Montana to Secede? (Helena, Lincoln: credit, agriculture, broker)

[grizzfan]

jimj:

I found the rationale that Mr. Radek used is one that apologists for the South frequently use to say that, after all, it was only about state's rights; Lincoln really didn't want to free the slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation was really only a trick. All of that is pure hogwash.

I am not going to recount the history of the factors leading up to the Civil War, its prosecution and the aftermath of the Reconstruction era for you - you can read for yourself from a wealth of available and accepted scholarly works on President Lincoln, Robert E Lee and other actors.

What really gravels my butt are those who see conspiracies behind every move our federal or state governments make. These people occupy both the Right and the Left. They exhibit symptoms of paranoia. "The government's out to get me - take my liberty away - I like to be up in the hills where no one can find me." You've read that stuff in this thread.

Coincidently, I just returned from a meeting of pretty sane, solid folks who asked a John Birch Society fellow to speak on an issue. It was the North American Union plan and how the structure and foundation of NAFTA was going make it happen and it will subvert our Constitution, put Ameros in our pocket and allow all Canadians and Mexicans to draw US Social Security while building a huge highway system from Mexico to Canada, and on, and on, and on. If that's not whacko to you then I cannot help. I thought for a minute I was reading this thread!!

Cheers.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by grizzfan

jimj:

I found the rationale that Mr. Radek used is one that apologists for the South frequently use to say that, after all, it was only about state's rights; Lincoln really didn't want to free the slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation was really only a trick. All of that is pure hogwash.

I am not going to recount the history of the factors leading up to the Civil War, its prosecution and the aftermath of the Reconstruction era for you - you can read for yourself from a wealth of available and accepted scholarly works on President Lincoln, Robert E Lee and other actors.

What really gravels my butt are those who see conspiracies behind every move our federal or state governments make. These people occupy both the Right and the Left. They exhibit symptoms of paranoia. "The government's out to get me - take my liberty away - I like to be up in the hills where no one can find me." You've read that stuff in this thread.

Coincidently, I just returned from a meeting of pretty sane, solid folks who asked a John Birch Society fellow to speak on an issue. It was the North American Union plan and how the structure and foundation of NAFTA was going make it happen and it will subvert our Constitution, put Ameros in our pocket and allow all Canadians and Mexicans to draw US Social Security while building a huge highway system from Mexico to Canada, and on, and on, and on. If that's not whacko to you then I cannot help. I thought for a minute I was reading this thread!!

Cheers.

Ok, I get what you're saying. I for one don't believe that the government or a black helecopter is waiting behind every bush or behind the ridge or that there are camps with train cars waiting to take us to re-education camps. I do believe that the people in the government are, for the most part self centered egomainiacs that are out for themselves and their buddies and will do/say ANYTHING to get elected.
I do think that big buisness has way too much say in what happens in D.C. and I don't believe that there is a concerted effort to burn the constitution. I do believe however that we are giving the feds a little too much "unchecked" power to do as they please, arrest who they please and seize what they please when they please. I think there has to be a balance between security and safety.
And that is why I'm not a real fan of the "realID" thing, I think that some of this is up to the states.

[grizzfan]

jimj:

We are starting to come together. However:

I do believe however that we are giving the feds a little too much "unchecked" power to do as they please, arrest who they please and seize what they please when they please. I think there has to be a balance between security and safety... ...I think that some of this is up to the states.

There was darn little the states of Mass & Virginia could do about the flights that took off on 9/11 at the time, and the Military District of Washington and NORAD was just as impotent. The war on global terrorism, by and large not supported by identifiable nations is nothing we've ever seen and for that reason was an inigma to our leadership. We may have to take it on faith, faith in our fore-fathers and the folks sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, that measures we may not totally understand will have to be implemented to defeat the amorphous thing called Islamic Fascism.

The checks are there. Congress passes the measures after careful debate. And the courts are there to determine constitutionality. I don't feel threatened by the process; and I don't need to secede to reclaim my rights, rights that I have not lost.

Cheers.

[Radek]

Originally Posted by grizzfan

jimj:

I found the rationale that Mr. Radek used is one that apologists for the South frequently use to say that, after all, it was only about state's rights; Lincoln really didn't want to free the slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation was really only a trick. All of that is pure hogwash.

I am not going to recount the history of the factors leading up to the Civil War, its prosecution and the aftermath of the Reconstruction era for you - you can read for yourself from a wealth of available and accepted scholarly works on President Lincoln, Robert E Lee and other actors.

What really gravels my butt are those who see conspiracies behind every move our federal or state governments make. These people occupy both the Right and the Left. They exhibit symptoms of paranoia. "The government's out to get me - take my liberty away - I like to be up in the hills where no one can find me." You've read that stuff in this thread.
Cheers.

Its hogwash?

"
The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America as did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named the specific states where it applied.
The Emancipation Proclamation was widely attacked at the time as freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power, but in practice, it committed the Union to ending slavery, which was controversial in the North. It was not a law passed by Congress, but a presidential order empowered, as Lincoln wrote, by his position as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.
The proclamation did not free any slaves in the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control. It first directly affected only those slaves that had already escaped to the Union side, but as the Union armies conquered the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census[1] ) were freed by July of 1865." From Wikipedia (Link: Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

It did commit the Union to ending slavery... But two things. 1) The civil war started in 1861, the first proclamation was made in 1862. AFTER the war had started. Thus, the war itself was not directly about slavery.

2) It did not immediately free slaves from states or parts of states under union control. Lincoln couldn't order this, even if he wanted to, because of the conterversial nature of the idea, would've swayed the border states to the confederacy.

Originally Posted by grizzfan

It's clear you have taken your rationale for the Civil War (and slavery) straight from those who believe in the white supremicist movement. Next you'll probably tell us that the holocaust never occured.

I am weary of you people that have invaded this great state and have polluted it with your whacko thoughts and beliefs. The depth of your paranoia cannot be measured by me but it's plain for all to read.

My family is jewish. Moderator cut: not warranted Don't make the mistake of my defending the ability of a state to secede, as me being right-wing, white supremacy bull****. Force is the LAST option, as any member of any armed or mediation force should be well aware of.


The paranoid do exist on both sides. And, I know plenty of the left, and right-wing paranoid and I rarely agree with either. I do agree however on several basic tenants.
1) Its the responsibility of us, the people, to keep OUR government in check.
2) At the time that we can no longer do so through the political system, we should be prepared to defend our rights.

I don't mind my government spying on people, and making this country a safer place. I DO have a problem with them thinking that we're all stupid enough that they can do it in plain sight, and erode freedoms granted to us by the constitution while we stare dumbfoundedly and ask, "Duhr... you means we cant has guns no more?! Aww. Shucks."

I have seen black helicopters over the horizon, but it was up at the canadian border on a routine fly-by. By no means do I think they are watching my every move, recording my every conversation. But I do believe that they have that power if they so choose.

Originally Posted by grizzfan

There was darn little the states of Mass & Virginia could do about the flights that took off on 9/11 at the time, and the Military District of Washington and NORAD was just as impotent. The war on global terrorism, by and large not supported by identifiable nations is nothing we've ever seen and for that reason was an inigma to our leadership. We may have to take it on faith, faith in our fore-fathers and the folks sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, that measures we may not totally understand will have to be implemented to defeat the amorphous thing called Islamic Fascism.

I don't feel threatened by the process; and I don't need to secede to reclaim my rights, rights that I have not lost.

Cheers.

What does any of this conversation have to do with 9/11? I thought it was originally about Montana's letter stating that we'll secede if anyone takes away our ability to own guns. The RealID is another step of government intrusion that really doesn't make sense to me.


The process is great. Its a phenomenal process. Its the way that special interest groups rule our political landscape that annoys me. The way that the oil companies can contribute to politician's campaigns and essentially 'buy' votes. These people are not upholding the constitution. They are acting of their own wishes and their own desires. This is why the Supreme Court Justice nominations are so important, is that each one of them has a tremendous amount of power to interpret the intent of a written document, with their OWN intent.



And, in taking away guns. The reason why so many people get so afraid, is because every year we celebrate the day we declared independence, and then fought for that right with our weapons. Its the fact that we, as a nation, were formed under fire. When ANYONE talks to anyone about removing that right, it brings up the thought, "You want to make it easier to rule me?" Thats why people get so afraid, and particularly in states like Montana, Wyoming, etc which are mostly rural communities... most of the people are not aware that the federal government does much more than take some of their money, and gives them some farm subsidies. In many ways, the federal government is a foreign government. Particularly if their views do not reflect that of the rest of the nation.

And as a state of less than 1 million people, we don't command much of a voice in D.C. So, we make threats and pose and act all tough. The reason is because we know that trying the normal methods won't work.


One more comment about my mental health though, and I'm going to start taking it personally.

[grizzfan]

Radek says:

One more comment about my mental health though, and I'm going to start taking it personally.

Be my guest.

[ElkHunter]

Let's settle down and get back on track, or I'll simply shut the thread down.

Things are getting a little personal here.

[Radek]

Thanks Elk.

[Radek]

To clarify my comment Grizz:

I have absolutely no problem with you disagreeing with my opinion. Thats why I love this country, we have the ability and freedom to do so.

[grizzfan]

Elkhunter, WILCO, out.

[rangerider]

I kind of feel like I'm bringing a knife to a gunfight here, and the fight's already gone. But since I just wrote a letter to our governor on this subject, I feel like I've got to chime in.

BTW, thanks to all of you on this thread, good discussion, lots to ruminate on.

Look, anyone with any gray in their beard has seen political posturing before. This time is no different, but I think that some noise is better than no noise at all. While we certainly have people here who do bear watching, most of us are average citizens with perhaps an extra degree of watchfulness and desire to have more than average independence. That being said, I think it would be an interesting scenario indeed if the feds said, "Okay, you want sucession, have at it!" Like the other states, we are constantly at the trough of federal dollars, and fear of losing that would cow even the most fervent policymaker in Helena or Washington. Like ElkHunter and GoingHome2TX said, we are way dependent on those funds, and we aren't a self-sustaining state anyway.

As to how it ties in with Real ID, I would agree that nationally we may be behind in security, but the big bear in the RealID room with me is the potential for abuse. I have had my ID lifted twice, both by outfits that have all kinds of protections in place. Subsequently my info is scattered to who knows where, and I have to basically observe a very expensive and time-consuming lifelong process of open-range law - fencing the bull out of my pasture. Ever been chased by one? I have, and it really doesn't matter whether they get all of you or just a part, you still hurt. And occasionally you compromise your safety just trying to get away. Not to mention your dignity. I have no faith whatsoever that the privacy of that card's contents will be respected, nor the potential RFID capabilities not exploited. As grizzfan said, an ID that identifies me and what I can drive, fly, gain access to, or etc. I don't have a problem with. The problem lies with the increasing level of technology that allows the imbed of much more than that, and therein lies the increasing potential for abuse. Nary a year, or for that matter, a month goes by that we don't find out someone somewhere has taken a soft database or laptop and sold a bunch of information down the pike, and not always for something as innocuous as advertising and telemarketers. We used to take it as a given that our government, businesses, banks, etc. we provided information to would guard it well. Now we know that although they might have the best intentions, such is not the case.

Now according to what I understand, I'm going to be over the age limit on what they consider dangerous enough to warrant having a new ID. What they haven't told me yet is that I'll have to have one anyway because of the HAZMAT endorsement on my commercial license. So unless I'm prepared to secede from my job, I'm reasonably certain that I'm going to be stuck in one fashion or another. Much like our state's situation, I imagine. But I'll probably still make noise about it, and figure a way to keep it just a card and not an RFID marker that tracks my goings and comings. You can hack cell phones to quiet the GPS in them, so someone will figure the cards, too.

OK, said my peace, thread goes back to the big guns....