The Raconteur Report informs the Federalist writer that divided up the United States that he is, in actuality, the chicken$hit soy boy.
The writer says countries redraw their boundaries all the time and this is as natural as rain.
Raconteur says the only countries that redraw their boundaries are defeated ones, and that’s not the cut of red stater’s jib.
Tell me how the map of Britain looks now, vs. in 1600.
Oops. Exactly the same.
How about Spain?
Same story.
Portugal?
Same.
France?
Same.
Switzerland?
Same.
Japan?
Same.
You know what changes?Empires that crater into the ground.
And former colonies whose borders were drawn by ĥckwits half a world away with no respect for ethnic, linguistic, and sociological polities.
ht/ NM
While I take his point, Raconteur could have done a better job researching his historical examples. The maps Britain and France, at the least, have indeed changed significantly since 1600. Just ask the Irish and Alsatians, among others.
That’s a very simplistic map, for sure. Look at the electoral map of 2016 for a more accurate picture and realize this is primarily a red country with blue hemorrhoidal clusters.
the deep state, nwo, central bankers or illuminati, what ever you want to call them, have played their hand.
by raiding cohens office they have shown that they are in charge.
who’s going to stop them ? congress ? ha, not if the msm has anything to lie about they won’t.
the rulers own the msm.
besides most of the politicians are in on it for money.
the fbi, cia, nsc ?
heck they are their handmaidens.
the far left courts ?
heck if congress won’t enslave us fast enough then the courts sure will.
heck you can’t stop them if you wanted to, you don’t even know who they are ? where they live ?
all we can do is strike at other frustrated citizens, blindly flailing around and doing nothing but shitting where we eat.
to win the battle we first have to know who the enemy really is.
we better start identifying this cabal of 1% who want to rule us starting with the central banks, world bank, world trade organization and the likes or we will never be free again.
we have to learn and publicize their names and whereabouts.
I want to see my real enemy face to face when I die not one his minions willing to do it for money.
Raconteur has a big potty mouth but where is his solution?
Bill, we do know A LOT of these players. Soros, obama, the clintons, al gore, the entire upper echelon at the FBI, DOJ etc…etc… but what are you going to do? That is the conundrum.
I’d let have California, but all leftist would have to migrate there and all who oppose progressive government allowed to leave. This author has been way to generous in redrawing the map.
@bill April 12, 2018 at 1:28 pm
> I want to see my real enemy face to face when I die not one his minions willing to do it for money.
Stop! STOP! I’m gonna’…
DAMN IT!
“we do know A LOT of these players. Soros, obama, the clintons, al gore, the entire upper echelon at the FBI, DOJ”
errand boys only.
who pulls the strings of the people pulling the strings of soros and clinton ?
@bill April 12, 2018 at 2:32 pm
So, your “plan”, when millions of rats are carrying billions of plague through the town, killing your children, raping your cats, and hoboing your wifi, is to… put out plates of cheese, select appropriately complimentary bottles of wine, restock on Amazon with whatever they seem to like best… and wait until someone doxxes the Pied Piper.
FRILLIANT!
Soyland gets all the muslims. They could give the muslims a chunk of Soyland, maybe call it “Soydi Arabia”. At least until it all becomes Soydi Arabia.
what plan ?
where did that come from ?
did I miss a previous conversation ?
The Federalist, leaning towards the libertarian side, misses the point (in reality) due to ideological blinders. Raconteur takes a blowtorch to a dandelion.
I’d side with Raconteur….but I’d bring marshmallows for kicks.
Uncle Al,
Before you chide me for historical imprecision, maybe tell the class why the borders of the territory of Alsace changed hands after 1600, when they did so, and maybe describe which times it was cheerfully and obligingly “amicably divorced” from its former owner, each time the borders moved.
I’ll wait.
When you finish that one, let me know how the glorious plan to get the British out of Ireland has gone since the specified date of 1600.
See Irish victory and re-unification coming anytime soon there, ya think?
Instead of documenting an error, you’ve instead underlined the fact that countries that are countries don’t split off subsets like hens plopping out eggs.
The OP knucklehead’s opening example of Czechoslovakia was a cobbled-together pseudo-country plucked from amongst the deposed Hapsburg Empire, made up by ersatz mapmakers and nation-building politicians. So, how’d that idea work in Yugoslavia?
QED
As for Bentknib, I have no solution.
There *is* no solution, particularly if by such, you mean some peaceful means of settling things down.
Looking harder and grasping at straws won’t get you one.
It’s delusional to try.
One side demands the right to tell you what size soda to drink, which light bulbs you may light, and what kind of toilet you can crap in.
they also want your wallet, bank account, pension, children, and…oh yeah, your beating heart, your words, and every sentient thought before they work you to death to pay for their amusements.
So, how’s that working out for ya?
The other side, meanwhile, is sitting on more actual weapons that an even 1,000 D-Day invasion forces, and earnestly wishes nothing but to be left alone, as intended under the original instruction manual for the republic.
So how do you see that little political impasse working itself out?
I’m a humble observer, and my observation is you don’t have enough ammo, nor enough beans, band-aids, bullion, or battalions of hard-minded friends to see you through to the other side of the coming ruckus, and it’d be a sight better for folks to stop wishing, and start working on those problems, instead of trying to wish themselves into living in Fantasyland, fat on the hog, without a care in the world.
Dreaming up imaginary countries is work for simple-minded idiots.
I only know what I read, but I’ve yet to read of anyone who gained a country worth having without working for it, and even shedding blood.
Folks who’ve been coasting on other people’s payments are about to find that the bill for the next round is coming due.
Meanwhile, any attempt to invent Federalist Fantasyland, especially the one so witlessly offered, would not avert bloodshed, it would guarantee it, and near instantly.
So you ought to ask yourself if someone would write that essay, knowing that obvious fact, unless they were either a total moron, clinically insane, or wholly evil.
There is no fourth option there, unless you’d like to offer “all of the above”.
Do we have to have Colorado and New Mexico? Both blue states stinking up Soyland.
@Bill Click on the red link The Raconteur Report.
@Aesop, you wrote:
Again, I do take your point, and I’ll add it is a good one. My chiding comment simply pointed out that the very first part of BFH’s selection from your piece was an inaccuracy. The maps of Britain in 1600 and Britain today are not exactly the same. In addition to changes in the map of the island of Eire, the Scottish kingdom persisted until the early 1700s. How those changes to the map came about is very important, but the map did in fact change.
I am sorry that I annoyed you. I probably should have written in a milder tone. I apologize for that, but neither of us can change history to suit ourselves.
Addendum: Although I’d very much like to! Two good example are that I’d have had Aaron Burr (or anybody for that matter) kill Alexander Hamilton prior to 1787, and Woodrow Wilson would have had his stroke before going back on his pledge and in 1918 sending U.S. troops to fight in what we now call World War I (not to mention his role in establishing the income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank).
Uncle Al,
No offense taken, and none intended, sir.
The map of Scotland changed only because James ascended the unified throne on the death of Elizabeth I.
No one “amicably” or otherwise, gave up territory in the change, which unravels the entire (silly) premise of the original essay.
Hamilton wasn’t all bad, else Washington wouldn’t have tolerated him so long, but that’s not to say he didn’t have his end coming to him when it arrived in his gut.
And if there were a time machine, the most curious thing would be the conga line of folks lined up outside the White House from countless futures yet-to-be, all carrying pillows to smother Woodhead Wilson in his bed, or even earlier in time, thinking to do him in while he was still just a busybody and president only of Princeton.
As for the issue at hand, there will never be a divorce, amicable or otherwise, of the United States. Only a slow-witted child would think otherwise. It may topple and shatter under fearsome struggle, or some other cataclysm, but it won’t simply sub-divide and shuffle off the stage.
Both the current sides believe in their bones they have the moral right to get what they want, both think they’ll prevail, and both think it’s morally wrong to walk away from the poker game when there’s still plenty of suckers’ money on the table.
One may read the prelude to the American Revolution, the Civil War, WW I, or WW II, and draw a paltry thousand or so parallels. They’re all correct.
BUD/S instructors since time out of mind have told countless would-be SEAL classes, as they stood on the dunes of Coronado, that they’re staring off into the boundless horizon, “looking for a war”.
We’re going to have one walk up to us all and sit on our heads.
Nobody will get what they like, and they won’t like what they’ll get.
The best one can hope for, is to make all possible preparation for dealing with the situation once it arrives, as it must.