Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 8/2/2009 9:53:32 AM EST
From Democracy in America:



The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so … – Alex de Tocqueville



What say ye, arfcom?

Poll Inbound.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 9:54:56 AM EST
IBTP

IBTSS
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:01:11 AM EST
If you follow the "might makes right" theory, any state with the military power to protect itself from being forcefully inducted into the union has the right to leave the union.

I believe they have the right on principle, even if they do not have the power to enforce it.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:05:38 AM EST
alot of it depends on how the state was admitted ot the union. states like montana for example have state contracts which allow them to leave the union should the terms of the contract be violated. other states have state charters which have no such provisos.

SW
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:06:18 AM EST
That quote is from before the Civil War... I wonder what de Tocqueville would have said had he been alive for that (through its conclusion).
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:06:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
If you follow the "might makes right" theory, any state with the military power to protect itself from being forcefully inducted into the union has the right to leave the union.

I believe they have the right on principle, even if they do not have the power to enforce it.

Agreed.
I wonder if Montana will make an attempt, and which if any other states will join them?
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:09:17 AM EST
They will be brought forcibly back into the Union, so the only way they can leave is if they can fight their way out.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:10:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By possumlivingdotcom:

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
If you follow the "might makes right" theory, any state with the military power to protect itself from being forcefully inducted into the union has the right to leave the union.

I believe they have the right on principle, even if they do not have the power to enforce it.

Agreed.
I wonder if Montana will make an attempt, and which if any other states will join them?


I await the day and would hope that all our bordering neighbor states would join us.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:13:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By postpostban:
They will be brought forcibly back into the Union, so the only way they can leave is if they can fight their way out.


I wonder about that. If it was a peaceful secession and there were numerous states involved, would there be fighting? I know some folks want fighting because it makes them rich (war creates wealth for those in position to supply the armed forces with anything from lima beans & motherph*ck to tanks).

Prior to the Civil War, there was no shortage of states talking about secession including the New England states.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:16:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2009 10:17:00 AM EST by mastadon]
I agree with Bloencustoms. I believe that the spirit of freedom dictates (is that an oxymoron?) that states voluntarily joined the union and should likewise be allowed to withdraw if they (read, "their citizens") so desire.

However, past events have shown that the federal.gov will not allow this to happen. Lincoln demonstrated the willingness to kill hundreds of thousands of people to do it:

Abraham Lincoln:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.
––
From his August 22, 1862 letter to Horace Greeley
published in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. V, edited by Roy P. Basler


(edited to unravel bad grammar)
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:16:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2009 10:18:08 AM EST by KampusKop]
The hippy left would not fight to keep multiple right wing states from leaving...

Hell they don't really want us here anyway....

I tend to think that the next breakup of the Union will be much like the break up of the USSR.


ETA....

I would not fight to keep cali in the union.... Why would I?

Let them go their own way.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:17:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:30:47 AM EST
Originally Posted By SiliconWolverine:
alot of it depends on how the state was admitted ot the union. states like montana for example have state contracts which allow them to leave the union should the terms of the contract be violated. other states have state charters which have no such provisos.

SW


They can be changed....
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:31:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By m1awolf:
Originally Posted By possumlivingdotcom:

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
If you follow the "might makes right" theory, any state with the military power to protect itself from being forcefully inducted into the union has the right to leave the union.

I believe they have the right on principle, even if they do not have the power to enforce it.

Agreed.
I wonder if Montana will make an attempt, and which if any other states will join them?


I await the day and would hope that all our bordering neighbor states would join us.

I suspect Alaska will give it serious consideration.

Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:34:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:37:13 AM EST
Originally Posted By 4v50:
Originally Posted By postpostban:
They will be brought forcibly back into the Union, so the only way they can leave is if they can fight their way out.


I wonder about that. If it was a peaceful secession and there were numerous states involved, would there be fighting? I know some folks want fighting because it makes them rich (war creates wealth for those in position to supply the armed forces with anything from lima beans & motherph*ck to tanks).

Prior to the Civil War, there was no shortage of states talking about secession including the New England states.


The only way it won't go down like that is in a U.S.S.R.style breakup. The Fed. is so broke it just can't do anything about it. otherwise......
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:38:06 AM EST
Texas does.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:40:25 AM EST
I thought secessionist threads were on thursdays?

Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:41:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Apollos:
From Democracy in America:



The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so … – Alex de Tocqueville



What say ye, arfcom?

Poll Inbound.

The Constitution contains a disollution provision...

Constitutional Convention.

Short of that, it establishes a perpetual union...

Just like the Articles of Confederacy that it replaced.

Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:43:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2009 10:44:08 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By 4v50:
Originally Posted By postpostban:
They will be brought forcibly back into the Union, so the only way they can leave is if they can fight their way out.


I wonder about that. If it was a peaceful secession and there were numerous states involved, would there be fighting? I know some folks want fighting because it makes them rich (war creates wealth for those in position to supply the armed forces with anything from lima beans & motherph*ck to tanks).

Prior to the Civil War, there was no shortage of states talking about secession including the New England states.

It has nothhing to do with war profiteering...

People oppose secession because it would destroy the USA and plunge the world into a new dark age (See fall of Rome)...

The destruction of the USA and ensuing economic/political chaos threatens their way of life, and their ability to live in relative safety & freedom...

Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:43:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2009 10:44:29 AM EST by beltfed74]
You guys can masturbate to the fantasy all you want. The fact remains, nobody is going anywhere.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:47:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By Nlinc:
That quote is from before the Civil War... I wonder what de Tocqueville would have said had he been alive for that (through its conclusion).


What Civil War?

There's been no American Civil War (yet).
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:50:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:54:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By m1awolf:
Originally Posted By possumlivingdotcom:

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
If you follow the "might makes right" theory, any state with the military power to protect itself from being forcefully inducted into the union has the right to leave the union.

I believe they have the right on principle, even if they do not have the power to enforce it.

Agreed.
I wonder if Montana will make an attempt, and which if any other states will join them?


I await the day and would hope that all our bordering neighbor states would join us.


If not, can I apply for refuge? Noxon here I come....
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 10:55:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2009 10:56:43 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 11:00:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...


What majority is going to fight for anything? The sheep occupying sprawling urban centers that know more about designer shoes than how to employ a rifle properly?

I acknowledge that a modern secession scenario would be disastrous relative to our current "creature comforts."

However, if tyranny ever overtly manifests itself here (and I don't think anyone can deny that tyranny here isn't at least plausible) I will endure a new "dark age" before I will endure chains.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 11:08:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2009 11:11:14 AM EST by tc2k11]
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...

Your desire to hold your fellow countrymen under your thumb is so strong that you would go to war against them to enforce your will?

You would sacrifice liberty to save it?

Hmmm. How very... principled... of you.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 11:54:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...

Your desire to hold your fellow countrymen under your thumb is so strong that you would go to war against them to enforce your will?

You would sacrifice liberty to save it?

Hmmm. How very... principled... of you.

I would rather live under Obama than Adid...

The 'fate' of the US, should we ever break up, is not one of freedom & liberty...

I have no desire to hold PEOPLE under any 'thumb' - they are free to emigrate if they hate the USA so much...

However, the territorial integrity of the USA must be preserved for it's loyal citizens (who are the overwhelming majority, like I said, 90%+, more likely 99%+)...



Link Posted: 8/2/2009 11:58:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Apollos:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...


What majority is going to fight for anything? The sheep occupying sprawling urban centers that know more about designer shoes than how to employ a rifle properly?

And you think the urban dwellers who fought WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam were any different?

If the need arises, and their very way of life is threatened, the people of this country will fight...

Secession is not some strange war with abstract geopolitical & strategic motivations, fought in a place most of them cannot find on a map...

Secession is 'Hey, these fuckers are trying to break up MY country... I don't want to live in the Bananna Republic of Texas (or wherever)... Fuck that!


I acknowledge that a modern secession scenario would be disastrous relative to our current "creature comforts."

Rule of law is not just a 'creature comfort'

However, if tyranny ever overtly manifests itself here (and I don't think anyone can deny that tyranny here isn't at least plausible) I will endure a new "dark age" before I will endure chains.

They are one in the same - a new dark age = no freedom here or anywhere... The notion that a secessionist movement could form a 'free' government in the modern USA is absurd - if they had that kind of support, they could get their 'change' by voting, not secession....


Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:00:42 PM EST
From a straight legal perspective, states absolutely have the right to secede. However, again legally, it would require Constitutional amendment.

From a philosophical perspective, you can really go either way. It all depends on what your personal opinion is as to what created the Union. Was it 13 sovereign states or the people of those states? The Constitution itself has clear language that lends credence to both perspectives (likely on purpose).

In the end, I agree with at least part of Texas v. White (a case that isn't exactly seen as controlling) in that states can secede only by Constitutional amendment or by successful revolution.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:03:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

People oppose secession because it would destroy the USA and plunge the world into a new dark age (See fall of Rome)...

The destruction of the USA and ensuing economic/political chaos threatens their way of life, and their ability to live in relative safety & freedom...


It will happen anyway. Might as well go out with a bang than a wimper.

Historians can not agree on an exact date of when Rome fell, though most point to the sack of Roma by Aldrek(?) in 465(?), probably because Rome did not fall in a day or a year.

The end of the USA should have a clear cut end, that people can give a holiday to. Like Nakba Day.

Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:04:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By 103:
From a straight legal perspective, states absolutely have the right to secede. However, again legally, it would require Constitutional amendment.

From a philosophical perspective, you can really go either way. It all depends on what your personal opinion is as to what created the Union. Was it 13 sovereign states or the people of those states? The Constitution itself has clear language that lends credence to both perspectives (likely on purpose).

In the end, I agree with at least part of Texas v. White (a case that isn't exactly seen as controlling) in that states can secede only by Constitutional amendment or by successful revolution.

Agreed 100%...

A Constitutional Amendment or Convention (as recognized in the document itself) would mean that at least 2/3 of the country agreed with the notion of 'letting a state go'...

That is the 'legal' way to do it...

While revolution is not *legal*, it is tradition - if you lose a war, you lose whatever territory the winners take....
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:05:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

People oppose secession because it would destroy the USA and plunge the world into a new dark age (See fall of Rome)...

The destruction of the USA and ensuing economic/political chaos threatens their way of life, and their ability to live in relative safety & freedom...


It will happen anyway. Might as well go out with a bang than a wimper.

Historians can not agree on an exact date of when Rome fell, though most point to the sack of Roma by Aldrek(?) in 465(?), probably because Rome did not fall in a day or a year.

The end of the USA should have a clear cut end, that people can give a holiday to. Like Nakba Day.


The end of the USA would not be something to celebrate...

Why would you want to have 'Day our way of life died Day' as a holiday?


Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:06:44 PM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...

Your desire to hold your fellow countrymen under your thumb is so strong that you would go to war against them to enforce your will?

You would sacrifice liberty to save it?

Hmmm. How very... principled... of you.

I would rather live under Obama than Adid...

The 'fate' of the US, should we ever break up, is not one of freedom & liberty...


I have no desire to hold PEOPLE under any 'thumb' - they are free to emigrate if they hate the USA so much...

However, the territorial integrity of the USA must be preserved for it's loyal citizens (who are the overwhelming majority, like I said, 90%+, more likely 99%+)...





+1
All of this talk is a big piss'in match.
If one State 'leaves' OUR Republic is Done.
I couldn't imagine what that 'Power Grab' would look like?

Damn agree with Dave
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:08:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2009 12:13:41 PM EST by 103]
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By 103:
From a straight legal perspective, states absolutely have the right to secede. However, again legally, it would require Constitutional amendment.

From a philosophical perspective, you can really go either way. It all depends on what your personal opinion is as to what created the Union. Was it 13 sovereign states or the people of those states? The Constitution itself has clear language that lends credence to both perspectives (likely on purpose).

In the end, I agree with at least part of Texas v. White (a case that isn't exactly seen as controlling) in that states can secede only by Constitutional amendment or by successful revolution.

Agreed 100%...

A Constitutional Amendment or Convention (as recognized in the document itself) would mean that at least 2/3 of the country agreed with the notion of 'letting a state go'...

That is the 'legal' way to do it...

While revolution is not *legal*, it is tradition - if you lose a war, you lose whatever territory the winners take....


Eh, the two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive in this case. If you win a war and change the law accordingly, the revolution is legal. From an international law perspective, such a thing would always be illegal unless the United States and the rest of the West said otherwise. It's a massive gray area.

ETA: While not having to do with secession in any way, a good example of might makes right are the Nuremberg Trials. Sure, military necessity, distinction, and proportionality were legal principles fairly well entrenched before WWII, but the defense of superior orders was a valid one prior to WWII as well. But the Allies took that defense off the table for the Nazis because the Allies won. Further, nearly all of the crimes committed by the Nazis were illegal under German law (as stated by some German courts, but not enforced, during the war), and it was common practice for such crimes to be prosecuted by the courts of the nationality of the accused post-war (as was done with Allied war criminals). That too was simply removed by the Allies. I'm not saying these things were wrong, but I'm making the rather obvious point that, regardless of what we'd like to believe about ourselves, Might Makes Right in the end.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:08:57 PM EST
Originally Posted By SiliconWolverine:
alot of it depends on how the state was admitted ot the union. states like montana for example have state contracts which allow them to leave the union should the terms of the contract be violated. other states have state charters which have no such provisos.

SW


A piece of paper means NOTHING to FED when it doesn't agree with their plans. Just ask the Red Man.....if you can find one.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:16:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By postpostban:
They will be brought forcibly back into the Union, so the only way they can leave is if they can fight their way out.


That can be arranged. The largest stockpile of nukes are in the old states of the Confederacy. It will be a different outcome this time if they decide to invade.

Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:21:49 PM EST
Exercising the 10th. amendment makes more sense, but Obama hes already threatened punitive action against those states that declared their sovereignty. The BATF has also threatened action against states as they adopt less restrictions on firearms ownership and transfers. Don't know what the current state of affairs is regarding states' sovereignty, as things seemed to have relaxed a bit.

Maybe because the feds have put the boot down.

Oppression has another name.....Obama.

Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:22:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By glockO:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...

Your desire to hold your fellow countrymen under your thumb is so strong that you would go to war against them to enforce your will?

You would sacrifice liberty to save it?

Hmmm. How very... principled... of you.

I would rather live under Obama than Adid...

The 'fate' of the US, should we ever break up, is not one of freedom & liberty...


I have no desire to hold PEOPLE under any 'thumb' - they are free to emigrate if they hate the USA so much...

However, the territorial integrity of the USA must be preserved for it's loyal citizens (who are the overwhelming majority, like I said, 90%+, more likely 99%+)...





+1
All of this talk is a big piss'in match.
If one State 'leaves' OUR Republic is Done.
I couldn't imagine what that 'Power Grab' would look like?

Damn agree with Dave


So if a state leaves, how exactly is that detrimental, other than giving big (federal) govt something to be cautious about, and the remaining 49 states a backbone?

How exactly would (for example) Montana leaving the union negatively impact us?

If the impact is a side effect (not direct effect), are you planning on controlling any nation, state or person's actions (or lack thereof) that may have negative side effects for the good old Federal Govt of the USA?
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:22:41 PM EST
The problem as I see it is this:

You all fear the loss of a single state. Why? Because it would set a precedent for other states to follow? Maybe it the federal government would stop fucking us over, we would stop thinking about how to get away from it. Maybe if the federal government would stop using abstract interpretations of laws used in abstract ways to control things that it really should have no power to control, we wouldn't wish to get away from it. If the federal government would stick to what it is supposed to do, and not invade the area of states rights using such means as "if you don't do what we want, you won't get funding, and since you MUST take our funding, you must do as we say."

The issue is not secession, the issue is an abusive federal government. Want to stop the secession talk, make the US a place where the states (and the accompanying people) want to be part of.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:22:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By Flash66:
Originally Posted By postpostban:
They will be brought forcibly back into the Union, so the only way they can leave is if they can fight their way out.


That can be arranged. The largest stockpile of nukes are in the old states of the Confederacy. It will be a different outcome this time if they decide to invade.



Are you kidding me?
You must be Delusional, or kidding??
Seriously, do you guys realize what you are typing??

WE wonder why OUR Government gets away with what they do....Focus People.
God Help US
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:25:10 PM EST
Somehow I just knew that statist/apoligist DaveA would be all over this like stink on shit.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:26:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2009 12:27:49 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Flash66:
Originally Posted By postpostban:
They will be brought forcibly back into the Union, so the only way they can leave is if they can fight their way out.


That can be arranged. The largest stockpile of nukes are in the old states of the Confederacy. It will be a different outcome this time if they decide to invade.


The majority of US nuclear firepower (including all fixed-position weapons) is in Minnesota, Montana, Maine, and Washington State (ICBMs and SLBMs)...

And the USAF would *never* turn over functional nuclear weapons to secessionist rebels...

Everything that's 'down south' can be bolted on a plane and flown north or west... Or loaded onto carriers & put out to sea....

Everything else can be destroyed in place...

That's assuming that any secessionist movement could actually take over a defended federal military installation...

Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:26:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...

Your desire to hold your fellow countrymen under your thumb is so strong that you would go to war against them to enforce your will?

You would sacrifice liberty to save it?

Hmmm. How very... principled... of you.

I would rather live under Obama than Adid...

The 'fate' of the US, should we ever break up, is not one of freedom & liberty...

I have no desire to hold PEOPLE under any 'thumb' - they are free to emigrate if they hate the USA so much...

However, the territorial integrity of the USA must be preserved for it's loyal citizens (who are the overwhelming majority, like I said, 90%+, more likely 99%+)...




Well, from the way you talk about violently subjugating people who want to leave "your" country, you're not much different than some random warlord. So now what's your point? That people have to leave their homes, their state/country to live in liberty?

The hell with that, YOU leave, and take your ethos of subjugation, your Adidishness with you.

And who's Adid, anyhow? Perhaps you mean "Amin?"
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:27:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jammer1:
Somehow I just knew that statist/apoligist DaveA would be all over this like stink on shit.


But he's right, you realize. It's hard to argue with him if you want to stick to reality, the law (all of it, not just US Code), and history.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:28:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Originally Posted By glockO:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...

Your desire to hold your fellow countrymen under your thumb is so strong that you would go to war against them to enforce your will?

You would sacrifice liberty to save it?

Hmmm. How very... principled... of you.

I would rather live under Obama than Adid...

The 'fate' of the US, should we ever break up, is not one of freedom & liberty...


I have no desire to hold PEOPLE under any 'thumb' - they are free to emigrate if they hate the USA so much...

However, the territorial integrity of the USA must be preserved for it's loyal citizens (who are the overwhelming majority, like I said, 90%+, more likely 99%+)...





+1
All of this talk is a big piss'in match.
If one State 'leaves' OUR Republic is Done.
I couldn't imagine what that 'Power Grab' would look like?

Damn agree with Dave


So if a state leaves, how exactly is that detrimental, other than giving big (federal) govt something to be cautious about, and the remaining 49 states a backbone?

How exactly would (for example) Montana leaving the union negatively impact us?

If the impact is a side effect (not direct effect), are you planning on controlling any nation, state or person's actions (or lack thereof) that may have negative side effects for the good old Federal Govt of the USA?


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Declaring States Rights is one thing. It's the ultimate form of 'Checks & Balances' WE have when all else Fails.
Leaving OUR Union isn't an OPTION, seriously.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:29:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2009 12:30:19 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...

Your desire to hold your fellow countrymen under your thumb is so strong that you would go to war against them to enforce your will?

You would sacrifice liberty to save it?

Hmmm. How very... principled... of you.

I would rather live under Obama than Adid...

The 'fate' of the US, should we ever break up, is not one of freedom & liberty...

I have no desire to hold PEOPLE under any 'thumb' - they are free to emigrate if they hate the USA so much...

However, the territorial integrity of the USA must be preserved for it's loyal citizens (who are the overwhelming majority, like I said, 90%+, more likely 99%+)...




Well, from the way you talk about violently subjugating people who want to leave "your" country, you're not much different than some random warlord. So now what's your point? That people have to leave their homes, their state/country to live in liberty?

The hell with that, YOU leave, and take your ethos of subjugation, your Adidishness with you.

And who's Adid, anyhow? Perhaps you mean "Amin?"

Adid = Mohamad Farah Adid, the man that we fought Mogadishu over... The prototypical warlord...

And states are not countries... Those people who want to leave are free to do so, they simply cannot take part of MY country with them....
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:32:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By 103:
Originally Posted By Jammer1:
Somehow I just knew that statist/apoligist DaveA would be all over this like stink on shit.


But he's right, you realize. It's hard to argue with him if you want to stick to reality, the law (all of it, not just US Code), and history.




Sure thing cupcake.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:34:18 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jammer1:
Originally Posted By 103:
Originally Posted By Jammer1:
Somehow I just knew that statist/apoligist DaveA would be all over this like stink on shit.


But he's right, you realize. It's hard to argue with him if you want to stick to reality, the law (all of it, not just US Code), and history.




Sure thing cupcake.


Prove me wrong. Seriously.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:34:44 PM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Flash66:
Originally Posted By postpostban:
They will be brought forcibly back into the Union, so the only way they can leave is if they can fight their way out.


That can be arranged. The largest stockpile of nukes are in the old states of the Confederacy. It will be a different outcome this time if they decide to invade.


The majority of US nuclear firepower (including all fixed-position weapons) is in Minnesota, Montana, Maine, and Washington State (ICBMs and SLBMs)...

And the USAF would *never* turn over functional nuclear weapons to secessionist rebels...

Everything that's 'down south' can be bolted on a plane and flown north or west... Or loaded onto carriers & put out to sea....

Everything else can be destroyed in place...

That's assuming that any secessionist movement could actually take over a defended federal military installation...



Have you ever been to the Jacksonville Florida or Pantex in Texas? As usual you don't know what you are talking about.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:36:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2009 12:37:46 PM EST by tc2k11]
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By beltfed74:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not everyone thinks that the 'ideal' life would be 40 acres, a mule, and no taxes...


Some of us do, well 200 acres, 40 head of cattle and no taxes.

Well, here's the problem...

300 million people in this country...

How many would agree with that?

While you can't have your 'ideal' anywhere in the USA, while the USA still exists...

You 'getting' your ideal would destroy the USA and with it the way of life of 90%+ of that 300 million...

That's where the problem comes up...

And that's why we (the majority) will fight to keep our country - all of it, from the MX border to Canada, plus AK & HI...

Absent a Constitutional Convention there can be NO peaceful secession....

War is required... Too much hangs in the balance for there NOT to be war...

Your desire to hold your fellow countrymen under your thumb is so strong that you would go to war against them to enforce your will?

You would sacrifice liberty to save it?

Hmmm. How very... principled... of you.

I would rather live under Obama than Adid...

The 'fate' of the US, should we ever break up, is not one of freedom & liberty...

I have no desire to hold PEOPLE under any 'thumb' - they are free to emigrate if they hate the USA so much...

However, the territorial integrity of the USA must be preserved for it's loyal citizens (who are the overwhelming majority, like I said, 90%+, more likely 99%+)...




Well, from the way you talk about violently subjugating people who want to leave "your" country, you're not much different than some random warlord. So now what's your point? That people have to leave their homes, their state/country to live in liberty?

The hell with that, YOU leave, and take your ethos of subjugation, your Adidishness with you.

And who's Adid, anyhow? Perhaps you mean "Amin?"

Adid = Mohamad Farah Adid, the man that we fought Mogadishu over...

And states are not countries... Those people who want to leave are free to do so, they simply cannot take part of MY country with them....

Oh.

You have an extremely self-centered and warped perception of the Union of States. What makes, e.g., Texas "yours"? As far as I can tell, you have no more right to that state/country than you have to your neighbor's house. Were you born and raised there? Did your ancestors settle the land and farm it? For you to lay claim to another state as "yours" is as preposterous as claiming the right to violently bring said state into submission just because you like how "your" map looks.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top