What's new
By:
Filters

Secession

Abraham Lincoln was hand-picked by English-influenced financial interests, who had also financed both the abolitionist and secessionist hotheads, precisely because they knew his hard line against slavery would break up our American Union, after which, it was envisioned, the English could once again impose their rule over us. But he bucked his backers, and fought the war to keep the union. It wasn't about slavery exactly, but about American ideas of human rights versus the Bristish oligarchy. However, the English still had the wit to win. . . . they turned federalism into their ace. . .. well into about a hundred aces stuffed up their sleeves. . . . and in the years following the Civil War they owned a whole lot of American enterprise, and had literal vassal lords Americans used to call "robber barons" securing monopolies in every sector of American enterprise.

And today, we are ruled more by the ideals of the feudal lords than by Monroe, Madison, or Jefferson. . . . .

our dumb secessionists today are really just uninformed about geopolitics. The real objective of liberty would be to revolutionize the United Nations and make it a representative democracy where all kinds of diverse people could maintain their personal rights and liberties.
 
babe said:
Abraham Lincoln was hand-picked by English-influenced financial interests, who had also financed both the abolitionist and secessionist hotheads, precisely because they knew his hard line against slavery would break up our American Union, after which, it was envisioned, the English could once again impose their rule over us. But he bucked his backers, and fought the war to keep the union. It wasn't about slavery exactly, but about American ideas of human rights versus the Bristish oligarchy. However, the English still had the wit to win. . . . they turned federalism into their ace. . .. well into about a hundred aces stuffed up their sleeves. . . . and in the years following the Civil War they owned a whole lot of American enterprise, and had literal vassal lords Americans used to call "robber barons" securing monopolies in every sector of American enterprise.

And today, we are ruled more by the ideals of the feudal lords than by Monroe, Madison, or Jefferson. . . . .

our dumb secessionists today are really just uninformed about geopolitics. The real objective of liberty would be to revolutionize the United Nations and make it a representative democracy where all kinds of diverse people could maintain their personal rights and liberties.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, you are saying the great industrial giants like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Carnegie were simply British stooges?
 
The Thriller said:
I would love for most of those states to secede.

Please leave.

Pay for your own tornado and hurricane repair, security, and welfare. Most of those states wouldn't survive if they weren't sucking money away from other states to pay for their own lazy *** citizens.
Click to expand...

Personally I would love for Utah to secede, just to get away from liberal socialists like yourself and your president. People like you DO NOT follow the constitution, and are the reason why Texas has over 82,000 signatures and growing.
Texas is home to Ron Paul endorsers and Alex Jones listeners, that are more than able to take care of themselves without your precious hurricane help, social security, and welfare.
It's neo-conservative agreements like NAFTA and GATT that sent all of our nations jobs to Mexico and China in the first place, and is a huge reason why many people of this nation want nothing more to do with a two party system that creates an illusion of choice.
 
TheSilencer1313 said:
Personally I would love for Utah to secede, just to get away from liberal socialists like yourself and your president. People like you DO NOT follow the constitution, and are the reason why Texas has over 82,000 signatures and growing.
Texas is home to Ron Paul endorsers and Alex Jones listeners, that are more than able to take care of themselves without your precious hurricane help, social security, and welfare.
It's neo-conservative agreements like NAFTA and GATT that sent all of our nations jobs to Mexico and China in the first place, and is a huge reason why many people of this nation want nothing more to do with a two party system that creates an illusion of choice.
Click to expand...

1339800633603.jpg


Nice to see this "libertarian" paradise would be free of differing political opinions.
 
I was responding to this "Personally I would love for Utah to secede, just to get away from liberal socialists like yourself"

Which has nothing to do with whether democrats or republicans have differing political beliefs. Which I think is quite clearly the case btw.
They don't differ too much since they are both further to the right end of the political spectrum than the left, which makes your claim Obama is a "liberal socialist" even more hysterical to me.
 
Zombie said:
I was responding to this "Personally I would love for Utah to secede, just to get away from liberal socialists like yourself"
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Zombie said:
They may not differ much since they are further to the right end of the political spectrum than the left, which makes your claim Obama is a "liberal socialist" even more hysterical to me.
Click to expand...

Even more interesting.
Central banks..... entitlement programs ..... socialized medicine..... civilian national security forces.....

Hang on, I have to go check my copy of the communist manifesto for the rest.
 
Brown Notes said:
Just to clarify, you are saying the great industrial giants like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Carnegie were simply British stooges?
Click to expand...

simply put, that's what it amounts to.

But before you bust your gut laughing at it, it is clear you are also such a stooge for entirely missing the actual point.

You are not a qualified American, in the original sense of the American revolutionaries who actually believed in human rights, actual personal liberty and freedom, or who took pride in their values of independence, integrity, and self-reliance. . . . . when compared to the feudal vassals, the commoners who in Europe depended on their landholder nobility and lived the lives of peasants and serfs.

"British Stooges" as I would use the term, are people who think the world is best run by elites, in various apparitions of superiority such as professionals, clergy, intellectuals, and industrial giants, or wealthy genteel persons who from their thrones of social authority can instill docile servility on the humans of the lower classes. Clearly, industrial and cartel monopolists seriously believe they are more qualified to determine our destinies than "WE, the People."

And the fact remains that American high society has always licked the boots of the English nobility. I could name a few names of those Americans who were enthralled to be knighted by the Queen and considered it step up in their career to become British subjects.
 
babe said:
simply put, that's what it amounts to.

But before you bust your gut laughing at it, it is clear you are also such a stooge for entirely missing the actual point.

You are not a qualified American, in the original sense of the American revolutionaries who actually believed in human rights, actual personal liberty and freedom, or who took pride in their values of independence, integrity, and self-reliance. . . . . when compared to the feudal vassals, the commoners who in Europe depended on their landholder nobility and lived the lives of peasants and serfs.

"British Stooges" as I would use the term, are people who think the world is best run by elites, in various apparitions of superiority such as professionals, clergy, intellectuals, and industrial giants, or wealthy genteel persons who from their thrones of social authority can instill docile servility on the humans of the lower classes. Clearly, industrial and cartel monopolists seriously believe they are more qualified to determine our destinies than "WE, the People."

And the fact remains that American high society has always licked the boots of the English nobility. I could name a few names of those Americans who were enthralled to be knighted by the Queen and considered it step up in their career to become British subjects.
Click to expand...


babe always puts things in prospective, and I think he/she is right on the dot here.
 
SaltyDawg said:
You listed about 10 reasons why they would be able to pull it off (in your opinion), and also said they would have the easiest time doing it out of all the states. You didn't list 1 reason why they shouldn't.

Sorry, I'm not a mind reader, I don't see how this is not the same thing as saying they'd be better off.
Click to expand...

Apparently you are also not a native speaker of English, if you can't tell the difference between "best able to accomplish something" and "better off after accomplishing that thing". Sometimes the best change is worse than the status quo.

I disagree with Stoked that there would be an economic boom in Texas if it seceded, mostly becaue there really isn't much holding it back right now that would be altered. However, I certainly can see where this is not the same as saying Texas would be better off.
 
One Brow said:
Apparently you are also not a native speaker of English, if you can't tell the difference between "best able to accomplish something" and "better off after accomplishing that thing". Sometimes the best change is worse than the status quo.

I disagree with Stoked that there would be an economic boom in Texas if it seceded, mostly becaue there really isn't much holding it back right now that would be altered. However, I certainly can see where this is not the same as saying Texas would be better off.
Click to expand...

I dont think they would be. They would lose alot by seceeding but I think if any state could pull it off than it would be Texas.

The reason I think we would see a boom in the economy is that Texas would need to make up for and increase a range of things. So you have the need and then you just lost federal taxes. SO I think business would look at it as an opportunity to expand in an area with lower taxes.

I think the reason behind a population boom would be obvious. I think alot of conservatives would flock there. I can see Texas increasin in population by a couple million in a few years.
 
Stoked said:
The reason I think we would see a boom in the economy is that Texas would need to make up for and increase a range of things. So you have the need and then you just lost federal taxes. SO I think business would look at it as an opportunity to expand in an area with lower taxes.

I think the reason behind a population boom would be obvious. I think alot of conservatives would flock there. I can see Texas increasin in population by a couple million in a few years.
Click to expand...

Texas is one of the payer states, so it's true enough that there would probably be more tax revenue to go around replacing the federal taxes. However, I think that woud be quickly eaten up by the new infrastructure Texas would have to build to replace the defense capabilities and entitlement programs Texans would insist upon. Among other things, I think it's very likely a solo Texas would spend a higher percentage of it's GDP on the military that the USA currently does. It's much easier to complain about Medicare/Medicaid than to remove them them, even in Texas. So, I don't see Texas suddeenly having lower taxes after a secession. That's besides the whole question of whether lower taxes really do help contries create economic booms.

As for the conservatives flocking to Texas, why would Texas take them? Maybe some of the younger ones, but conservatives tend to be older.
 
One Brow said:
Texas is one of the payer states, so it's true enough that there would probably be more tax revenue to go around replacing the federal taxes. However, I think that woud be quickly eaten up by the new infrastructure Texas would have to build to replace the defense capabilities and entitlement programs Texans would insist upon. Among other things, I think it's very likely a solo Texas would spend a higher percentage of it's GDP on the military that the USA currently does. It's much easier to complain about Medicare/Medicaid than to remove them them, even in Texas. So, I don't see Texas suddeenly having lower taxes after a secession. That's besides the whole question of whether lower taxes really do help contries create economic booms.

As for the conservatives flocking to Texas, why would Texas take them? Maybe some of the younger ones, but conservatives tend to be older.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Texas would quickly have an immigration policy. I can't really see them denying everyone. For example: plenty of young people in places like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennesse...that would agree with what Texas had done. That is alot of educated (see Utah and Idaho) young workers right there.

I think the net result would be a US that is much more liberal. You take texas out and it is much harder for the conservatives to win a presidency. I think that would drive alot of them to Texas over time. Also that would result in a much bluer US.
 
I can't see Texas spending more on their military. We have an Empire-grade military. Texas wouldn't need, want or be able to provide 1/50th the military capability of the U.S.. There's really no need for the U.S. to have such a massive military, except that we keep finding reasons to use it.

If the only tool you have is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail.
 
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas all have over 25k signatures and will get a White House response.

Also All 50 states have a petition up to seceed. Texas is at about 100,000 signatures and about 675,000 signatures if you combine all 50 states.

Keep in mind you can sign any petition any where. Such as people in California signing the Texas one because they want Texas out of the US.

2 Questions
1. How many states do you think will get the 25k required for a white house response by 12/11/12? I say 24
2. How many signatures do you think there will be total? I say 2.25 million.
 
Other than petitions are there any organizations behind the succession movement that are actively trying to make this happen?

This seems mostly symbolic to me.
 
Gameface said:
Other than petitions are there any organizations behind the succession movement that are actively trying to make this happen?

This seems mostly symbolic to me.
Click to expand...

I cannot see any orgs. behind them other then the ones that are always there. In Texas some of the republican leaders support the idea.

I agree that it is mostly symbolic.
 
Stoked said:
I cannot see any orgs. behind them other then the ones that are always there. In Texas some of the republican leaders support the idea.

I agree that it is mostly symbolic.
Click to expand...

It's the right kind of symbolism to be sending to the Obama administration. People are finally starting to come together to stand up to the Washington machine, and let them know who is really in charge here.
I'm sure nobody actually believes that a state will secede, but I do agree with Stoked when he says Texas would be the most self sufficient.
 
Stoked said:
I'm sure Texas would quickly have an immigration policy. I can't really see them denying everyone. For example: plenty of young people in places like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennesse...that would agree with what Texas had done. That is alot of educated (see Utah and Idaho) young workers right there.

I think the net result would be a US that is much more liberal. You take texas out and it is much harder for the conservatives to win a presidency. I think that would drive alot of them to Texas over time. Also that would result in a much bluer US.
Click to expand...

How long would it take before Texas declared war on the United States?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top