No Todd Palin reference?

Talk is cheap. Come back when one actually does it.

And you care what Glenn Beck says why?

TheDumbBlonde: And you care what Glenn Beck says why?

Because its amusing.

Not that I am supporting Beck on this one...but why wouldn't it be ok for a state to secede?

TheDumbBlonde: And you care what Glenn Beck says why?

Apparently he scares the shiat out of Yankees or something.

zealot_45: Not that I am supporting Beck on this one...but why wouldn't it be ok for a state to secede?

Not only ok, I'd love to see it.

One way trip though, no coming back ever... no matter what.

zealot_45: Not that I am supporting Beck on this one...but why wouldn't it be ok for a state to secede?

A state leaving the union impacts not just the residents of that state, but the entire country. If texas left, there would be pretty radical implications for the neighboring states, and a whole bunch of issues with trade, finance, borders, travel, security, energy, etc. I think the problems secession creates would be more than the country would be willing to bear.

There would be issues to deal with, but it's still better than having two groups that utterly despise each other being forced to live together and try to cooperate. We'd get over it within a couple of months at the worst.

Mordant: There would be issues to deal with, but it's still better than having two groups that utterly despise each other being forced to live together and try to cooperate. We'd get over it within a couple of months at the worst.

I think any secession would have to be done basically via the amendment process - ie you can't decide it unilaterally.

Dinki: If texas left, there would be pretty radical implications for the neighboring states, and a whole bunch of issues with trade, finance, borders, travel, security, energy, etc.

On the bright side, the GOP would have 34 fewer electoral votes it could count on.

While getting ready for work this morning, I had on Fox and friends and Beck was practically jumping up and down about the snipers and pirates yelling they should all be killed...killed...killed.
/all Arlo and what not...pretty amusing

DamnYankees: Mordant: There would be issues to deal with, but it's still better than having two groups that utterly despise each other being forced to live together and try to cooperate. We'd get over it within a couple of months at the worst.

I think any secession would have to be done basically via the amendment process - ie you can't decide it unilaterally.

... but can't the rest of us just vote Texas off the island?

TheDumbBlonde: And you care what Glenn Beck says why?

He's a got a million zillion billion viewers, according to Fox. I like knowing what kind of crazy idiotic 'tea parties against KENYASOCIALISMSMARXISTCONCENTRATIONCAMPSOHMY!' WHARGARBL a sizable portion of the country is soaking up like a bunch of brain-dead sponges.

bronyaur1: ... but can't the rest of us just vote Texas off the island?

You can never leave the island, brother.

DamnYankees: bronyaur1: ... but can't the rest of us just vote Texas off the island?

You can never leave the island, brother.

This is what happens when you give a guy with a GED a radio show.

zealot_45: Not that I am supporting Beck on this one...but why wouldn't it be ok for a state to secede?

Simple

A) the Constitution is a grant of power from the states to the federal government

B) Said Constitution contains something called the Federal Supremacy clause which holds that the power of the federal government trumps that of the states

ergo: A state may not secede without permission of the Federal government

or to put it in layman's terms : The Constitution has an explicit no take-backsies clause

major-kong: It was a hell of party, last time.

Yeah, if you look at the statistics of dead men by comparison you won. hahahhaha! This time it's a little different.

sepuku2:
Yeah, if you look at the statistics of dead men by comparison you won. hahahhaha! This time it's a little different.

Maybe the butthurt about the report on rightwing extremists is because it applies.

Louisiana, my home state, tried to secede once and we got our asses kicked. I don't reccomend the experience.

Many people think the treaty between the Republic of Texas and The United States joining the 2 countries gave Texas the right to seceded but this is not true.

Of course when Texas did secede just 15 years after the final act of the Republic of Texas the yankees did not recognize the Texans right to secede.

They got us into a hell of a mess by bringing them into the union. Imagine the nightmare of having them leave.

DamnYankees:
I think any secession would have to be done basically via the amendment process - ie you can't decide it unilaterally.

I doubt it could happen like that, though. At least not realistically. You'd have to convince all your friends and some of your enemy states to let you have a better deal- if you were truly getting a better deal- or you'd have to suck it up and take a worse deal.

zealot_45: Not that I am supporting Beck on this one...but why wouldn't it be ok for a state to secede?

Yep, why is it not a good thing? An orderly secession would beat a civil war. It worked for the Czech and Slovak Republics.

States can secede whenever the like, but they better be prepared for the invasion of foreign armies from the USA........and no there was never a civil war in the USA but there was an occupation and war of aggression by the USA on its southern neighbor a few years back......

But it's liberals who hate the United States of America, right? Republicans love their country, right? Republicans are "real" Americans and liberals are traitors to the United States, right?

Action Replay Nick: Maybe the butthurt about the report on rightwing extremists is because it applies.

Butthurt. That's so cliche you dumb motherfarker. Your gonna get some butthurt/ but it won't be from me. It'll be from from your homo chimp-mate.

wattssw: States can secede whenever the like, but they better be prepared for the invasion of foreign armies from the USA........and no there was never a civil war in the USA but there was an occupation and war of aggression by the USA on its southern neighbor a few years back......

Yeah. Right. Whatever you choose to believe, chief.

zealot_45: Not that I am supporting Beck on this one...but why wouldn't it be ok for a state to secede?

Ahem...

Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural: If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution -- certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it?* All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.... Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

[*this actually happened in Virginia - the northern and western counties of Virginia where there were not many slave owners remained loyal to the Union; they eventually became West Virginia and a state in 1862.]

MasterThief: *this actually happened in Virginia - the northern and western counties of Virginia where there were not many slave owners remained loyal to the Union; they eventually became West Virginia and a state in 1862.]

Yes. and West Virginia is the consequence of siding with the Union. Congrats Robert Byrd!

Love it or leave it?

Funny that. When I was in Texas 5 years ago, I was told that you don't talk bad about the president. Ever. You stand behind him because he's ours.

I think it was in reference to the Michael Moore movie about 9/11. I just wanted to know opinions on the movie and if I should see it at the time and wasn't even talking about the president when they shot me down with this one.

/I still haven't seen it. Was it any good?

It's the Republic of Dave!

sepuku2: Action Replay Nick: Maybe the butthurt about the report on rightwing extremists is because it applies.

Butthurt. That's so cliche you dumb motherfarker. Your gonna get some butthurt/ but it won't be from me. It'll be from from your homo chimp-mate.

He wasn't calling anyone gay, genius. Read this. (pops)

antialias: sepuku2: Action Replay Nick: Maybe the butthurt about the report on rightwing extremists is because it applies.

Butthurt. That's so cliche you dumb motherfarker. Your gonna get some butthurt/ but it won't be from me. It'll be from from your homo chimp-mate.

He wasn't calling anyone gay, genius. Read this. (pops)

I think he realized that thus the butthurt being from a physical manifestation rather than the butthurt he could have recieved on Fark.

Try to keep up.

feckingmorons: I think he realized that thus the butthurt being from a physical manifestation rather than the butthurt he could have recieved on Fark.

Try to keep up.

I think you're giving him too much credit. But maybe you're right, and he's not as stupid as he seems.

I feel state should be able to secede at will. No one should be forced under the oppression of a broader power if they as a community feel that power is acting in a tyrannical manner. The very foundation of this country is premised on the notion that if a government is breaking natural law it is the DUTY of the people to cast off that government.

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Try to view the Civil War in a light not involving slavery, and Lincoln is a tyrannical warmonger content slaughtering his own former countrymen. But thanks to the tides of history, a bunch of racist rednecks ensured that we'd never, ever have a states' rights discussion without it turning immediately to the hypocrisy surrounding the oppression that they placed upon the minorities in their midst. Sad, really.

Shaggy_C: No one should be forced under the oppression of a broader power if they as a community feel that power is acting in a tyrannical manner.

You just contradicted yourself. By allowing secession you allow exactly this to happen to the people in the state who don't want to secede.

Shaggy_C: Try to view the Civil War in a light not involving slavery, and Lincoln is a tyrannical warmonger content slaughtering his own former countrymen.

Oh god, shaggy, I can't tell when you do this kind of thing if you're trolling or if you just have a deep, painful streak of stupid in ya.

This is like your "Aside from the talk about WMDs, the reasons we went into Iraq and Afghanistan were the same".

DamnYankees: You just contradicted yourself. By allowing secession you allow exactly this to happen to the people in the state who don't want to secede.

How is that a contradiction? Do you need to have 100% agreement on any issue in order for it to become public policy in a representative republic? I would hope not.

Shaggy_C: How is that a contradiction? Do you need to have 100% agreement on any issue in order for it to become public policy in a representative republic? I would hope not.

I agree. So why does a state get to secede? If most of the nation likes a policy, what right do you have to leave a representative republic?

Obdicut: Oh god, shaggy, I can't tell when you do this kind of thing if you're trolling or if you just have a deep, painful streak of stupid in ya.

What in that statement was incorrect in your eyes? Like I said, ignore the entire slavery aspect of this. King George III and Lincoln did exactly the same thing when lands under their control rebelled and declared independence. Was King George also just in attacking the colonies, Obdicut?

Shaggy_C: What in that statement was incorrect in your eyes? Like I said, ignore the entire slavery aspect of this. King George III and Lincoln did exactly the same thing when lands under their control rebelled and declared independence. Was King George also just in attacking the colonies, Obdicut?

Did the Southern states have proportional representation in the national government?

Did the colonies have proportional representation in the British government?

So no, there is not a comparison.

Like your Afhgan/Iraq ridiculous statement of ergegious stupidity, this one says "Ignore the actual reason" (whereby you have to ask 'why would the South be ceding? Just 'cuz? And then are you making an argument that secession "just 'cuz" is fine?) and you ignore that there are fifty billion other differences as well.

DamnYankees: I agree. So why does a state get to secede? If most of the nation likes a policy, what right do you have to leave a representative republic?

I think you should re-read the part of the Declaration of Independence that I quoted. It is only when the reach of government reaches levels that are beyond the normal suffering that we as humans are seemingly unable to avoid. As an example, let's say we levy a punitive and discriminatory tax law against the state of Florida for some reason. Would this be 'ok' in your eyes because the majority voted for it? Would these people be allowed to remove themselves from such obligation?

In terms of the point I think you're trying to make, that some small group would feel oppressed because they still wanted to be a part of the broader government, I think you're using the word 'oppressed' incorrectly. While you might be making a valid point about there needing to be an extremely strong majority in order to make a secession even possible or plausible, I don't think that it necessarily dictates some kind of oppression upon those who would rather live in another country. Hell, you could make the same point about borders in general and ignore the entire secession aspect of it. I mean, do you think the 'Aztlan Nation' people in the Southwest are 'oppressed' because they cannot make Tejas into a part of Mexico?

Shaggy_C: As an example, let's say we levy a punitive and discriminatory tax law against the state of Florida for some reason.

The US can't levy taxes on an individual state. What the hell are you talking about?

Obdicut: Did the Southern states have proportional representation in the national government?

Did the colonies have proportional representation in the British government?

So no, there is not a comparison.

So representation is your key metric for whether rights of a minority group can be seen as violated or not? Interesting.

Also, I remind you that only 3% of men were allowed to vote even in Britain.

Shaggy_C:
The very foundation of this country is premised on the notion that if a government is breaking natural law it is the DUTY of the people to cast off that government.

What in that statement was incorrect in your eyes? Like I said, ignore the entire slavery aspect of this. King George III and Lincoln did exactly the same thing when lands under their control rebelled and declared independence. Was King George also just in attacking the colonies, Obdicut?

Shay's Rebellion is your answer. The reality is you don't just get to rebel. You have to face the counter arguments- which in any armed rebellion usually involve armies.

Further, in this day and age- for a state to "fairly" or "justly" secede- they would have a great debt to repay to the nation that has provided them with a wealth of opportunities and advantages, regardless of their current status as tax creditor or debtor.

Obdicut: The US can't levy taxes on an individual state. What the hell are you talking about?

Sigh...We're talking hypothetically here. Do you understand the concept, or are you being purposefully obtuse again?

DamnYankees: I think any secession would have to be done basically via the amendment process - ie you can't decide it unilaterally.

Does the Constitution delegate to the Federal government the power to decide who may secede?

Shaggy_C: So representation is your key metric for whether rights of a minority group can be seen as violated or not? Interesting.

No. It's one of the eleventy billion differences in the situation between the US Colonies and Britain, and the situation between the Northern and Southern United States. The situations are not comparable, and I can't take you seriously when you compare them. It's completely farking idiotic.

Shaggy_C: Sigh...We're talking hypothetically here. Do you understand the concept, or are you being purposefully obtuse again?

Choosing an impossible example isn't good to do in a hypothetical.

Nobody is saying you can't have a revolution. This is about secession. If you want to revolt, you are declaring the law of the land is wrong, and you are revolting against it.

The law of the land of the United States is that you can't secede.

So you'll have to have a revolution-- and if you're having one, you obviously think you're justified.


And in terms of actual pure hypothetical, Lincoln's argument wins.


If you're making this argument honestly, Shaggy, I can only wonder what jump you make in your logic from time to time that makes you compare things that have nothing in common.