[ARCHIVED THREAD] - First State to Secede From The Union (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:32:40 AM EDT
|
NY is the 1st taking away 2nd Amendment Rights and others will follow their example and who knows what the Kenyan is gonna do. With all this bullshit coming down the pipeline, theoretically speaking, who could you see being the first state to secede from the Union?
Honestly, I can see Texas doing it. |
In six years here this is the 1,000th thread I've seen on this topic. 
Nobody is going to secede as long as they get federal dollars. That's a fact you can take to the bank. Nobody is leaving over guns of all things. No state is going to seriously consider the idea until the fed cant give away another dime and can no longer pay a military to stop them from leaving. Please stop this silly notion of Tejas leaving the union. Even if they did today they would only be absorbed back into Mexico. |
|
Quoted:
In six years here this is the 1,000th thread I've seen on this topic.
Nobody is going to secede as long as they get federal dollars. That's a fact you can take to the bank. Nobody is leaving over guns of all things. No state is going to seriously consider the idea until the fed cant give away another dime and can no longer pay a military to stop them from leaving. Please stop this silly notion of Tejas leaving the union. Even if they did today they would only be absorbed back into Mexico. It's not just about guns, it's about rights and a tyrannical government. Sure the FSA won't leave their Mesiah, but maybe some of the working folks who don't leach off the Gov't just might. What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not fucking understand??? |
|
Quoted:
Could an oil rig farther than 11 miles out be defined as it's own country? No. The UN will not recognize a man made structure as a nation. You could call yourself a nation all day long though and as long as you were not building a military or doing anything else your nearest neighbor felt threatening nobody would likely bother you. Look up "Sealand" as an example. Of course once BP or somebody wants your oil rig they will come take it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
In six years here this is the 1,000th thread I've seen on this topic.
Nobody is going to secede as long as they get federal dollars. That's a fact you can take to the bank. Nobody is leaving over guns of all things. No state is going to seriously consider the idea until the fed cant give away another dime and can no longer pay a military to stop them from leaving. Please stop this silly notion of Tejas leaving the union. Even if they did today they would only be absorbed back into Mexico. It's not just about guns, it's about rights and a tyrannical government. Sure the FSA won't leave their Mesiah, but maybe some of the working folks who don't leach off the Gov't just might. What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not fucking understand??? It's not just the FSA. Most states depend on federal funding to survive. Roads and infrastructure, schools, defense, social programs, etc, etc. All funded with federal dollars. I can think of only two or maybe three states that could survive on their own as anything other than third world shit holes and one of them is California which ain't leaving and even if they wanted to the fed will not allow it and their army is much bigger and much better than any states national guard alone. |
|
The way things are going, Ohio is gonna gain the SE corner of Michigan, and they are gonna pay the Kanadians 8.7 to take it for a garbage dump and lunatic asylum. It's part of the deal between the two of us to get rid of Toledo at the same time, without hurting any feelings like the annual football game.
I have never seen the Libtards this wound up and hatefull, and dammit, they can have the shithole corner just the way they like it. Fucked up, broke, and overrun with fucktards. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In six years here this is the 1,000th thread I've seen on this topic.
Nobody is going to secede as long as they get federal dollars. That's a fact you can take to the bank. Nobody is leaving over guns of all things. No state is going to seriously consider the idea until the fed cant give away another dime and can no longer pay a military to stop them from leaving. Please stop this silly notion of Tejas leaving the union. Even if they did today they would only be absorbed back into Mexico. It's not just about guns, it's about rights and a tyrannical government. Sure the FSA won't leave their Mesiah, but maybe some of the working folks who don't leach off the Gov't just might. What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not fucking understand??? It's not just the FSA. Most states depend on federal funding to survive. Roads and infrastructure, schools, defense, social programs, etc, etc. All funded with federal dollars. I can think of only two or maybe three states that could survive on their own as anything other than third world shit holes and one of them is California which ain't leaving and even if they wanted to the fed will not allow it and their army is much bigger and much better than any states national guard alone. It's not up the the Fed "to allow it" If a state is gonna do it, they are gonna do it and I'm sure others would follow. |
The federal dollars come from citizens of the states, so that's a lame argument. Those dollars are going to stop flowing, war or no war. I'm too good at math to think the path that we are on is sustainable. If war comes, it won't have anything to do with gun control, it will be as a result of the federal government trying to bail out some states at the expense of others. That is coming, and, when it does, all bets are off. Gun rights will have nothing to do with dissolution of the union, it will be an economic issue that starts the fray. 
|
|
Quoted:
The federal dollars come from citizens of the states, so that's a lame argument. Those dollars are going to stop flowing, war or no war. I'm too good at math to think the path that we are on is sustainable. If war comes, it won't have anything to do with gun control, it will be as a result of the federal government trying to bail out some states at the expense of others. That is coming, and, when it does, all bets are off. Gun rights will have nothing to do with dissolution of the union, it will be an economic issue that starts the fray. It's just a matter of when, and who still has their guns and ammo when it happens. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In six years here this is the 1,000th thread I've seen on this topic.
Nobody is going to secede as long as they get federal dollars. That's a fact you can take to the bank. Nobody is leaving over guns of all things. No state is going to seriously consider the idea until the fed cant give away another dime and can no longer pay a military to stop them from leaving. Please stop this silly notion of Tejas leaving the union. Even if they did today they would only be absorbed back into Mexico. It's not just about guns, it's about rights and a tyrannical government. Sure the FSA won't leave their Mesiah, but maybe some of the working folks who don't leach off the Gov't just might. What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not fucking understand??? It's not just the FSA. Most states depend on federal funding to survive. Roads and infrastructure, schools, defense, social programs, etc, etc. All funded with federal dollars. I can think of only two or maybe three states that could survive on their own as anything other than third world shit holes and one of them is California which ain't leaving and even if they wanted to the fed will not allow it and their army is much bigger and much better than any states national guard alone. It's not up the the Fed "to allow it" If a state is gonna do it, they are gonna do it and I'm sure others would follow. Of course it is when federal money keeps you afloat and you don't have the army to stop them from rolling in. Most states take more federal money than they pay in. As long as that is the case nobody is biting the hand that feeds. As for what the fed will allow, we answered that question 150 years ago. I don't think they have changed their position much since then and the Idaho National Guard is not much of a match for the whole of the US military. States were much more autonomous back then than today and they still failed. |
|
Quoted:
Wouldn't Texas come out ahead financially if they seceded? Also, we weren't allowed to secede the first time around, why would this be any different. Texas in theory would be ahead as long as they did not have to fight for it. I would bet bottom dollar they would have to fight for it. Texas, California and possibly New York are the only states I can think of that would have a strong enough economy to stand on their own. The rest depend on the federal tit. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wouldn't Texas come out ahead financially if they seceded? Also, we weren't allowed to secede the first time around, why would this be any different. Texas in theory would be ahead as long as they did not have to fight for it. I would bet bottom dollar they would have to fight for it. Texas, California and possibly New York are the only states I can think of that would have a strong enough economy to stand on their own. The rest depend on the federal tit.  really????
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wouldn't Texas come out ahead financially if they seceded? Also, we weren't allowed to secede the first time around, why would this be any different. Texas in theory would be ahead as long as they did not have to fight for it. I would bet bottom dollar they would have to fight for it. Texas, California and possibly New York are the only states I can think of that would have a strong enough economy to stand on their own. The rest depend on the federal tit. Texas would come out ahead financially. The states that would oppose us leaving are in dire straights, and likely would have far more trouble financing opposition to secession. IMHO, if the union dissolves, it will be for the most part peaceful, and, within ten years, states like California and New York will have economies that resemble third world countries. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wouldn't Texas come out ahead financially if they seceded? Also, we weren't allowed to secede the first time around, why would this be any different. Texas in theory would be ahead as long as they did not have to fight for it. I would bet bottom dollar they would have to fight for it. Texas, California and possibly New York are the only states I can think of that would have a strong enough economy to stand on their own. The rest depend on the federal tit. really????Yes really. California pays out more to the Feds then they receive. The state alone is the world's 8th largest economy and has a GDP of 1.89 trillion. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wouldn't Texas come out ahead financially if they seceded? Also, we weren't allowed to secede the first time around, why would this be any different. Texas in theory would be ahead as long as they did not have to fight for it. I would bet bottom dollar they would have to fight for it. Texas, California and possibly New York are the only states I can think of that would have a strong enough economy to stand on their own. The rest depend on the federal tit. Texas would come out ahead financially. The states that would oppose us leaving are in dire straights, and likely would have far more trouble financing opposition to secession. IMHO, if the union dissolves, it will be for the most part peaceful, and, within ten years, states like California and New York will have economies that resemble third world countries. I agree that when the Union dissolves (and I'm sure it will one day) it will be peaceful. Just like the break up of the USSR. When the economy collapses and the government can no longer pay the military or support it. Just like them, our troops will just go home. After stealing everything that can be carried off. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wouldn't Texas come out ahead financially if they seceded? Also, we weren't allowed to secede the first time around, why would this be any different. Texas in theory would be ahead as long as they did not have to fight for it. I would bet bottom dollar they would have to fight for it. Texas, California and possibly New York are the only states I can think of that would have a strong enough economy to stand on their own. The rest depend on the federal tit. really????Yes really. California pays out more to the Feds then they receive. The state alone is the world's 8th largest economy and has a GDP of 1.89 trillion. They have everything except fresh water... They don't have nuclear installations, either, do they? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wouldn't Texas come out ahead financially if they seceded? Also, we weren't allowed to secede the first time around, why would this be any different. Texas in theory would be ahead as long as they did not have to fight for it. I would bet bottom dollar they would have to fight for it. Texas, California and possibly New York are the only states I can think of that would have a strong enough economy to stand on their own. The rest depend on the federal tit. really????Yes really. California pays out more to the Feds then they receive. The state alone is the world's 8th largest economy and has a GDP of 1.89 trillion. They have everything except fresh water... They don't have nuclear installations, either, do they? No idea on if they have nuclear missiles stationed there. They do however have a pretty big nuclear research facility and could probably build them. As for water there are a lot of wealthy countries in the ME that have less and make due. |
Copy of 2nd. amendment...|
Texas is the only state who maintains their own power grid (AFAIK). Plus Texans have more state pride than any other state. They seem like the logical first choice. Now, if states in a whole region banded together to form a separate county like they tried last time... Speed |
|
You are all wrong, the first state has already seceded.
In completely ignoring and invalidating the second amendment of the Constitution, New York state has effectively refused to abide by the law of the land, and is also in violation of interstate commerce laws. They have therefore abandoned the Union, the only question is, will the POTUS (who enjoys talking about Lincoln and comparing himself to him) act decisively as Lincoln did, to deliver the state of New York from these traitors and terrorists and bring them back into the Union. |
|
The federal government would cease all business with said state, and not allow goods in/out of the state. Federal guards around the border, and you can bet the state would have to eventually fight the fed gov who would try sending in it's army. The UN would get involved and penalize said state(s) as well. Also, due to the fact that just about every state has federal buildings/land those federal workers would officially be behind enemy lines. While I think this would never happen, due to land/population size I think it would turn the US into what Europe was in the early 1900's. I mean if you split the US into multiple territories you have a perfect storm.
The problem in the US is that the liberal population centers essentially HATE the rural ideals based on how people vote and the way people feel about eachother. Limiting of rights, etc. If anything multiple states would have to band together, and even then you have a huge problem. It would be the definition of clusterfuck. ETA: We would probably be better off if the US split into territories that way the states with similar ideals could protect those ideals from those who hate them. However, there is almost no way it could be peaceful. |