention.

What part of NO do you not understand?

But that doers not mean the big population centers are passing laws that are good for rural areas, and the New Yorkers and Californians don't give a flying **** about what those deplorables in the flyover states want or need. It is becoming increasingly their way or the highway, and I have already stated my preference for the highway.

and isn't it your bunch who want to do away with the Electoral College?

Given that your response right after no was to explain to me how my comparison was not an apt comparison, I was looking for some clarification.

So you’re just feeling mad about how government operates in general? How rural interests and urban interests don’t always align and it creates friction?

Your question was:

Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

My answer was:

No.

Pretty clear, I thought.


Now what does that have to do with NY and Cal trying to run Texas? They are, whether you want to see it or not. They are using their weight of numbers on us. They are anti-oil, anti-pipeline, and now, thanks to AOL, anti-beef. All while sneering at us (yes, you too, you are a Texan first to them, not a liberal) as ignorant racist gun-fighting rednecks who need to be directed in how to think.

Not liking them pushing their will on us does not mean I want to overthrow the government. Imperfect as it is, not much is better. BUT. Not wanting to change the government does not mean I have to like the way they try to bully us. I guess you want us to bend over and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another", a la Animal House.

Not my style.

Apples and bicycles.

Your intentional obtuseness is not becoming. In fact, it is quite irritating.

I complained they were trying to control us. They are. Your counter-complaint seems to be, they have a right to, so STFU, lie back, and enjoy it.

(03-12-2019 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 06:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 05:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 04:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No.

But I would expect folks in Wichita Falls and Temple to resent the folks in Houston and Dallas running the show, which is analogous to what I said. People in Houston and Dallas do not necessarily understand what is best for Eagle Pass, but they control what is done.

But in our federal gov't, we have the Senate and electoral college to balance out population imbalances. So it isn't really true that NY and California run the show.

Just like how in Texas the cities don't really run the show - if they did, you would have a lot more liberal of a House and Senate.

But your statement isn't clear, do you have an issue with a form of government that allows people in a city to generate and pass legislation that affects people in a rural area? That seems analogous to the resentment you mention.

What part of NO do you not understand?

But that doers not mean the big population centers are passing laws that are good for rural areas, and the New Yorkers and Californians don't give a flying **** about what those deplorables in the flyover states want or need. It is becoming increasingly their way or the highway, and I have already stated my preference for the highway.

and isn't it your bunch who want to do away with the Electoral College?

Given that your response right after no was to explain to me how my comparison was not an apt comparison, I was looking for some clarification.

So you’re just feeling mad about how government operates in general? How rural interests and urban interests don’t always align and it creates friction?

Your question was:

Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

My answer was:

No.

Pretty clear, I thought.


Now what does that have to do with NY and Cal trying to run Texas? They are, whether you want to see it or not. They are using their weight of numbers on us. They are anti-oil, anti-pipeline, and now, thanks to AOL, anti-beef. All while sneering at us (yes, you too, you are a Texan first to them, not a liberal) as ignorant racist gun-fighting rednecks who need to be directed in how to think.

Not liking them pushing their will on us does not mean I want to overthrow the government. Imperfect as it is, not much is better. BUT. Not wanting to change the government does not mean I have to like the way they try to bully us. I guess you want us to bend over and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another", a la Animal House.

Not my style.

Apples and bicycles.

Your intentional obtuseness is not becoming. In fact, it is quite irritating.

I complained they were trying to control us. They are. Your counter-complaint seems to be, they have a right to, so STFU, lie back, and enjoy it.

The disdain for others you seem to dislike in people from liberal/urban areas appears to be alive and well in you, for them. A bit ironic, no?

And I’m not being obtuse - you offered a rather shallow Fox News-style comment about how NY and Cali are controlling America, when they are in no way, shape, or form, doing that. Instead, you’ve explained that you just don’t like that liberals are promoting certain policies you disagree with.

(03-13-2019 06:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The disdain for others you seem to dislike in people from liberal/urban areas appears to be alive and well in you, for them. A bit ironic, no?
And I’m not being obtuse - you offered a rather shallow Fox News-style comment about how NY and Cali are controlling America, when they are in no way, shape, or form, doing that. Instead, you’ve explained that you just don’t like that liberals are promoting certain policies you disagree with.

Again, OO is perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I want to share my thoughts.

NY and CA are not in fact controlling America at this point, as you say. But it appears to irritate the hell out of them that they don't. And efforts like eliminating the electoral college and AOC's GND certainly appear to be significant ongoing efforts by NY and CA to control the rest of us.

We are becoming two different countries--the NE and west coast on the one hand, and flyover country on the other. If our political leadership on both sides keeps becoming more extreme, I don't see how it sustains.

(03-13-2019 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The disdain for others you seem to dislike in people from liberal/urban areas appears to be alive and well in you, for them. A bit ironic, no?
And I’m not being obtuse - you offered a rather shallow Fox News-style comment about how NY and Cali are controlling America, when they are in no way, shape, or form, doing that. Instead, you’ve explained that you just don’t like that liberals are promoting certain policies you disagree with.

Again, OO is perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I want to share my thoughts.

NY and CA are not in fact controlling America at this point, as you say. But it appears to irritate the hell out of them that they don't. And efforts like eliminating the electoral college and AOC's GND certainly appear to be significant ongoing efforts by NY and CA to control the rest of us.

We are becoming two different countries--the NE and west coast on the one hand, and flyover country on the other. If our political leadership on both sides keeps becoming more extreme, I don't see how it sustains.

I think it’s much less geographical, and much more urban vs rural, with the suburbs switching back and forth. Sure, there is still some geographical influence, but I think it’s become less important. I also think generational differences are becoming more pronounced than they used to be. I’m sure there’s data out there to support or refute that, so I could be wrong. But that’s my perspective, especially after seeing how the Texas Senate race played out in 2018.

(03-12-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 07:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I had a thought this morning. What if May is actually trying to cancel Brexit and is outsmarting everyone? Wasn't she a remainer?
Given the universe as it exists (one where the UK is in the EU) I still think cancelling Brexit is the best option. The UK is a lot more integrated with Europe than they like to think.
As far as giving up sovereignty, should the colonies have created the United States? Honest question.

I would think Brexit is very much analogous to the colonies' creation of the US. The EU parliament and bureaucrats are power-driven micromanagers who infringe upon areas that are frankly none of their business.

The problem is that UK jumped into something without thinking through. It looked good back then, now not so much. I don't think there is a good answer.

If I were May, I would be strongly tempted to go to Brussels to address the EP, and say something like, "We're fine with a trade alliance, but we are not okay with your micromanagement what we believe are our internal affairs. So we're not going to put up with it. We're going to nullify the things we don't agree with, and if you want to fine us, we're not going to pay. And if you don't like that, then you can politely go f-k yourselves. We still believe that a trade alliance is to the benefit of all of us, and we are certainly more than willing to work out the details to remain in that sort of relationship. And we very much support the idea of a common defense alliance. But your concept of one European government is not one with which we agree."

Yes, I'm sure that would be highly effective. LOL. Having had the experience of living and working in the UK's equivalent of "flyover" country, I think a lot of Brexit was driven by fear of immigration. But also I think people voted for their own idealized version of Brexit where they could keep all the stuff they liked (or more likely didn't realize were a product of EU membership) and just get rid of the stuff they didn't want. Similar to how it is much easier to unite around a slogan like "Repeal and replace" or "Medicare for All" than to implement specifics....

I was probably harsh in my assessment of May earlier - she's been asked do deliver a unicorn. No wonder she's not succeeding.

In fairness to my English friends (the Scots and Welsh have already chosen Europe) they have a genuine internal conflict as to whether they are "European" or not. I haven't seen a study but I would guess the answer to the question "Do you consider yourself European?" would be predictive of a whole lot of other opinions in England.

(03-13-2019 08:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The disdain for others you seem to dislike in people from liberal/urban areas appears to be alive and well in you, for them. A bit ironic, no?
And I’m not being obtuse - you offered a rather shallow Fox News-style comment about how NY and Cali are controlling America, when they are in no way, shape, or form, doing that. Instead, you’ve explained that you just don’t like that liberals are promoting certain policies you disagree with.

Again, OO is perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I want to share my thoughts.

NY and CA are not in fact controlling America at this point, as you say. But it appears to irritate the hell out of them that they don't. And efforts like eliminating the electoral college and AOC's GND certainly appear to be significant ongoing efforts by NY and CA to control the rest of us.

We are becoming two different countries--the NE and west coast on the one hand, and flyover country on the other. If our political leadership on both sides keeps becoming more extreme, I don't see how it sustains.

I think it’s much less geographical, and much more urban vs rural, with the suburbs switching back and forth. Sure, there is still some geographical influence, but I think it’s become less important. I also think generational differences are becoming more pronounced than they used to be. I’m sure there’s data out there to support or refute that, so I could be wrong. But that’s my perspective, especially after seeing how the Texas Senate race played out in 2018.

Absolutely. I think the breakdown is primarily urban/suburban vs exurban/rural. If Texas does actually become purple or blue, it will be because of suburbs turning blue and joining with the urban areas, not because small towns in east Texas all of a sudden become super-liberal.