Looks like I have my answer as to what would happen with Catalonia…the separatist administration of the Province has blinked. The Madrid government is still making sure this isn’t a cutesy effort to avoid conflict and depart later.
So looks like we won’t get a test case to see how Europe/the EU would react to secession hitting a core state.
Oh…This makes it 0-2 recently, with Scotland, Catalonia not jumping ship. Calexit hardest hit?
Calexit is not happening. Unfortunately.
Damn, I really wanted to see the State of California become the People’s Republic of Calizuela, followed almost immediately by being invaded, broken up, and turned into five or six different U.S. territories who could then petition separately for statehood.
We never broke-up any of the Southern states after the Civil War (except for Virginia, but that was during the war), why would they divide California? There needs to be an easier way to allow regions of states to separate
We should use the West Virginia percedent. Keep Jefferson and the Central Valley as two new states, subdue the secessionist coastals as the diminished California.
LET ME HAVE MY DREAMS! :runs off crying:
I don’t know what good it would have done. At the time, they were less populous than Northern states of similar geographic size. It wasn’t until somewhat recently that e.g. Texas and Florida became so heavily populated.
And California has built-in fracture lines between cultural outlooks. It’s begging to be broken up.
So induce an earthquake is what you’re saying?
why would they divide California?
Because the current version has proven itself ungovernable?
The governing class like having such a large piggy bank.
Their side of the secession agreement would be something like: We’re not paying any taxes to the US, but we require to still receive free tax payer money from US citizens and if we need a monstrous bailout, you have to give it to us.
That’s why it’s never happening.
Their oversized influence in elections is also something they dont want to lose. Breaking it up would cause prog squealing to break every window pane in the country.
Don’t worry that’s just their economic stimulus plan.
Krugtastic
Let’s see:
Federal military installation closures
Water diversion treaties
Federal land purchases
Coastal and border defense costs
& more!
Yeah, not happening.
Can we force an exit of California city-enclaves and then blockade them?
Only if they are all ruled by a low-rent Che-a-like.
That…that was spot on.
The LA sequel was pretty lame compared to the NY original, but I really dug the the soundtrack for Escape From LA.
“Dawn” – Stabbing Westward
“Sweat” – Tool
“The One” – White Zombie
“Cut Me Out” – Toadies
“Pottery” – Butthole Surfers
“10 Seconds Down” – Sugar Ray
“Blame (L.A) Remix” – Gravity Kills
“Professional Widow” – Tori Amos
“Paisley” – Ministry
“Fire in the Hole” – Orange 9mm
“Escape from the Prison Planet” – Clutch
“Et Tu Brute?” – CIV
“Foot on the Gas” – Sexpod
“Can’t Even Breathe” – Deftones
Wow, there are some bands I haven’t heard in a long time – Orange 9mm, CIV, Stabbing Westward
*sad trombone*
I think my Swiss overseers successfully whistled past the graveyard on this one. Although, I have to admit that I am not 100% privy to my Spanish colleagues preparations.
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedBen/status/918149571150336000
The sentiment in Cantalonia remains strong, though. Which will come first- Catalonian secession or Kurdish independence?
Once the EU goes broke, this separatist stuff will become much easier. Then Germany, headed by the Merkaloid and the 4th Reich, will start building camps and blitzkrieging. France surrenders in advance.
Trump tweets something. CNN blames the collapse of Europe and the newest round of German aggression on Trump.
People continue to not pay attention to CNN howling at Trump Tower from the street corner.
France
surrenders in advancefields a force of fanatical jihadis in response, drawn from their booming population of disaffected youth of no known religious persuasion.Germany ends the war by giving all the French jihadi fighters and their extended families (which turn out to be 2/3 of the ME) German citizenship.
It wouldn’t be the first time the Foreign Legion was deployed in Europe.
My money is on a Catalonian/Kurdish alliance, a la the Atreides/Fremen, leading to a complete world takeover when the untold billions of subterranean Kurds are revealed and armed with superior Catalonian appetizers.
There’s nothing under Kurdistan that could cripple the world economy if they refuse to continue supply.
After all, who doesn’t love tapas?
The Cava must flow!
Kurdish necks are likely to be independent from their heads well before they ever see independence.
For all the idiocy of the Euros, they lack a flair for the barbaric.
Oh, I don’t know, something tells me that the Spanish are no less refined than the Arab world when it comes to domestic unrest
No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
I do.
And yet they never show up.
No, Franco or the ‘Republicans’ usually show up
So now I know that people that follow Buzzfeed communicate exclusively in gifs. I guess all those top-ten gif articles are actually used for expanding the vocabulary of their “read”ership.
What a shame, I was thinking they were actually Europeans with a set of huevos. I should’ve known better.
Wait, are we supposed to cheer on the creation of a socialist fever swamp that will charge 13 euros for a liter of milk because…farmers?
They are the ones who will make socialism work, just you see
Well, if not for the kulaks and wreckers.
C’mon HM, don’t you want to see the world burn? At least once?
Is a socialist fever swamp with 70% approval better or worse than a quasi-socialist fever swamp with 50% approval?
I’m all for the devolution of power, even if it’s to idiots.
Dankertarians would support such a socialist state
Re-upping the economic section on their website: http://dankertarians.com/category/economics/
Indeed. I could never understand why people here or on the old site were cheering for poor socialists (in Scotland) and somewhat richer socialists (in Catalonia) to establish separate states. What the world really needs is another set of embassies in Washington, London, Paris to provide cushy jobs to the families and friends of the leaders of a new “nation.”
I think people were pushing for the right of people to determine what government rules over them. That’s an admirable position. Just as we don’t accept the fact that the government of Canada should rule over us, the people of Cantalonia (who are more dissimilar from the Spanish than the Americans are to the Canadians) should be allowed to have self-rule. Regardless of what government they choose or what economic system they employ, the fundamental Enlightenment concept of consent of the governed is still important.
^THIS^
That’s all very nice. But what happens if a majority of Catalans does not want to have a separate state. Now a vocal minority wants independence. But they don’t represent the overwhelming majority of Catalans. People in Catalonia who want to stay in Spain deserve as much as respect as the supporters of independence.
Get out and vote against independence.
They did. By refusing to participate in the referendum.
I never have a problem with watching people who choose socialism suffer under the consequences of that decision. Maybe we just need one more piece of evidence that socialism always ends in misery to convince those who still support it. Not holding my breath for that. Socialism always seems to turn into state-capitalism when the population begins consuming itself.
No there’s enough evidence. Apparently free markets are counter-intuitive for most people. We’re stuck with this scourge for a long while.
Has it happened?!? This Libertarian Moment I keep hearing so much about?!
Not stepping on other people’s faces goes against human nature. Your moment will never come.
*Its NOT happening*
/Ron Paul flailing arms GIF
Can somebody translate what “offer of talks” means?
Its like a meeting to schedule a meeting.
Do you even bureaucracy, bro?
Honestly, I try not to.
*grimaces in jealousy*
I got one of those from a customer who didn’t want to return my equipment or pay his bill on time.
I offered to let him talk to the sheriff.
“Surrender” talks
“Don’t have me arrested, brah!”
Special secret perks for Congress?
No, it can’t be! They live just like the rest of us, same laws!
I wonder which congresscritters are receiving Alzheimer’s drugs besides Pelosi and McCain.
Feinstein.
Waters.
If she is, they ain’t working.
They should be forced to disclose their medical records.
Based on my personal observations, I would guess a lot more of the latter than the former.
Anyone can have those perks if they pay for it. I have an on call doc and a pharmacy that delivers.
The problem is, WE pay for it.
I doubt that’s the only problem. They may call these prescriptions, but I’m betting they get anything they ask for, no prescriptions required and it probably includes drugs that they themselves have helped passed laws against that would send the rest of us to prison. w-o-o-d-c-h-i-p-p-e-r-s, that is all.
Drug testing for Congress. Good enough for welfare recipients good enough for representatives.
I don’t know. I’ve heard rumors that if you’re in Congress you can crash your car and kill people while driving drunk and still get re-elected until you’re dead.
You’re allowed to undermine the presidency by REALLY conspiring with Russians too!
Question, should Congress be required to report any potentially serious medical issues to their constituency?
At least the ones that effect judgement.
“Hemorrhoids, ..several STDs, early onset dementia, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s”
/Incumbent, just reelected for 8th time
You forgot addiction to pain killers.
Yep. I guarantee you that they don’t put congressional schedule II prescriptions into any sort of PDMP.
Oh come now, do any of these folks look like users?!
The real question is:
Too much, or not enough?
Jesus, who’s the first guy. Looks like Gary Johnson on a meth binge.
1st guy is longtime IL rep, Dan Lipinski. He has never held an honest job in his life.
He looks like he’s ready to rape and then cannibalise your children.
“Catalan president Carles Puigdemont”. See??? They admitted it!
His Royal Highness, Felipe VI, King of Spain,King of Castile, of León, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaén, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the East Indies and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, of Athens, of Neopatras and of Limburg; Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Roussillon and of Barcelona; Lord of Biscay and of Molina…is not amused.
He is, however, thirsty.
This is Jon Snow…. He is King in the North.
Word is he stays that way, friend.
It’s impossible to get drunk on Dos Equis, but for some reason, he keeps trying.
LOL Canada!
he’s so dreamy. You have no idea how many Romanians – more women than man though-basically say this without knowing a thing of his politics or accomplishments and see him as some sort of exemplary leader
I mean, basically, he’ saying he’s going to raise his sons as girly men. How proud he must be. Why is Western culture trying so hard to commit suicide?
What Is Beautiful Is Good
My experience with women would like a word with you, Z ….
“What is Hot is Crazy”?
*puke*
Canada makes our head of government look sensible. Damn woke pretty boy
I am pushing for Romania to invade and conquer Catalonia. No one would see it coming so we have the element of surprise
How’s your navy?
We have 2 second hand British frigates, but they don’t have a full weapons complement (if that is the word it may not be). Also one od Romanian build destroyer and a old French built diesel submarine which sadly does not work. So reasonable I would say
Their Army will just get Eurorail passes and go direct.
The train stop in Barcelona is very convenient.
*taps temple with index finger*
Exactly.
sadly landlocked Switzerland may have a stronger navy than us. But anyway what counts is that the Russians tremble in fear of the mighty Romanian fleet
I dunno – all the Swiss have is a company of riverines to prowl the scenic lakes…I think your two frigates would win.
What about Canada? I’ll send money.
….probably correct. But they might be ready, as there is a fair sized Roma population in Barcelona. And the Catalans might think the Romanian Army is just a bunch of heavily armed pick-pockets.
HEY!
“And that, kids, is how the entire state of Catalonia was lost in a game of 3 card monte.”
I larfed.
It’s actually alba neagra in the native tongue. By native I mean Romania. But funny enough, I don’t know how people still fall for that. Its like medieval armies which kept going into narrow mountain passes and having rocks doped on them. After the first few times…
The joke would be on you. You’d be stuck with all of those Catalonians.
No one expects the Romanian invasion.
They could put the vampires out front and attack at night. Who can top that?
Hey, I didn’t know you were Larry Correia!
The British could counter-attack with werewolves.
Little old ladies will be mutilated!
Monster Squad!
And for psy-ops, they could air drop pages from “The Big Book of British Smiles”.
The Scottish book of Healthy Eating
+ a pile of sausage rolls
Screw that – take a look at Scotch Pies.
Every bit as scrummy as they sound.
What sort of monster would put Scotch in a pie? It’s for drinking!
OH YEAH! I’ve had that before…but they called it mince pie. Darn tasty!
Why hasn’t there been an Underworld/Resident Evil crossover?
Kate vs. Milla. Let’s do this.
I don’t know. The Rebels tried that and Abraham Lincoln was able to stop them with silver bullets distributed to the troops.
Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I’ll come in again…
I can’t imagine a region of that size trying to operate independently in the EU without the tourism income in Barcelona. It’s not like they have concentrated heavy industry, banking, or high value services to support the economy.
As debated thoroughly here before, what the referendum should mean is an open question. Is it binding? If so, how?
That question aside, I don’t see the problem with taking a vote. How will we even know if there’s substantial support for independence?
I am sorry, does His Majesty LOOK like he wants a vote?!
He’s the most interesting man in the world.
I mean, he doesn’t want a vote, he wants a Dos Equis.
He actually looks like he needs to take a bathroom break.
Or he is trying to sneak a fart out.
Shart.
His Majesty probably wishes they had Franco back.
I would think not, after his Dad’s reaction…
That was after Franco was dead.
Franco restored the monarchy. If it weren’t for Franco, they’d be lucky to be the Kardashians.
I doubt the Catalonians have considered the resolve of the Spanish government and what’s behind that resolve–Spain debt to GDP ratio is around 100%–up from around 35% before the Eurozone/Mortgage crisis.
Catalonia represents a larger share of Spain’s GDP than California does of U.S. GDP. Spain simply can’t afford to pay however much more it would cost to roll over their existing debt should Catalonia leave–and it can’t afford to take on new debt at higher interest rates either.
And, ultimately, bond investors are pricing debt relative to whatever strength and size of Spain’s GDP. If “Spain” represents 20% less GDP than it did before Catalonia bailed, the way those bonds are appraised changes.
Spain might spend 20% of its GDP fighting a war to keep Catalonia from leaving and come out ahead over the long run–if they can prevent Catalonia from leaving.
Meanwhile, Spain remains in debt to the EU, the IMF, et. al. for bailouts received back in . . . 2012?
Spain will fight. I hope they negotiate a settlement.
Oh, have you guys heard the one about how “They’ll never legalize heroin”?
I’m reading this shit over at . . . you know where.
What I don’t think people understand is that expanding Medicaid amounts to the legalization of opioids. In fact, it goes further than that.
My understanding is that we’ve added some 11 million people to the Medicaid rolls because of ObamaCare. I’ve run the stats by you guys before, but the gist of it is that more than 75% of non-medical users report that they get their opioids from a prescription–either directly or they get them from family or friends who have a prescription–for free.
Those people are experiencing opioid legalization. The distribution is for all practical purposes legal. What’s more, those people are getting those medications free of charge because they’re on Medicaid.
So don’t let anybody tell you that “They’ll never legalize [insert opioid]. They’ve already done so. It’s called “Medicaid”.
“And here we are, paying for your legal high.”
It’s not legalized, it’s controlled and subsidized.
Something, something, Ronald Reagan.
“Has it stopped moving?”
Ok, then. Just take some heroin down to your local police station and ask them if they can test it for purity.
In a lot of places, you can’t sell homemade chili, jam, or cookies unless they’ve made in an inspected and approved facility.
I wouldn’t say those substances are illegal. You can make prosciutto, but you can’t bring it in from Italy. The real stuff from Italy you can’t even bring into the country.
Regardless, my point was that it’s incorrect to say that they’ll never legalize heroin if they mean they’ll never legalize opioids. Expanding Medicaid does and has made opoids perfectly legal for millions of people, and if and when single payer makes everyone eligible for Medicaid, opioids will become legal for everybody.
Of course, the legality of possession will be contingent on holding the appropriate state-endorsed permission slip.
It’s a matter of scale and potential penalty we’re talking about here. And those are huge. No one fears driving around in their car with some homemade chili or jam. People get 25 years in prison for possessing controlled substances. Crikey, Ken, come on. They won’t even legalize weed at the federal level, let alone heroin.
You seem to be confusing subsidies with legality.
It’s one of the left’s favorite rhetorical tricks: “access”.
People often make that mistake. People who are making a case that we move weed to schedule 2 are making a huge one. In the case that happened, weed would then be scheduled as a controlled substance with ‘legitimate use as a medication’. The effect would be, weed would be legal nationwide, through prescription only, and most medical doctors will be reluctant to write a prescription to most people. This would also end the legal weed experiments in states because people would be in possession of a controlled medicine without a prescription, which will in effect make it the same as oxycontin. You will have not only the law, but the medical industry in on it. Then there will be an ‘epidemic’ and new war on out of control medical marijuana.
I’m saying the subsidies are in addition to legality.
If all those opioid addicts on Medicaid are getting their drugs for free–that’s in addition to them getting them legally.
Actually, you can get actual Italian prosciutto. You couldn’t in the olden days, but that hasn’t been the case for a while.
Doesn’t change the thrust of your argument, just pointing out that you should use a different example in the future.
Romanian-built AK47’s?
If you 924r it, sure.
Last I checked, you could get “imported” prosciutto, but it came from some Italian guys living in Canada who were willing to use preservatives as the FDA (or whomever) demanded.
If they are now letting people import real prosciutto, then I need to make a trip to the gourmet deli.
Thanks for the heads up.
There was a slew of relaxations on that kind of thing about 10 years ago. Prosciutto, blackcurrants (both plants, fruit and juice), some cheeses too, iirc.
The quantities paid for by Medicaid aren’t remotely sufficient enough to support a recreational addict’s consumption.
They’ll pay for 30 days at a time (or, in some cases, 90 days if it’s mail order). An addict will burn through it 10 times faster than when it’s taken as directed.
Don’t believe me, believe the people substituting street heroin until they can score a refill.
It’s not a question of not believing you. It’s that I’m seeing other stats.
Upwards of 75% of the people who are getting opiods for non-medical use now are either getting them directly from a doctor by prescription or from a friend or relative for free (who is getting them from a doctor by prescription).
That’s according to the damn Department of Health and Human Services, and according to them, it’s been that way for years.
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs2014/NSDUH-DetTabs2014.htm#tab6-47b
The script rules are very tight. Like Playa is saying, it would be almost impossible to be using at an addict level if you’re only getting them by script or from a friend who had a script but no longer uses them. People build up unreal tolerances to that stuff. When my wife was in the hospital, they gave her a script for oxy, I believe they were 5mg or something low like that. I heard a guy once talking about taking 200 mg at a time like someone would take a 5. That would be more than her entire bottle and it was only refillable once. If you can’t get enough to get addicted and it’s on schedule 2, it’s not legal. And if you get caught with more than you should have, according to your script, you’re very likely going to jail. That’s NOT legal.
I appreciate what you’re saying.
I hope you appreciate that the stats I’m seeing aren’t bearing that out.
It’s going to get worse too. There are companies out there selling data analytics to government agencies and healthcare organizations/whatever to discover and prevent non-medicinal use such as using multiple docs, refilling at a slightly faster rate, etc. Total Big Brother shit and of course the burden will fall heaviest on legal prescription users.
That’s not legalization by a long stretch.
Incidentally, some 80% of addicts now say they started on prescription opioids now, which, as recently as the 90s, I believe, is a reversal from past trends, where most addicts started on heroin as their first opiate.
The other interesting statistic is that people who make less than $20,000 per year are 3.4 times as likely as people who make $50,000 a year to become opioid addicts*. This is, obviously, relevant to Medicaid expansion, considering that people who make less than $20,000 per year are over-represented on the Medicaid rolls.
Center for Disease Control
https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/heroin/infographic.html
*5.5/1.6=3.4
If ObamaCare added 11 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and 5.5% of them are likely to become opioid addicts, and 75% of addicts get their opioids for free–and suddenly being on Medicaid means opioids are suddenly both legal and free . . .
Is it any wonder that the opioid addiction rates have skyrocketed?
Why wouldn’t making opioids legal and free for 11 million new Medicaid recipients–who are also the demographic that is most susceptible to opioid addiction–result in significantly more opioid addicts?
Make the supply legal, lower the price to zero, and do that for the customers mostly likely to consume–and, yeah, I’d expect to have more new addicts.
If only there had been a way to roll back the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion, but that’s another thread.
Also, there’s another important point that may be getting lost in translation here:
—-National Institute of Health
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use
The important point to understand here is that there are two different problems we’re talking about.
Problem 1) People who are already addicted to opioids.
I have little doubt but that those people are more likely to use street heroin–in addition to whatever else they can get by way of legal prescriptions.
Problem 2) 80% of new addicts start on prescription medication.
The problem of creating new addicts is mostly what I’m talking about.
Once more with feeling.
80% of new addicts use prescription opioids first.
People who make under $20,000 per year (like Medicaid recipients) are 340% more likely to become opioid addicts as people who make more than $50,000 per year.
Expanding Medicaid makes prescription opioids perfectly legal for people on the program –and they get them free of charge.
Add all that up together, and multiply it by the 11 million new Medicaid recipients ObamaCare created, and is it any wonder that there are more opioid addicts than there used to be?
Why WOULDN’T those conditions create more addicts?
Rolling Medicaid eligibility back to what it was before ObamaCare probably won’t do anything in regards to the number of people who are already addicted–those people would like roll over to street drugs.
However, it should have a significant impact on the creation of new addicts.
I mean, seriously, what libertarian wants to argue that making a product free and legal would have no impact on consumption?
Expanding Medicaid makes opioids free and legal to the very population that is most prone to consuming opioids for non-medical reasons.
If expanding Medicaid didn’t create more opioid addicts, then maybe we should all become communists–because that would mean everything we know about economics is a lie.
You started with: “Opioids are now essentially legalized”
You ended with: “Medicaid expansion creates more opioid addicts”
These are two totally different things.
Actually, one’s a premise of the other.
Because opioids are now effectively legalized via Medicaid for 11 million more people who are statistically 3.4 times more susceptible to opioid addiction, there are more opioid addicts than there would have been otherwise.
Logical fallacy of the day: Affirming the consequent
That’s absurd.
There may be other factors that contribute to poverty, and poverty is also one of the reasons why people are more susceptible to opioid addiction, . . .
But the suggestion that giving 11 million more people who are especially susceptible to opioid addiction free and legal access to opioids doesn’t mean more opioid abuse than there would be otherwise is not affirming the consequent.
Again, . . .
80% of heroin addicts say they started on prescription medication.
75% of people using for non-medical purposes say they’re getting their opioids, ultimately, from prescriptions.
People in the economic quintile that qualify for Medicaid are 3.4 times more likely to become addicted than people who make more than the average income.
If we saw rates of addiction increase in the aftermath of ObamaCare adding 11 million people to the Medicaid rolls, that isn’t affirming the consequent. It simply explains why.
No doubt, the expansion of Medicaid isn’t the only reason people become addicted to opioids. There was opioid addiction before ObamaCare expanded Medicaid–but isn’t that so obvious that it doesn’t need to be said?
In the meantime, people need to understand that expanding Medicaid came with increased numbers of new addicts in the past. For those new addicts among those 11 million, the expansion of Medicaid was effectively like legalization. Their opioids aren’t only now legal–they’re free of charge.
Oh, and people should understand what making even more people eligible for Medicaid entails. As you move up the economic qunitile to more groups, you may get a lower percentage of people becoming new addicts that we did when we were working with people who made less than $20,000 a year, but effectively legalizing opioids for everybody who can find a doctor to prescribe them and making them cost less will have more upward pressure on consumption than there would be otherwise.
Pointing out the obvious implications of removing supply restrictions and lower price signals on consumption isn’t affirming the consequent, and neither is pointing out what those implications were for people who came onto Medicaid by way of ObamaCare either.
You can now add strawman argument and shifted goalposts to your list of fallacies.
Are you just randomly making up shit?