If Your State Seceded

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Why is the endurance of a union so important?[/quote]

Why is the endurance of a State so important? Why is the endurance of a human being so important? Things that exist strive to continue existing.

Also, because we as Americans enjoy hegemonic status, unparalleled prosperity and security, and singular international influence as a direct result of our federal organization. I’d love to see all of the people with their heads up their asses in rural bumfuck states that talk about secession as if it is a viable political maneuver after a few years of trying to fare in geopolitics of and for themselves. Good luck to the 40 states without a primate city.

Although if the South had been allowed to secede in the 19th century, the United states of America today would be far less obese and far more educated as a country. Statistically, that is.[/quote]

Yes, “more educated” by propaganda…statistically, that is.[/quote]

Please do cite this statistic of yours.[/quote]

And site yours showing how things would have turned out if the south had won the war.[/quote]

That was not my statistic, obviously, because that stat doesn’t exist. Mine was the simple following calculation: Southern states are responsible for a disproportionate amount of both obesity and low education in America. The worst states for both cna be found in the South. Therefore, if the South were to secede today, the US’ stats on obesity and education would immediately improve.

It is undeniable and true, but it is entirely a joke. I like to kid the South. In reality I wouldn’t let you loveable bastards go, even if you tried.[/quote]

My definition of a loving husband:

Dahling, God you are fat and stupid, but iof you leave my I will fucking kill you.

And they say that romance is dead.

edited

82

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
I am not american, but it cant hurt to see this from an europeen perspective.

If my country where to join EU( god forbid ), I would like for my country to be able to go out of that
union without the threat of being invaded by EU. I know that EU and USA is not completly the same thing, but they are similar enough. The problem with a “super” state above all the states in a union/federation is
that its takes power further away from the people. If a state have more autonomy from Brussel or DC, its
citizens have more influence over theire own lifes, becuase its easyer to influence a government thats closer to you than it is to influence the bureacrats and politicians in Brussel or the federalgovernment in DC thats far away and bigger. So summa sumarum I would probably side with my state( norway ).
[/quote]

?!?

Y U not know that EU has secession clause?

Methinks we need a throwout clause too, those PIIGS start to become a tad expensive.

[/quote]

Didnt know that.

83

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Finally, I agree with you. That is why I am all about me and side with no state.[/quote]

I really don’t care. You’re uninteresting. Please stop quoting my posts.[/quote]

Only because you ask nicely…now I have to.

84

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
I am not american, but it cant hurt to see this from an europeen perspective.

If my country where to join EU( god forbid ), I would like for my country to be able to go out of that
union without the threat of being invaded by EU. I know that EU and USA is not completly the same thing, but they are similar enough. The problem with a “super” state above all the states in a union/federation is
that its takes power further away from the people. If a state have more autonomy from Brussel or DC, its
citizens have more influence over theire own lifes, becuase its easyer to influence a government thats closer to you than it is to influence the bureacrats and politicians in Brussel or the federalgovernment in DC thats far away and bigger. So summa sumarum I would probably side with my state( norway ).
[/quote]

?!?

Y U not know that EU has secession clause?

Methinks we need a throwout clause too, those PIIGS start to become a tad expensive.

[/quote]

Didnt know that.[/quote]

Treaty of Lissabon.

85

Carolina BBQ is the best…there I said it.

86

Also, if you hand her over, you are free to leave.

87

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Carolina BBQ is the best…there I said it.[/quote]

Well, they are better than texas at least.

Don’t worry texans, texas chili is the best.

88

Yhea I know its a difference, that`s why I said it in my original post.
Still it is a similarity between Eu and Usa even thou they are not identical. Some folks in Europa even wants to give the Eu government its own military and constitution and if they get that, Eu is even more similar to the US.

Its Norway btw not Sweden, but I am nitpicking. Norway split from a union with Sweden 106 years ago.

I get your point about feeling more close to a country with you own language etc.

Okay that`s a fair question.

If I would support my county or commune if it did split from Norway depends on the reasons for doing so and the practicality of doing so, but I would not support the Norwegian state “right” to invade and/or kill people in that county/commune for trying to separate themself from the country.

This totally depends on the situation for me. I would never join the Norwegian army to invade another country or part of my country. If I where in a situation where the state attacked my county/commune I would probably join a militia for the purpose of defending my fellow man, or I would get the hell out of there.

89

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
As a Southerner I must confess that Mr. Lincoln was right: There is a very clear cut way for any State to leave. A bill is introduced into Congress, 2/3 majority passes it and out they go. The South violated due process of law.
[/quote]

Why does a state need to ask for permission to leave a union it no longer wants to be a part of?[/quote]

Because they agreed to uphold the law of the land. They cannot simply break the law if they feel like it anymore than a citizen can simply decide it is legal for them to rob banks. Lincoln was a lawyer and was a good one. His assessment of what the South did and what it meant for the US = the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is void if a State so chooses, was quite correct.

Had the South introduced a bill that allowed all of them to leave as a block then they would have had the voting clout to pull it off. There was no reason for succession the way they did it.

– jj

90

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, u no have to worry, Texas will prolly sell you their BBQ sauces anyway, a resource of vital importance, I think we can all agree.[/quote]

No argument there. If not I would not hesitate to lead a military operation for the purpose of securing such a resource of vital national importance.[/quote]

Texas is sub par bar-b-que. There I said it.[/quote]

A guy from Tennessee is one of the few people who can make this statement and be taken seriously. BBQ in those parts is fucking amazing.[/quote]

I would take Tennesse bbq over Texas bbq any day. Back to topic- I may be missing something but what power would a state have to succeed or revolt? Other than a citizen militia? Wouldnt the natl. military take care of such revolts fairly quickly?[/quote]

I agree. If the nation were split down the middle and the military split with it, that would be a very different story. But as long as the US military is intact and on a side, that side wins.

91

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
As a Southerner I must confess that Mr. Lincoln was right: There is a very clear cut way for any State to leave. A bill is introduced into Congress, 2/3 majority passes it and out they go. The South violated due process of law.
[/quote]

Why does a state need to ask for permission to leave a union it no longer wants to be a part of?[/quote]

Because they agreed to uphold the law of the land. They cannot simply break the law if they feel like it anymore than a citizen can simply decide it is legal for them to rob banks. Lincoln was a lawyer and was a good one. His assessment of what the South did and what it meant for the US = the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is void if a State so chooses, was quite correct.

Had the South introduced a bill that allowed all of them to leave as a block then they would have had the voting clout to pull it off. There was no reason for succession the way they did it.

– jj[/quote]

Like British citizens in the US colonies were sworn to the crown? Or how the writers of the constitution disobeyed their legal commission by throwing out the articles of confederation?

92

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
As a Southerner I must confess that Mr. Lincoln was right: There is a very clear cut way for any State to leave. A bill is introduced into Congress, 2/3 majority passes it and out they go. The South violated due process of law.
[/quote]

Why does a state need to ask for permission to leave a union it no longer wants to be a part of?[/quote]

Because they agreed to uphold the law of the land. They cannot simply break the law if they feel like it anymore than a citizen can simply decide it is legal for them to rob banks. Lincoln was a lawyer and was a good one. His assessment of what the South did and what it meant for the US = the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is void if a State so chooses, was quite correct.

Had the South introduced a bill that allowed all of them to leave as a block then they would have had the voting clout to pull it off. There was no reason for succession the way they did it.

– jj[/quote]

If a slave no longer wants to be a slave he still must follow “the law”.

And besides, no one agreed to live by any law…why should I be held accountable for something my ancestors did? Seems kind of primitive to me.

93

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I agree. If the nation were split down the middle and the military split with it, that would be a very different story. But as long as the US military is intact and on a side, that side wins.[/quote]

Couple things here- at the time of our Civil War, the military was very small, and also located predominantly out west.

However, the existing military was VERY split, and many of its best leaders went South- in effect, beheading the snake before it could strike. It took several years for solid Union leaders to emerge.

And if there’s one thing that we’ve learned in the past 70 years that we didn’t know really back then - it’s that the size and strength of the military does not necessarily connotate a victory. The war wouldn’t be fought by standing armies as it was back then…it would be fought by guerrilla tactics, much more in the fashion of Vietnam.

94

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, u no have to worry, Texas will prolly sell you their BBQ sauces anyway, a resource of vital importance, I think we can all agree.[/quote]

No argument there. If not I would not hesitate to lead a military operation for the purpose of securing such a resource of vital national importance.[/quote]

Texas is sub par bar-b-que. There I said it.[/quote]

A guy from Tennessee is one of the few people who can make this statement and be taken seriously. BBQ in those parts is fucking amazing.[/quote]

I would take Tennesse bbq over Texas bbq any day. Back to topic- I may be missing something but what power would a state have to succeed or revolt? Other than a citizen militia? Wouldnt the natl. military take care of such revolts fairly quickly?[/quote]

I agree. If the nation were split down the middle and the military split with it, that would be a very different story. But as long as the US military is intact and on a side, that side wins.[/quote]

Really?

All it takes around 30% of people to sympathize with the insurgents and they are thoroughly fucked.

95

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I agree. If the nation were split down the middle and the military split with it, that would be a very different story. But as long as the US military is intact and on a side, that side wins.[/quote]

Couple things here- at the time of our Civil War, the military was very small, and also located predominantly out west.

However, the existing military was VERY split, and many of its best leaders went South- in effect, beheading the snake before it could strike. It took several years for solid Union leaders to emerge.

And if there’s one thing that we’ve learned in the past 70 years that we didn’t know really back then - it’s that the size and strength of the military does not necessarily connotate a victory. The war wouldn’t be fought by standing armies as it was back then…it would be fought by guerrilla tactics, much more in the fashion of Vietnam.[/quote]

And in an urban environment, where US cizizens would for the first time encounter a nervous military that cannot tell friend from foe from bystander…

Then we wait for the first photos of random people who were snatched from the streets and beaten to a pulp, excuse me, interrogated, IEDs not long after that, political assassinations, the gloves really come off when it comes to things like they patriot act and the average American will have to ask permission to take a piss…

The whole notion that a military or a government can hold on to power when it has a sizeable and determined part of the population against it is ludicrous.

96

My state has seceded…

97

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I agree. If the nation were split down the middle and the military split with it, that would be a very different story. But as long as the US military is intact and on a side, that side wins.[/quote]

Couple things here- at the time of our Civil War, the military was very small, and also located predominantly out west.

However, the existing military was VERY split, and many of its best leaders went South- in effect, beheading the snake before it could strike. It took several years for solid Union leaders to emerge.

And if there’s one thing that we’ve learned in the past 70 years that we didn’t know really back then - it’s that the size and strength of the military does not necessarily connotate a victory. The war wouldn’t be fought by standing armies as it was back then…it would be fought by guerrilla tactics, much more in the fashion of Vietnam.[/quote]

And in an urban environment, where US cizizens would for the first time encounter a nervous military that cannot tell friend from foe from bystander…

Then we wait for the first photos of random people who were snatched from the streets and beaten to a pulp, excuse me, interrogated, IEDs not long after that, political assassinations, the gloves really come off when it comes to things like they patriot act and the average American will have to ask permission to take a piss…

The whole notion that a military or a government can hold on to power when it has a sizeable and determined part of the population against it is ludicrous.

[/quote]

How many countries do you think would support a revolt against the US government?

98

[quote]orion wrote:
And in an urban environment, where US cizizens would for the first time encounter a nervous military that cannot tell friend from foe from bystander…

Then we wait for the first photos of random people who were snatched from the streets and beaten to a pulp, excuse me, interrogated, IEDs not long after that, political assassinations, the gloves really come off when it comes to things like they patriot act and the average American will have to ask permission to take a piss…

The whole notion that a military or a government can hold on to power when it has a sizeable and determined part of the population against it is ludicrous.

[/quote]

It would be ugly. The US military would not just be killing very small yellow people or Islamic fundamentalists wearing their garb… it would be everyday American citizens, and there could be no dehumanization.

I think it would take on a character of the conflict in Northern Ireland, although consistently more violent and bloody.

99

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
As a Southerner I must confess that Mr. Lincoln was right: There is a very clear cut way for any State to leave. A bill is introduced into Congress, 2/3 majority passes it and out they go. The South violated due process of law.
[/quote]

Why does a state need to ask for permission to leave a union it no longer wants to be a part of?[/quote]

Because they agreed to uphold the law of the land. They cannot simply break the law if they feel like it anymore than a citizen can simply decide it is legal for them to rob banks. Lincoln was a lawyer and was a good one. His assessment of what the South did and what it meant for the US = the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is void if a State so chooses, was quite correct.

Had the South introduced a bill that allowed all of them to leave as a block then they would have had the voting clout to pull it off. There was no reason for succession the way they did it.

– jj[/quote]

If a slave no longer wants to be a slave he still must follow “the law”.

And besides, no one agreed to live by any law…why should I be held accountable for something my ancestors did? Seems kind of primitive to me.[/quote]

So if I decide everything you own is mine, then what? Can I do this unilaterally? The idea that I can is liberating only to me. The rest of you would call it oppression in the vilest of terms. Living up to your agreements is a lot harder but does allow for a stable society to form. Inherited agreements are to be treated the same way, since they allow institutions to outlast people. Not ideal for me, but arguably a good thing for the people around me I care about. I would much rather that due process stay in place for my kids, for instance.

Case in point, Arab societies have never really ever gotten off the ground economically. Why? Leftish analyses say it is because of exploitation by colonialist powers. A more interesting assessment was a recent book in which the major culprit is Sharia. Under Sharia, any agreement can be voided by any party at any time for any reason. This means that nobody wants to go in for large-scale economic ventures and more than a Bedouin-like economy is impossible. The most likely reason that the West took the lead in the world is precisely because of the nature of its contract law and the recent (since the early 1700’s) ability for the state to uphold them, and that the state itself is subject to them.

– jj

100

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
As a Southerner I must confess that Mr. Lincoln was right: There is a very clear cut way for any State to leave. A bill is introduced into Congress, 2/3 majority passes it and out they go. The South violated due process of law.
[/quote]

Why does a state need to ask for permission to leave a union it no longer wants to be a part of?[/quote]

Because they agreed to uphold the law of the land. They cannot simply break the law if they feel like it anymore than a citizen can simply decide it is legal for them to rob banks. Lincoln was a lawyer and was a good one. His assessment of what the South did and what it meant for the US = the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is void if a State so chooses, was quite correct.

Had the South introduced a bill that allowed all of them to leave as a block then they would have had the voting clout to pull it off. There was no reason for succession the way they did it.

– jj[/quote]

If a slave no longer wants to be a slave he still must follow “the law”.

And besides, no one agreed to live by any law…why should I be held accountable for something my ancestors did? Seems kind of primitive to me.[/quote]

So if I decide everything you own is mine, then what? Can I do this unilaterally? The idea that I can is liberating only to me. The rest of you would call it oppression in the vilest of terms. Living up to your agreements is a lot harder but does allow for a stable society to form. Inherited agreements are to be treated the same way, since they allow institutions to outlast people. Not ideal for me, but arguably a good thing for the people around me I care about. I would much rather that due process stay in place for my kids, for instance.

Case in point, Arab societies have never really ever gotten off the ground economically. Why? Leftish analyses say it is because of exploitation by colonialist powers. A more interesting assessment was a recent book in which the major culprit is Sharia. Under Sharia, any agreement can be voided by any party at any time for any reason. This means that nobody wants to go in for large-scale economic ventures and more than a Bedouin-like economy is impossible. The most likely reason that the West took the lead in the world is precisely because of the nature of its contract law and the recent (since the early 1700’s) ability for the state to uphold them, and that the state itself is subject to them.

– jj[/quote]

Please don’t begin arguing this with him here. He is trying to derail the thread with anarchist bullshit, you’ll only contribute to it if you keep up with this.

And I agree with your stance wholeheartedly. Just don’t engage him.