[Schleihauf]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

tritium tritium:

O.K. Quit being so divisive as a nation, unity is the best for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA

Yeah. Like a United Europe under Hitler.

Fuck you.

Or even worse, a European Union.

[Benoit]

We can understand only by looking at the Oklahoma's flag; of course, Natives would like to obtain self-determination:

[naelch]

tritium tritium:

O.K. Quit being so divisive as a nation, unity is the best for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA

Unification ideology has always been the worst idea for any population. Democracy has a demographic limit above which it starts to be a joke. Central gov't should always be the weakest possible.

Democracy was born in small, manageable City-Sates, not 1.5 billion "nations".

[CanAm1]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Yeah...If only Alaskans would join Canada...

We had the chance to first purchase Alaska and didn't. It was offered to Canada first at 18 cents and acre. One of the stupidest decisions we have ever made as a nation.

[Benoit]

naelch naelch:

tritium tritium:

O.K. Quit being so divisive as a nation, unity is the best for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA

Unification ideology has always been the worst idea for any population. Democracy has a demographic limit above which it starts to be a joke. Central gov't should always be the weakest possible.

Democracy was born in small, manageable City-Sates, not 1.5 billion "nations".

Without the pressures of a wider democracy movement (the Union), Oklahoma (a Confederate state) would probably still be a state condoning slavery.

[Pseudonym]

No it wouldn't.

[Benoit]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

No it wouldn't.

An open mind expects secessionist and segregationist movements to remain closely related.

[naelch]

Benoit Benoit:

naelch naelch:

tritium tritium:

O.K. Quit being so divisive as a nation, unity is the best for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA

Unification ideology has always been the worst idea for any population. Democracy has a demographic limit above which it starts to be a joke. Central gov't should always be the weakest possible.

Democracy was born in small, manageable City-Sates, not 1.5 billion "nations".

Without the pressures of a wider democracy movement (the Union), Oklahoma (a Confederate state) would probably still be a state condoning slavery.

The opposite could be true as well.

When it comes to Humans (and thus Politics), all we have are probabilities. The probability of a small (real) Democracy evolving freely (and probably) towards better (more Humane) values is much higher.

And there are differences in the speed and reasons behind the change. In the US, the end of salvery had an economic basis (competition between two different systems). The Humane side has ben marginal and server mostly later to give the civil war a moral legitimacy (all of this is understandable). The change was fast but the reasons were not enough to give afro-americans total equality (that came much later). In a small Democracy the change would be slow and gradual but durable.

[Benoit]

naelch naelch:

When it comes to Humans (and thus Politics), all we have are probabilities. The probability of a small (real) Democracy evolving freely (and probably) towards better (more Humane) values is much higher.

And there are differences in the speed and reasons behind the change. In the US, the end of salvery had an economic basis (competition between two different systems). The Humane side has ben marginal and server mostly later to give the civil war a moral legitimacy (all of this is understandable). The change was fast but the reasons were not enough to give afro-americans total equality (that came much later). In a small Democracy the change would be slow and gradual but durable.

To avoid invasions, never forget that there is strength in numbers.

[naelch]

Benoit Benoit:

naelch naelch:

When it comes to Humans (and thus Politics), all we have are probabilities. The probability of a small (real) Democracy evolving freely (and probably) towards better (more Humane) values is much higher.

And there are differences in the speed and reasons behind the change. In the US, the end of salvery had an economic basis (competition between two different systems). The Humane side has ben marginal and server mostly later to give the civil war a moral legitimacy (all of this is understandable). The change was fast but the reasons were not enough to give afro-americans total equality (that came much later). In a small Democracy the change would be slow and gradual but durable.

To avoid invasions, never forget that there is strength in numbers.

Was "very" true. is no more important.

Actually the opposite is true now.

Strenght is based on intelligence, or any kind of higher intellect in all fields (including arts). Usually, smaller populations focus more on Humans as unique individuals rather than as pure numbers, statistics and disposable commodity (there is a similarity with economy as scarce idividual resources have higher value). They push most of the pop. to its "positive" limits; and there you have higher chance to find people who can go far beyond anyone else, giving his group a qualitatif advantage (i.e something completly different, and not only "more" of something).

Actually, the mass effect never produced anything worthy, even at war times.

[Pseudonym]

Benoit Benoit:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

No it wouldn't.

An open mind expects secessionist and segregationist movements to remain closely related.

No it doesn't.

[naelch]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

Benoit Benoit:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

No it wouldn't.

An open mind expects secessionist and segregationist movements to remain closely related.

No it doesn't.

Benoit is partially right. Secessionists' ideologies originate from closed groups, so it is natural (reminder: nature is no necesserly good) that some (or a lot) of discrimination exists; however it could be based on any criteria, and is not necessarily going to become segregationist or even last.

[travior]

This part of the story explains more about what their motivation was for the resolution:

The entire article is at: http://republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=news.article&articleID=521

$1:

The Sooner State became a hotbed of federal vs. state authority clashes earlier this month when a federal judge blocked a portion of Oklahoma's tough immigration laws, ruling that plaintiffs would likely establish that the state mandates preempted federal immigration laws.

Oklahoma's immigration statute, known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, originated as House Bill 1804 (co-authored, incidentally, by Key). It has been characterized by USA Today as "arguably the nation's toughest state law targeting illegal immigration."

The statute prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services and makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants. It also mandates that businesses take measures to verify the work eligibility of employees and independent contractors.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual chambers of commerce in Oklahoma challenged the latter mandates, set to go into effect July 1, in court.

On June 4th, U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued an injunction against enforcing the July 1 mandates.

"We've just had a federal judge say that our immigration law's employer provisions are unconstitutional, claiming it as federal government territory," said Key in response. "That goes right to the issue of (Resolution 1089). The federal government doesn't have the right to have sole domain over that issue or many of the issues it has spilled over into."

[Pseudonym]

naelch naelch:

Benoit is partially right. Secessionists' ideologies originate from closed groups, so it is natural (reminder: nature is no necesserly good) that some (or a lot) of discrimination exists; however it could be based on any criteria, and is not necessarily going to become segregationist or even last.

Shhhh. I am trying to keep up contradicting him to see how far he'll go.

[Benoit]

naelch naelch:

Benoit Benoit:

naelch naelch:

When it comes to Humans (and thus Politics), all we have are probabilities. The probability of a small (real) Democracy evolving freely (and probably) towards better (more Humane) values is much higher.

And there are differences in the speed and reasons behind the change. In the US, the end of salvery had an economic basis (competition between two different systems). The Humane side has ben marginal and server mostly later to give the civil war a moral legitimacy (all of this is understandable). The change was fast but the reasons were not enough to give afro-americans total equality (that came much later). In a small Democracy the change would be slow and gradual but durable.

To avoid invasions, never forget that there is strength in numbers.

Was "very" true. is no more important.

Actually the opposite is true now.

Strenght is based on intelligence, or any kind of higher intellect in all fields (including arts). Usually, smaller populations focus more on Humans as unique individuals rather than as pure numbers, statistics and disposable commodity (there is a similarity with economy as scarce idividual resources have higher value). They push most of the pop. to its "positive" limits; and there you have higher chance to find people who can go far beyond anyone else, giving his group a qualitatif advantage (i.e something completly different, and not only "more" of something).

Actually, the mass effect never produced anything worthy, even at war times.

Individualism and general intellect were outlooks born in (large) industrial societies not in (small) traditional societies.

http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpvirno10.htm