If We Let The Secessionists Go, What Would Their 'Nation' Be Like?

Liberals want progress always on conservatives money. They damned sure don't wish to spend theirs.

 

Absolutely. Recall leftwinger Michael Moore's reaction when he was addressing a bunch of OWS demonstrators [before he realized that they had seen through him and the Democratic Party and Obama] telling them that they were [paraphrasing] the hope for the future and then they pointed out to him that since he was worth 50 million dollars he should be financially supporting their movement . . . and it was then that he promptly shut his big fat mouth and hurried off stage.

What was so amusing was that the moment that the OWS movement people told the filthy rich leftwinger Hollywood crowd and the big name personalities to put up or shut up, nineteenths of them promptly turned their backs and their precious pocket books to the group that the day before they had been unreservedly praising. Brilliant!

 

It seems we tried, but the Yankee pukes wanted no part of it.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't have to wait for secession. Come on down to God's country.

 

or a slave, now wouldn't that suck?

 

Couldn't cut it, eh?

 

Really? (So YOU say.)

 

Amen!! You see... the problem with the consummate JERK (or those abjectly-lacking in compassion, as I see it), is that they do not have the mitigating ability to place themselves in the shoes of another; actually considering the needs, wants or hopes of other HUMAN beings. And why did I emphasize "human" there? That is because I have see MANY people think of and treat their pets/livestock (animals) better than they would other human beings. (I wish I hadn't even seen that, but it is reality.)

 

I suppose the form of government we have or might have had can be perpetually. Even so, we have what we do... and the years or generations of people it took us to get to where we are isn't something I'll ever dismiss. I don't think there are ever been or ever will be any perfect society or government; and the best results come when mankind decide to implement the following as HUMAN beings: compromise, cooperation, consensus. The other alternative is WAR... and only a fool doesn't realize what that leads to.

 

well they cant secede as a state, they would need to abolish their title and soil grants, however state means estate and someone owns it, its pretty tough to secede your landlords property from the landlord like they tried to do in lincolns day.

Since I am sure that the owners will not give them permission the only functional alternative is war with england and the banking cartel and good luck with that LOL. I dont see secessionists successfully pulling that off since they do not control the war machine, their opposition does.

 

I don't know the future (no one really does), so time could change many things. In fact, there is much evidence to show that what we were in (say) 1778, was drastically changed by 1978. One can only imagine what American life will be like in 2078; I prefer the John Lennon 'vision'.

 

I DO say. It is a liberal source of crap that only liberals would quote as being the gospel of politics.

You really have to try harder.

 

And so may that be, your opinion.

Clean up your own, "House".

 

you are confusing propriety with politics.

they won their freedom huh?

In other words your land lord could care less how you govern yourself in your rental, but if you try and teal the landlords property he wont be happy.

may want to take a look at the legal definitions of those words when the joint was created.













of course the franchise corporation is the US and the franchise charter is the articles of confederation and the franchise terms is the constitution.

best to look at the definitions of the day, not what we wish for them to be today.

In other words freedom does not mean "free from" it means "free to", and of course free to requires someones permission.

 

When a [Conservative] talks about "freedom"... the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control and/or the loss of (perceived) status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws overall... he's actually talking about a dream, a fantasy where he imagines he shall (as even a god) have his own God-given way.

Any darned thing that gives more freedom and rights to others or lower-status people, is an affront; perceived as serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes, to use (even abuse) those people as they please (to garner the power and control they clamor for; even foolishly so). It cannot be any other way... there is no compromise, cooperation or consensus with other Americans (who aren't 'like' them or think as 'they' do). It's THEIR WAY or the highway.

So, they assail any more-liberal approach to expanding even reasonable rights to others to be less-than-tolerable; after all, it is their exclusive, God-given RIGHT to dominate and/or be OVER other human beings (as they might desire). And it surely gets to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their (perceived) divine/sacred right to rule.

You don't even have to read between the lines anymore in this society, to see/analyze that is the insidious mindset certain extremists on the Right are advocating and propagating. Reasonable Americans ought to keep an eye on such intransigent, self-centered and radical politicians (such as Ted Cruz and his supporters) . They likely WILL (if allowed) drive this nation down the road to ruin.

 

Did not our revolutionaries win our independence from England? If so, then we 'won' our freedom.

So whether the Brits are happy or not is of little consequence.

Best be figuring out how to prove that.

Pot, meet kettle.

How did you arrive at that misconception?

Try free of.

 

I have to chuckle a little when after putting the proof up someone demands proof.

liberty is a franchise element.

free of and from from in this context are synonymous.

negotiated and win are 2 different things.

won nothing that is why the british had to come back burn down the white house and kick our asses back in line in 1812.

the only way under british law to be free from is by "conquest", we did not conquer britain, otherwise all "charters" and treaties remain in full force and effect.

 

My guess is that they would quickly form a standing army, and then conquer by force those states which chose not to leave with them. They will not allow any other opinion but theirs to flourish.

 

so they step from the frying pan to the frying pan

 

And in this 'modern' age, they'd have to realize and accept (even before they set out upon such a foolish endeavor) that they would NEVER destroy ALL of those who would oppose them. Either that or mutually assured destruction (today's weapons are like that). They'd be far better-off continuing in the courts and political bodies of the current system (despite its incidental inefficiencies and troubles). That's my take on it all.

Another civil war in this land would lead to NOTHING good.

 

That information is key, but probably not in the way you mean ( I looked at your link; ridiculous). It's key in that most of the country has been Zinnified, and feel that the founding of their own country is illegitimate.

Your "key" is that you feel the US is a mistake. Congrats.

- - - Updated - - -

That's intellectually incoherent. Individuals seceding? Doesn't make sense, and then you highlight Texas, which, if you didn't know, is a State, not an individual.

 

What bugs me is that they're determined to keep "progressing," but they don't seem to pay much attention to where they're headed or how they're getting there.

 

The Brits came back and whipped our asses? The Battle of New Orleans says otherwise.

 

To one indoctrinated as you likely are, I can understand your response to the information provided.

 

The 'secession' states are the poorest. After they paid their federal debts, they'd be bankrupt. Even if their debts were forgiven, they'd still go bankrupt because federal money is the only thing keeping them afloat.