Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

‘Secession is a deeply American principle’


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#31    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:11 PM

View Postjtsmith, on 20 November 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

The last gasps of a dying political party.

You lot really are terrible losers. And with all that experience. Hmm.

If you're American, it'd be curious to see if you would've sided with the crown during the war of independence. It sounds like it.

Edited by WoIverine, 20 November 2012 - 07:13 PM.


#32    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:21 PM

Anyone who thinks secession is for "sore losers", study your history, if we hadn't seceeded, we'd be still be under what was perceived as tyrannical British rule. Ron Paul was right, secession IS American.

Edited by WoIverine, 20 November 2012 - 08:22 PM.


#33    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,048 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:22 PM

It's not 'for sore losers'. The people who are just now signing petitions to secede because Obama won? Those would be sore losers.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#34    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,603 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:23 PM

View PostWoIverine, on 20 November 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

Anyone who thinks secession is for "sore losers", study your history, if we hadn't seceeded, we'd be still be under what was perceived as tyrannical British rule. Ron Paul was right, secession IS American.

Seceding from the US is as American as seceding from Britain was British. It may be pro Texan or pro Alaskan.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#35    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:27 PM

I think it all boils down to convenient timing and scapegoating. Just because Obama won doesn't mean that those same people were not already unhappy with the two party system, some of them were probably also unhappy even when Bush was president. Now they've just been prodded enough to finally do something about it.

Edited by WoIverine, 20 November 2012 - 08:29 PM.


#36    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,603 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:29 PM

View PostWoIverine, on 20 November 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

I think it all boils down to convenient timing and scapegoating. Just because Obama won doesn't mean that those same people were not already unhappy with the two party system. Now they've just been prodded to finally do something about it.

So, what do you propose, a single party Texas to fix it?

As long as nobody votes for 3rd parties that is how it will remain, secession or no secession.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#37    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,048 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:31 PM

View PostWoIverine, on 20 November 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

I think it all boils down to convenient timing and scapegoating. Just because Obama won doesn't mean that those same people were not already unhappy with the two party system even when Bush was president. Now they've just been prodded enough to finally do something about it.
True enough, you can't poll everyone who signed a petition for the reason why they signed it. Still, it's a funny bit of timing, much like the whole Benghazi thing and etc. Timing, timing, timing. Sometimes it's just happens so, sometimes it's because so.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#38    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:34 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 20 November 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

So, what do you propose, a single party Texas to fix it?

As long as nobody votes for 3rd parties that is how it will remain, secession or no secession.

The answer to this question will have to come from someone better than I. There is no one solution fits all, really. There will always be those who are unhappy regardless of the outcome. We could live in a paradise and some would find fault simply because everything is too perfect.

Edited by WoIverine, 20 November 2012 - 08:36 PM.


#39    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:59 PM

View PostWoIverine, on 20 November 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

Anyone who thinks secession is for "sore losers", study your history, if we hadn't seceeded, we'd be still be under what was perceived as tyrannical British rule. Ron Paul was right, secession IS American.

No you wouldn't. You would have become a dominion and then granted independence just like Canada was. Though did have one prof who thought there would be four nations instead of one. New England, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and whatever the Scots-Irish Borderers hammered out. Seems in the early days American colonists hated each other. And British rule wasn't as bad as popular myth makes it out to be. Really the whole thing boiled down to a question of representation. If colonists were allowed to sit in Parliament the Revolution might not have happened.


On topic I don't think any of the states have gotten even 1% of the population to support secession. This seems to be more a creation of the media than of any real desire of the people.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#40    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,603 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:12 PM

View PostCorp, on 20 November 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

No you wouldn't. You would have become a dominion and then granted independence just like Canada was. Though did have one prof who thought there would be four nations instead of one. New England, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and whatever the Scots-Irish Borderers hammered out. Seems in the early days American colonists hated each other. And British rule wasn't as bad as popular myth makes it out to be. Really the whole thing boiled down to a question of representation. If colonists were allowed to sit in Parliament the Revolution might not have happened.


On topic I don't think any of the states have gotten even 1% of the population to support secession. This seems to be more a creation of the media than of any real desire of the people.

The revolution, at the time, would surely not have happened. Later on there might have been the one or other gripe. On the other hand there would hardly have been what we know as the USA later on either. The Louisiana purchase would have never happened because Napoleon surely would not have sold it to Britain, and with that the West expansion less than likely because it would have led through French territory. European policies (i.e. the purpose partnership between Spain and Britain against Napoleon) would have precluded the annexation of most of the West from Spain.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#41    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,548 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:35 PM

View Postspartan max2, on 20 November 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

"In a free country, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When the people have very clearly withdrawn their consent for a law, the discussion should be over. If the Feds refuse to accept that and continue to run roughshod over the people, at what point do we acknowledge that that is not freedom anymore? At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government? And if people or states are not free to leave the United States as a last resort, can they really think of themselves as free?"

this paragraph says it all :yes:

Yep, it makes too much sense. Secession is crazy but if there is no escaping you're doomed to their control. The exact opposite of freedom.

View PostHasina, on 20 November 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

I'll address both posts that have quoted me.

The problem here, to me, is that people put too much faith in these people, in their record, in what they say. Though what I've said about Paul seems to skip from 'like' to 'dislike' it by no means has set a precident for my views on him. My view, he's a good man and I do like his idea. There's the thing, he's a good man, but I like his ideas. This is probably one reason we have political parties, so the ideas and positions of these people can survive them after death.

The point really I'm trying to make is that so many people always seem to think 'the Repubs/Dems are gonna ruin us' or 'Obama/Romney/Paul will help see us through this mess or fix it'. Sure, they might or they might not. Instead of hearing 'Paul takes this position' what I wish I could hear more of is 'here's the position and these are the people who like it or dislike it'. Politics has become a name and face game, it's not about the issues, it's about the people running these issues and advocating for or against them. It's a giant reality show, we vote on the canadite and the party but not the issues. That's the same thing I see with Paul, people vote for him because 'Paul has good ideas' not 'the ideas Paul follows and supports are good ones'.

But that's just my two cents and it's mostly semantics involved.
You did call him a monster but rabbit chaser nailed it...

View PostChasingtherabbit, on 20 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

The truth is Hasina is a Ron Paul supporter but is just playing devil's advocate.

View PostHasina, on 20 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Second, secession doesn't seem like a solution to fix the problem, it's just a 'give up and run' solution. It works sometimes 'British independence' and other times it's just plain idiotic 'the American Civil War'.

I think the slaves would disagree that the civil war was idiotic.

View PostCorp, on 20 November 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

No you wouldn't. You would have become a dominion and then granted independence just like Canada was.

Maybe, but we didn't feel like waiting for permission.

Posted Image

#42    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,048 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:39 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 20 November 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

I think the slaves would disagree that the civil war was idiotic.
Not the point I was trying to make but thank you for pointing it out for me. It was idiotic for the people who seceded from America. They lost, and then forced to do what they didn't want to do anyway. That's what I meant by idiotic. My analysis of whether it was worth it or not was from the viewpoint of the people seceding from other nations.

Edited by Hasina, 20 November 2012 - 09:39 PM.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#43    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,548 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:53 PM

View PostHasina, on 20 November 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:


Not the point I was trying to make but thank you for pointing it out for me. It was idiotic for the people who seceded from America. They lost, and then forced to do what they didn't want to do anyway. That's what I meant by idiotic. My analysis of whether it was worth it or not was from the viewpoint of the people seceding from other nations.
I gotcha. But those idiots in the south just wanted to be a rebel country full of slaves and it was good that they got b*~&@ slapped. The people who want to secede today are more in line with the reasoning of those from the revolution. They're sick of being told what to do. Anyway, I don't want to butt heads. As you were.

Posted Image

#44    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:58 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 20 November 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

I gotcha. But those idiots in the south just wanted to be a rebel country full of slaves and it was good that they got b*~&@ slapped. The people who want to secede today are more in line with the reasoning of those from the revolution. They're sick of being told what to do. Anyway, I don't want to butt heads. As you were.

I think a large majority of them are probably hard workers who are tired of living in a budding welfare state.


#45    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,048 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:04 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 20 November 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

I gotcha. But those idiots in the south just wanted to be a rebel country full of slaves and it was good that they got b*~&@ slapped. The people who want to secede today are more in line with the reasoning of those from the revolution. They're sick of being told what to do. Anyway, I don't want to butt heads. As you were.
I see it being more about state rights versus federal rights, with slavery being the number one issue. Would the Civil War had happened if we didn't have slaves? Probably not, since it was the largest issue especially since it came down to human lives, but it was also about how the federal government chose who was a 'free' state and who was a 'slave' state when new states joined the Union.

In a way, today's secession movements could be viewed as an extension of both, but it's neither, it's its own thing. Anyway, as Corp pointed out, only about 1% (mostly less then that, actually it may not even be more then 1% but I'd rather play it safe) of the population of these states has signed these petitions, wants to secede. In essence, it's like neither of the others because they actually had wide spread support.

Edited by Hasina, 20 November 2012 - 10:05 PM.

Posted Image

~MEH~





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users