‘Secession is a deeply American principle’

[Clarakore]

He's advocationg secession cause this government doesnt work for the American people at all. They have rigged the game to the point that if you do inteend to work for the people, you wont be elected. At this point secession is the only way to restore the constitution

Please not all Americans feel like that.

Try more like roughly half. We are divided. That does not mean break apart but learn how to work together again.

Cooperation with those you disagree with is better than destroying, eliminating, banishing, or having nothing to do with them. Secession is the path of hate, the path of Cain.

[Drayno]

The only way secession would work is if states seceded - not to form their own country, but to restore our Republic. Ron Paul advocates peaceful secession to redress our Congress - you know, the one with the lowest approval rating in US history. He advocates it to remind the Federal government that the states created it, and the people thus by extension created the states - thus that the people are above the Federal government, and that our current course of Federalism is not beneficial to a free and just society of self-governing, dignified people. We need to remind our Federal government that we do have the unalienable right to redress it - and if it does not allow us to do that, then we truly are not in a free society any more. I don't advocate another civil war, but I do advocate this.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Drayno

[questionmark]

The only way secession would work is if states seceded - not to form their own country, but to restore our Republic. Ron Paul advocates peaceful secession to redress our Congress - you know, the one with the lowest approval rating in US history. He advocates it to remind the Federal government that the states created it, and the people thus by extension created the states - thus that the people are above the Federal government, and that our current course of Federalism is not beneficial to a free and just society of self-governing, dignified people. We need to remind our Federal government that we do have the unalienable right to redress it - and if it does not allow us to do that, then we truly are not in a free society any more. I don't advocate another civil war, but I do advocate this.

As long as over 60% of the people are convinced that their congressperson is doing a good job there is nothing you can do about redressing Congress.

[keithisco]

By all means allow the various states to secede... what do you think you will gain from that?? You will have the same 2 parties vying for votes - Reps and Dems - you will have zero voice in the world - Texas decides not to trade with the Pinko European Union (the European Union will just fall about with laughter) - Moody's, Fitch, etc will all downgrade your Credit to JUNK - the other Union States will raise Tariffs against trading with you - all Federal Govt funded ventures ("Houston calling") will be removed, along with Fed Defense.

Think carefully about what you wish for - it might just come true!!!

[questionmark]

By all means allow the various states to secede... what do you think you will gain from that?? You will have the same 2 parties vying for votes - Reps and Dems - you will have zero voice in the world - Texas decides not to trade with the Pinko European Union (the European Union will just fall about with laughter) - Moody's, Fitch, etc will all downgrade your Credit to JUNK - the other Union States will raise Tariffs against trading with you - all Federal Govt funded ventures ("Houston calling") will be removed, along with Fed Defense.

Think carefully about what you wish for - it might just come true!!!

Or how the ancient Greeks used to say: The Gods grant the wishes of those who they want to play with.

Edited November 20, 2012 by questionmark

[WoIverine]

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 November 20, 2012 by WoIverine

[WoIverine]

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 November 20, 2012 by WoIverine

[Hasina]

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

[questionmark]

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.

[WoIverine]

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 November 20, 2012 by WoIverine

[questionmark]

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.

[Hasina]

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.

[WoIverine]

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 November 20, 2012 by WoIverine

[Corp]

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.

[questionmark]

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.

[F3SS]

"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

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

[Hasina]

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 November 20, 2012 by Hasina

[F3SS]

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.

[WoIverine]

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.

[Hasina]

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 November 20, 2012 by Hasina

[F3SS]

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

Probably on the list of reasons of more than few seceding hopefuls. There is nothing worse than a mooch and no that doesn't mean everybody on assistance is a mooch lefties! I distance myself from moochs. They're so aggravating. I went to tech school with this dude, met him there. Somehow or another I started driving him to school with me. Moochs have a way of working themselves into good situations for themselves. He worked, I worked. I never asked the dude for a dime. One time about a year into school I was broke and asked him for $5 because I needed gas and way back in 2000 that was worth a few gallons. Anyways I never seen such a weasel. I had to pry that money from his hands with the jaws of life. He had the gall to get pssed. The rides soon stopped and he ended up playing someone else for the next year. On top of all that he was famous for bumming smokes. He always claimed he didn't really smoke but I'll be damned if he didn't get 5 free smokes a day from somebody somehow. He was so bad my friend, who happens to be the other guy who ended up driving the prick around, actually quit smoking because of that mooch. So maybe the mooch was good for something.

Sorry for the story but I can easily see wanting to secede if you felt that the entire community was full of those guys.

[F3SS]

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.

Nothing personal towards you but I just realized I have absolutely no passion about this subject ATM at least. I like what Ron Paul says but I'm definitely not in the mood to secede. I'll stand tall with the states united until there is truly no other option.

[Hasina]

Nothing personal towards you but I just realized I have absolutely no passion about this subject ATM at least. I like what Ron Paul says but I'm definitely not in the mood to secede. I'll stand tall with the states united until there is truly no other option.

No problem and I can understand why you'd feel this way. I agree with the way you put it, no mood to secede, stay united, but if there's no other option... A good, clean summation of many people's views.

[Corp]

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.

Well Louisiana might have been taken during the war but likely would have been treated as a separate colony and would have become it's own nation. But the British would have likely slowed expansion anyway. One of the causes of the Revolution was that the British wanted American colonialists to stop stealing Native land and starting up wars...and then demanding that the government come and save them for free. Damn colonialists leeching off the system and turning the Empire into a welfare state!

[questionmark]

Well Louisiana might have been taken during the war but likely would have been treated as a separate colony and would have become it's own nation. But the British would have likely slowed expansion anyway. One of the causes of the Revolution was that the British wanted American colonialists to stop stealing Native land and starting up wars...and then demanding that the government come and save them for free. Damn colonialists leeching off the system and turning the Empire into a welfare state!

And damn separatist trying to make a break when there is nothing left to leach 'cause the central government is broke

Edited November 21, 2012 by questionmark