User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 10:54:56 AM EDT
[#1]
IBTP
IBTSS |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:01:11 AM EDT
[#2]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:05:38 AM EDT
[#3]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:06:18 AM EDT
[#4]
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).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:06:19 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:09:17 AM EDT
[#6]
They will be brought forcibly back into the Union, so the only way they can leave is if they can fight their way out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:10:10 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:13:20 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:16:00 AM EDT
[#9]
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) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:16:54 AM EDT
[#10]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:17:26 AM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:30:47 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
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.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:31:04 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:34:02 AM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:37:13 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:38:06 AM EDT
[#16]
Texas does.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:40:25 AM EDT
[#17]
I thought secessionist threads were on thursdays?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:41:51 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:43:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: 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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:43:33 AM EDT
[#20]
You guys can masturbate to the fantasy all you want. The fact remains, nobody is going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:47:33 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
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). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:50:33 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:54:50 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:55:03 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: 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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 12:00:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 12:08:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 12:54:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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%+)... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 12:58:06 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:00:42 PM EDT
[#29]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:03:52 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: 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.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:04:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: 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.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:05:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:06:44 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:08:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:08:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:16:29 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:21:49 PM EDT
[#37]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:22:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:22:41 PM EDT
[#39]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:22:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:25:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Somehow I just knew that statist/apoligist DaveA would be all over this like stink on shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:26:41 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: 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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:26:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:27:28 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:28:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:29:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:32:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:34:18 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:34:44 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:36:24 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
