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.
Ah the old collectivism argument. Are you from the USSR by any chance? That was how they did things there. If you wanted to emigrate, you had to apply, and they pretty much confiscated all your money and worldly possessions since you had used state schools, state roads, state jobs, and state street lights.
To take the example of Texas, however: Texans fought in great numbers in all the world wars and gave their lives to protect the nation. I don't think they or any particular person should owe the country anything if they want to secede and form a new nation.
The anti-secessionists keep saying, "don't let the door hit ya' on the way out!" which to me means, please just leave, because I would rather not have people around who disagree with me. You can't tell people to leave, but pay back some arbitrary debt at the same time -- that will just prevent them from leaving, and might in fact cause violence.
A few points to consider:
1) The Red States - you know, the ones complaining loud and long about the "evil gubermint" - in nearly all cases take more money from the Federal government than they pay in taxes. So, they have no right to complain, though it's just more of the usual "I don't want to pay taxes!" nonsense. Of course, when disaster hits them, such as the Colorado floods, they want relief money, but when it hits somebody else, such as hurricane Sandy - which Colorado Republicans voted against, it's more of the usual "they should just move someplace else!" BS, or perhaps "who cares since just a bunch of Democrats lost their homes." Again, more of the same - gimme my money, but if you want your fair share, you're not a "real 'merican!' who "pulls themselves up by their bootstraps!"
2) With regard to secession, I'll say it again - I have yet to see a single secession movement in this nation based on anything other than bigoted ignorance - more guns, less of "those people," and no taxes! Again on the news today there was much noise about how a bunch of rural, western Maryland counties want to form their own state. Now, I have no love for the far-left tax-and-spend loonies in charge of Maryland, but their motivations are - as usual - disgusting.
If you don't like your state, leave. Or, work to change it. But simply trying to break away from the "evil government" to create your own nation (which will need it's own government...) just to try to regress to the 1850's in overall values and level of education and understanding is just pathetic.
3) Quite frankly, America does not need a gun-loving, xenophobic, theocratic "New Confederacy" on its border... Oh, and what of the people who live in those states who DON'T want to secede? Why do they have to move - and try to return to the actual nation of America - vs. the selfish secessionists just moving out of the "evil blue states?"
Of course, I'm sure all of "those people" would be allowed to leave the New Confederacy unmolested...you know, like how slaves were allowed to leave the Old Confederacy... oh, wait... nevermind... Well, the Tea Party is nothing if not tolerant of others and surely wouldn't pass laws to oppress anyone who's different once they formed their own nation... oh, my mistake again...
Right - we all know what would actually happen if the far-right got their way and formed their own little New Confederacy. We already fought one war against those types of people on our soil - and several wars overseas against like-minded bigots - so I don't think we should allow it happen yet again.
What is a fracking nation to begin with but a collective? What is a seceded state but a collective? What does UNITED, Confederation or union mean in your dictionary?
Quote:
To take the example of Texas, however: Texans fought in great numbers in all the world wars and gave their lives to protect the nation.
There would have been no Texas without the rest of the United States insuring its independence and allowing it the security of being a part of the United States (see Mexican abrogation of the Treaty of f Velasco the Mexican-American War and final Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo)
Quote:
The anti-secessionists keep saying, "don't let the door hit ya' on the way out!" which to me means, please just leave, because I would rather not have people around who disagree with me. You can't tell people to leave, but pay back some arbitrary debt at the same time -- that will just prevent them from leaving, and might in fact cause violence.
Excuse me? What is the basis of the secessionist argument, WE DON'T AGREE THAT ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES so WE are going to take our ball and go home. The problem is, as I outlined before, YOU DON'T HAVE A BALL. You can go since you disagree with the majority of the country and most folks will be happy to see you go since you can't seem to play well with others, but the ball belongs to the People of the United States, i.e., the territory that you are under the false impression that you have ownership over, you don't.
Texas secession actually-kinda-sorta makes sense, as long as certain conditions are met.
============================================
For starters the new Lone Star Nation would have to either purchase or return all the US-government-furnished property, equipment, supplies and weapons to Uncle Sam. This would range from Abrams tanks to bayonets, from large computer systems to desks and filing cabinets, and from CNC milling machines/lathes to wrenches and screwdrivers. They'd have to make arrangements to repatriate all the US military personnel, military dependents and Civil Service employees who wish to return home. This would close Dyess, Goodfellow, Lackland and Laughlin Air Force Bases and related facilities. It would close Forts Bliss, Hood and Sam Houston, and the Red River Army Depot. It would also close NAS Fort Worth JRB, NAS Corpus Christi and NAS Kingsville.
No nuclear weapons delivery systems are kept in Texas (anybody care to guess why? ), and no one wants to envision a future with yet another nuclear-armed nation (especially this one). Therefore, the Pantex Plant near Amarillo would have to be immediately closed, and every bit of nuclear equipment and material would have to be painstakingly inventoried, guarded, packed and returned to Uncle Sam.
The new Lone Star Nation would have to give up most of its DoD contracts. There are very strict regulations about having DoD contracts in foreign countries, and the necessary security clearances are typically only awarded to US citizens. There are exceptions, of course, but they are almost as rare as lips on a chicken.
That's just the public/government sector. There's also the private sector to be considered. Almost all of the high-tech manufacturing in the Lone Star Nation will have to be re-negotiated with the respective corporate offices, which are in California or the Northeast Corridor. They'll need to be very nice to the ones here in California, because all the commercial telecommunications satellites serving North America are owned & operated by California companies. Otherwise, the new nation might just find all their mud-wrestling, monster-truck, demolition-derby, hunting and fishing shows replaced by Yoga instruction and Depak Chopra marathons...
Then there's football, practically a religion in the new Lone Star Nation. The College Formerly Known as the University of Texas would be able to win its conference and national championships every year, because they'd be playing teams like Baylor, Rice, TCU and SMU instead of Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma and Notre Dame. The Dallas Cowboys would become the first team in the new Lone Star Football League, but they might have a little difficulty finding worthy opponents. Of course, a pretty big downside to both of these would be a significant loss of ticket and broadcast sales.
Then, after all this is completed, the Lone Star Nation would have to make some economic adjustments to compensate for the staggering decrease in revenue.
============================================
You see? Texas secession actually does kinda make sense -- for the rest of us. I join in on the hope that they don't let the door hit 'em on the way out. Seeing them limp off into the sunset with their Stetsons all crooked might take some of the fun out of it...
Texas secession actually-kinda-sorta makes sense, as long as certain conditions are met.
============================================
You see? Texas secession actually does kinda make sense -- for the rest of us. I join in on the hope that they don't let the door hit 'em on the way out. Seeing them limp off into the sunset with their Stetsons all crooked might take some of the fun out of it...
Lol - agreed!
The secessionists live in their own little worlds. They are the same types who believe that they are "entirely self-made people," while cursing the "high" salaries of the people who educated them in school, moaning about having to pay taxes that maintain the roads and other services they use every day, and complaining loud and long about "evil government not listening" while eagerly seeking to sign away their freedoms to the first unaccountable corporation that comes along because exploitation is okay so long as it makes my stocks go up!
The fundamental basis for any secessionist movement in this nation is that certain people simply doesn't want to live in the modern world. They want to roll time back to the 1850's: get "those people" back where they belong, live on "the family farm" where they "wouldn't pay taxes," and "not have no government tell them what to do" - oh, and guns - lots of guns, so when "the killing time happens," they'll be ready to live our their righteous patriot murder fantasies. It is a basic rejection of every step forward humanity has taken in the past 100+ years - that's really all it is. Because if it were simply about varied political leanings while still functioning within the nation, they could just move to a place that better suited them as countless people do every year without making trouble for everyone around them.
The problem for the secessionists is that there's no part of America where it is: okay to treat "those people" like slaves again, where it is acceptable to waltz around in public with an assault rifle and threaten to kill people for fun, where it is acceptable to replace science with a book of myths (but only your religion's myths, of course!), or where it is okay to simply refuse to pay your taxes if you don't like the fact that your tax money went to build a road you don't use. Since none of that ignorant behavior is acceptable here - and that's what's really wanted, as stated by several proud redneck secessionists that I unfortunately work with - they simply can't function in modern America. But I'd much rather they grow old and die off vs. creating their own backward, xenophobic, theocratic nation that only serves to undo every advancement humanity has made in the past 100+ years.
This is at least the third or fourth time that you've posted this same BS in response to a poster, myself included, who has disagreed with secession. Sorry if I don't believe that you don't have a RW agenda, but you aren't nearly as clever as you think you are.
Yeah, and I have had civil discourse in this thread with other people who are anti-secession. Maybe, just maybe, you few that I have to remind to answer questions and stay on topic, are the problem.
I encourage you to re-read the thread, I have been civil with those who disagree with me, but stay on topic and answer the questions asked.
Yeah, I am dismissive to posters who try to hijack the thread, why wouldn't I be?
Apparently you haven't seen the posts that I have relentlessly trashed the republican agenda in... but again, I don't think you actually read the posts.
Apparently you have forgotten or just chosen to ignore your original post.
I am at a loss as to why people freak out when somebody mentions secession.
What is the big issue with free people deciding who to associate with politically? If we are truly free, why do people support the use of violent force to keep the United States in it's present form?
So what are your problems with secession? And if you have a problem with secession, do you support violence to suppress a state or states efforts to secede?
I will once again take this one item at a time:
What is the big issue with free people deciding who to associate with politically
There isn't any issue with the premise that free people being able to decide who they will associate with politically, as long as it is the People, not just some of the people who are doing the deciding.
If we are truly free, why do people support the use of violent force to keep the United States in it's present form?
Because some faction of the people have no moral, political, or legal claim to a nations sovereign territory without the permission of the sovereign nation that such territory is being expropriated. And just as any nation has a right to defend its national borders from a foreign invader it has the same right and obligation to defend its national integrity.
So what are your problems with secession?
I don't have a "problem" with secession on a purely theoretical or philosophical basis. But despite your best wishes, the issue is first and foremost a legal question. Nation states are legal entities, and this is especially true for democratic republics. The United States as a legal entity is governed by the U.S. Constitution which is a legal compact between the People of the United States, not the states, but the People. In order to dissolve this political entity requires that the parties to that compact agree to do so, not some part, not some state and this is especially true when that contract assumes that the contract is to be enforced in perpetuity.
Now folks that do not like living under the rules of the compact are more than free to change the rules or just leave but what they cannot do is leave and take those things that belong to nation as a whole. Texas does not belong exclusively to the people of Texas, New York does not belong exclusively to the citizens of New York, because "the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." We the People of the United States have invested in blood and treasure not only the development of the various states but have collectively defended them. When we pay our federal taxes our taxes do not go to just our state. When we build a road, damn a river, or erect a structure in a state we have collectively invested in that state for the good of the nation. Collective investment imparts collective ownership. You nor any group of secessionist have no right to assume ownership of that which is owned by the People.
You are free to secede, just leave the TV, the DVD player and whatever property that was the product of the union.
I thought you were done talking to me, we do not see eye to eye at all. Since you posted a select part of the OP, I would assume you would read it and realize that a majority of the questions are not specific to the United States, neither are the title of the thread, or the first line of the post.
I refer you to post #198 if you can't understand that.
Notice that a majority of the questions that you just answered are not specific to a nation... and you left out some questions as well.
Since you posted a select part of the OP, I would assume you would read it and realize that a majority of the questions are not specific to the United States, neither are the title of the thread, or the first line of the post.
Notice that a majority of the questions that you just answered are not specific to a nation... and you left out some questions as well.
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
I am at a loss as to why people freak out when somebody mentions secession.
What is the big issue with free people deciding who to associate with politically? If we are truly free, why do people support the use of violent force to keep the United States in it's present form?
Throughout history both ancient and modern the trend is consistent of countries and empires breaking into smaller more numerous political designations, this tends to lead to governments that are more responsive to the local populations.
Most of the time, when secession is brought up, the nay-sayers link it to the confederacy and racism, and why not, it is an easy cop-out. Truth is there are many regions in the United States which could benefit by not being ruled by D.C., often a city a thousand miles away. The Cascadia region could benefit by controlling itself, so could Texas or New England. This is not a southern racist conservative issue, like many like to paint it to be.
So what are your problems with secession? And if you have a problem with secession, do you support violence to suppress a state or states efforts to secede?
Three of your five paragraphs make reference to the U.S. Only the first introductory sentence and the expository third sentence was of a general nature. You can bs yourself, just don't try to bs me and everyone else who has addressed your question, answers that you seem incapable of addressing without ad hominem attacks, red herrings and straw man arguments.
Three of your five paragraphs make reference to the U.S. Only the first introductory sentence and the expository third sentence was of a general nature. You can bs yourself, just don't try to bs me and everyone else who has addressed your question, answers that you seem incapable of addressing without ad hominem attacks, red herrings and straw man arguments.
Oh my god, read post #198.
REFERENECING SOMETHING IN A POST DOES NOT MAKE THE POST ABOUT THE REFERENCE.
If you don't like the rules of the thread that I created, create your own. I do not want to have a conversation about partisan politics or legalese, I have been consistent about that since the beginning. I have made it abundantly clear that I am not interested in a conversation about partisan politics and legalese, and you guys keep going: "Nuh,uh. You mentioned the United States, so you MUST want to talk about partisan politics, and legalese."
Basic Paragraph Structure This is a link to a paper on basic paragraph structure... you see, the title and first sentence/heading are intended to be the main point, and the rest expands on that.
So let's recap.
Title of thread: Why such resistance to secession? - not nation specific, and the main point of the thread as it is the title.
First sentence/heading: I am at a loss as to why people freak out when somebody mentions secession. - non nation specific.
Q1.
What is the big issue with free people deciding who to associate with politically? non nation specific.
Q2. If we are truly free, why do people support the use of violent force to keep the United States in it's present form? - This question mentions the United States, but is a moral and philosophical question that can not be answered in partisan politics or legalese.
Q4. So what are your problems with secession? - non nation specific.
Q5. And if you have a problem with secession, do you support violence to suppress a state or states efforts to secede? - non nation specific.
Those are all 4 of the questions contained in the body of the post, and ONE mentions the United States, so 1 out of 4 if you don't count the title of the thread, if you do, 1 out of 5.
Now, that you have been proven wrong on this again... Please, I am begging you, stop trying to hijack my thread. You would think that any adult who wanted to clarify what I intended would just ask me, not try to tell me what I meant.
Isn't it less childish to stop arguing about the OP and make your own thread specific to one nation about partisan politics and legalese?
You quoted my post, but apparently did not read it at all. I never said I want to secede, but unlike you, if someone did, I would not respond violently towards them. You see, I am not a psychopath who thinks that he owns other people and the land that they inhabit.
You openly promote killing and stealing from people who are Americans now, should they decide that they don't want to associate with you anymore, that is sick.
So you would have opposed the war of yankee aggression? No blood for cotton, after all.
So you would have opposed the war of yankee aggression? No blood for cotton, after all.
Yes I would have opposed it. And no, that does not make me a slave owner or a racist, ha ha. If people are willing to fight a war over secession, I will usually side with the people who are fighting for the right to rule themselves, not the people fighting to have control over other people.
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.
