Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.
~General Douglas MacArthur's Farewell Speech Given to the Corps of Cadets at West Point May 12, 1962~
There are a lot of obvious stupidities in these pro seccession posts.
1, they assume for some unknown reason that they will still be Americans if they leave the USA. They wouldn't be. They would be citizens of whatever they decide to call their new country.
2, there are very few states that would be capable of making it on their own in just so many areas. For you that are pro, just give me an example of a state that would be viable as a sovereign country. There are actually a couple but they would face incredible difficulties.
3, would any country in the world other than Russia and China recognize this new entity? Well in reality all the countrys of the world that really hate the USA would be lining up to establish diplomatic relations.
4, would the new countrys currency be worth anything at all??? I doubt it and in fact this new country would likely have to use the USD and that is half the reason they want to leave in the first place.
5, Where will this new country get the capital to develop their economy and resources? They will get it alright and they will be treated just like all the other third world capital dependent countrys are. The USA will be able to extract the max and give back nothing but a couple of $texass bucks per hour for all the workers.
6, who is going to defend these new countrys? In the case of Texas, in 10 years they would be undistingushable from the rest of Mexico. So, if they get into it with Mexico are they going to expect the US military to bail them out???? Probably because the common denominator of these kinds of folks is they alway want their cake and eat it too.
1. Yes- that is the point. Who cares about a name. Call it "Pink Floyd"- as long as it not a social democracy which sells votes for treats and spends the nation into insolvency.
2. Texas could make it on its own. When Texas breaks away, a corridor west of the Mississippi, east of the Rockies (with probably Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Utah included) and north to the Canadian border would be formed. It would have most of the agriculture, energy, water, and land based nukes. It would have an ocean port.
3. MANY countries would help this new nation (there would probably be 4-5 new nations). I would expect, if needed, some nations would provide military assistence (probably not required).
4. The new nation's currency would be worth more than the US dollar at that time. A "fiat currency" would probably be pegged to another currency (such as the Yuan) and backed in a fractional componant by gold. How do you think new currencies start?
5. The new nation would have most of the resources and capital from the old US- nearly all of the energy, most of the ag, a good deal of the water, and land based nukes.
6. Who would defend the new country? Thier military. This would be formed around existing national guard units from the states as well as US military personnel who broke away with the nation. Militias could fill in the gaps.
As a matter of fact, such a nation would probably immediately be the number two or three economy in the world.
1. Yes- that is the point. Who cares about a name. Call it "Pink Floyd"- as long as it not a social democracy which sells votes for treats and spends the nation into insolvency.
2. Texas could make it on its own. When Texas breaks away, a corridor west of the Mississippi, east of the Rockies (with probably Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Utah included) and north to the Canadian border would be formed. It would have most of the agriculture, energy, water, and land based nukes. It would have an ocean port.
3. MANY countries would help this new nation (there would probably be 4-5 new nations). I would expect, if needed, some nations would provide military assistence (probably not required).
4. The new nation's currency would be worth more than the US dollar at that time. A "fiat currency" would probably be pegged to another currency (such as the Yuan) and backed in a fractional componant by gold. How do you think new currencies start?
5. The new nation would have most of the resources and capital from the old US- nearly all of the energy, most of the ag, a good deal of the water, and land based nukes.
6. Who would defend the new country? Thier military. This would be formed around existing national guard units from the states as well as US military personnel who broke away with the nation. Militias could fill in the gaps.
As a matter of fact, such a nation would probably immediately be the number two or three economy in the world.
This sounds like such a fairy tale. You know which countries would be interested in helping your Awesome New Country? America's enemies. Good luck with that and let us know how it works out. How are you going to pay your military and for the weapons needed? Why do you assume an unstable, new nation's currency would be stronger than the dollar or any other currency? Who says those other states will (a) break away with Texas and (b) be on Texas's side?
I was looking at the petitions earlier today, and took a look at my state's (New Hampshire) petition. I noticed that few of the signatures were from people who actually live in New Hampshire. For fun, I took a few minutes and did a search for "NH" in the petition.
Out of the 4,238 signatures at the time of my search, of those who listed a location, only 359 were actually from people allegedly living in New Hampshire.
Er, shouldn't a petition for a state to secede from the United States actually only be from the residents of that state? What am I missing here?
Yeah I wouldn't expect a response from the keyboard warriors...I mean secessionists.
Suddenly an anonymous petition is the clarion call for revolution, if only the Founding Fathers had the internet.
1. Yes- that is the point. Who cares about a name. Call it "Pink Floyd"- as long as it not a social democracy which sells votes for treats and spends the nation into insolvency.
2. Texas could make it on its own. When Texas breaks away, a corridor west of the Mississippi, east of the Rockies (with probably Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Utah included) and north to the Canadian border would be formed. It would have most of the agriculture, energy, water, and land based nukes. It would have an ocean port.
3. MANY countries would help this new nation (there would probably be 4-5 new nations). I would expect, if needed, some nations would provide military assistence (probably not required).
4. The new nation's currency would be worth more than the US dollar at that time. A "fiat currency" would probably be pegged to another currency (such as the Yuan) and backed in a fractional componant by gold. How do you think new currencies start?
5. The new nation would have most of the resources and capital from the old US- nearly all of the energy, most of the ag, a good deal of the water, and land based nukes.
6. Who would defend the new country? Thier military. This would be formed around existing national guard units from the states as well as US military personnel who broke away with the nation. Militias could fill in the gaps.
As a matter of fact, such a nation would probably immediately be the number two or three economy in the world.
If you think for one minute that the USA would leave one single bullet let alone nuclear weapons to such an entity you are living in some alternate universe.
The country would have zero capital. It has no currency, no credit and a lot of debts to pay to the federal government for all of the federal properties and infrastructure that they would have to pay for in their territory.
Something tells me you have not travelled much in this territory. If you had you would know there is not much ag in this dry land. By the way, the country would be very short of WATER.
You plan to tie the currency to the Chinese??? LOL
You make a very big mistake if you think the people from Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Utah want to join Texas. LOL.
Now, there is a very good case for Montana, Wyoming, ND, SD, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Minnesota leaving the union and joining Canada!!!! In that case there is no doubt at all they would become the best country in the world!
Remember when these same folks use to tell protesters "Love it or leave it"? I guess they can only love an America that has a white male president? So much for patriotism.
Why are liberals so eager to carve up Israel when they demand a Palestinian state but they don't want to see the same thing done to the US?
It's not going to happen overnight -- same with the breakup of Soviet Union, it didn't all happen in one or two days - it's a gradual process but it can go quite fast once the ball starts rolling.
Obama is The Great Divider - he is unwilling to compromise, he can only demand the other side does all the compromising. It's doubtful this country will still be intact 4 years from now.
Just a bunch of babies tormented by the success of this incredible Black man as President of the United States. President Obama shatters their backwards stereotypes, sending their narrow-minded worlds into a tailspin, and this is what I believe is at the core of this very childish move. The "tea party" didn't work for them. Congressional obstructionism didn't work. GOP SuperPACS failed. FOX was wrong. Red states were wrong. McConnell was wrong. Boehner was wrong. Tea party was wrong. Congressional Republicans were wrong. Cheney was wrong. Polls were wrong. Romney was wrong. Ryan was wrong. Starting another Civil War wouldn't work. Creating a "ground coffee party" was not a good idea. Fearful, unable and unwilling to join us in the 21st century, acting and crying like babies seems to be their only response. Quite pathetic and a meaningless gesture.
Frankly, they collectively represent a baby sitting in a crib who has soiled himself, and is screaming for attention.
Under President Obama, the country will continue to move FORWARD, with or without this hapless segment. CHANGE!
I am a hardcore progressive who is to the left of that corporate owned numbskull Obama. But still, as a believer in personally freedom and self determination, I can't help but be okay with states leaving the union if they so choose. After all, America is nothing but a smashed together collection of nations covering a massive territory, and the only thing we really have in common is a shared federal government that most of us, both left and right, can't stand.
Now, places like Texas have folks asking to talk about secession. The result? Every anti-freedom fascist is up and arms screaming about how we can't let the Empire allow a little thing like Democracy to get in its way. Folks are preaching how Alabama and Vermont are exactly the same, and hence there is no reason to secede and how the way of life and values in Oklahoma is the same as it is in Washington state. They are all running around saying how bad secession is. But the worst part is these same people against ending the USSA are the first to say good bye when an individual tries to leave the Empire!
This makes no sense what so ever. I mean, if a person leaves the USA, that is secession! If I learned Danish and moved to Denmark, why oh why wouldn't an apologist for the Empire demand that I, an American citizen, be stopped, beaten, and sentenced to a labor camp?
America, like any nation, is, essentially, the sum of its parts (its citizens) and if the said citizens want to leave, then that is secession. What oh what is the difference between a million citizens leaving and settling in New Zealand or some other free county and a million citizens in Vermont breaking away and setting up their own free country?
If you are really so pro-Empire, stop beating around the bush. Just suggest we build a wall around the Empire Berlin style and revoke all passports, least people try to flee.
That ultimately, is what anti-secessionist statism is: hatred of people making decisions for themselves. I for one would be more than okay with Texas or anywhere else seceding, as it is their lives. Just as Estonia is doing better without the USSR, Texas may well do better without the USSA. Just as Tibet would do better without China oppressing it, Washington and Oregon and Northern California would do better without the USA oppressing them.
And yet the same people who think a Washingtonian asking for an independent state in the Pacific North West is crazy would be the same people having no issues with that same Washingtonian permanently moving to Holland
I just don't get it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bunch of babies who are screaming for pacifiers
. They are all running around saying how bad secession is. But the worst part is these same people against ending the USSA are the first to say good bye when an individual tries to leave the Empire! 
