Ron Paul defends Texas secession as ‘very much an American principle.’
Ron Paul defends Texas secession as ‘very much an American principle.’
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) recently raised the idea of Texas seceding from the Union as one possible response to President Obama’s fiscal policies. Now, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is following suit. In a video post on his Campaign for Liberty PAC, Paul said the secession debate “is worth a discussion“:
[Perry] really stirred some of the liberal media, where they started screaming about: ‘What is going on here, this is un-American.’ I heard one individual say ‘this is treasonous to even talk about it.’ Well, they don’t know their history very well, because if they think about it…it is very American to talk about secession. That’s how we came in being. Thirteen colonies seceded from the British and established a new country. So secession is a very much American principle.
Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ok, fine by me.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:52 pmAs long as Texas pays for the fence.
It doesn’t surprise me that Dr. Paul would agree, he would then be able to run for president of Texas without too much opposition.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:53 pmRon Paul is a whack job. It is only name calling, but it’s true.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:53 pmIT’S NOT ABOUT SECESSION – IT’S ABOUT STATES RIGHTS. The rule of law or the constitution is being trampled by the federal government and this rule of law works as a checks and balances protecting the people from an out of control government.
. 1) Our country was born out of blood by “seceding” from Britain. If secession is not allowed, why did the founding fathers do it themselves? 2) The 2nd Amendment is primarily in place to protect the citizens ability to overthrow government when and if it exceeds its limits. Is secession really that far from overthrowing a tyrannical government? 3) There is no right of secession included in the Constitution because rights are not declared by the Constitution, rather it clearly LIMITS the governments power. 4) The 10th Amendment clearly reserves everything not enumerated (written/ included) in the Constitution to the states and/ or the people. Secession is a right.
Our founders laid down a philosophy of opposition to this. They would fall firmly on the side of the libertarians and constitutionalists on today’s issues. Certainly, they would never contend that the possibility of secession as perpetually “out of hand”. Some would be for secession today, others against, but all would fight against the unconstitutional scope of today’s federal government.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:56 pmaquarius2, Ron Paul would be in a tough race against Chuck Norris, who has already proclaimed himself as President of Tejas.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:56 pmThey’re still whining about Obama’s fiscal policies ?
April 20th, 2009 at 12:57 pmHaven’t they heard ?
Their party has just been let off scott free for known war crimes.
I would think they’d be dancing in the street followed by giving him a GIANT blank check and handing out the rubber stamps in congress.
Some peoples kids I tell ya, no appreciation.
There you go. Ronnie has finally jumped the shark. I knew he had it in him!
April 20th, 2009 at 12:58 pmFunny, it didn’t work out that way in 1861.
But the whole thing is a pretty obvious bluff. It’s only a few Libertarian types like Paul who actually buy into the anti-government stuff. The Rick Perrys of the world will rail against the fed’ral gubmint in order to whip up support from their base but at the end of the day they know which creek their state would be up if it were on its own.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:59 pmI don’t think this is about secession as much as its about having a giant pity party….
April 20th, 2009 at 12:59 pmSwedishSkinJer Says:
IT’S NOT ABOUT SECESSION – IT’S ABOUT STATES RIGHTS. The rule of law or the constitution is being trampled by the federal government…
Kindly point out the clause in the Constitution of the United States of America that governs the procedure for secession. Then yourself which side is “trampling the Constitution.”
You people really need to stop talking about a document that you have zero respect for.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:59 pmIs Ron Paul only crazy half the time?
April 20th, 2009 at 12:59 pmSSJ (#4), it’s funny how big governmental power is only an issue when a Democrat gets into power.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pmGlad this turkey didn’t win…it’s bad enough to put up with his fan club at work…
:[
April 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pmBruce, if a government becomes too powerful, then our own Founders encouraged the dissolution of the incumbent government and the power of the governed. It’s a simple matter of states’ rights and checks and balances.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pmCrazy Ron Texas is allowed to break up into 5 states, better yet just leave the union and make sure you drink Insane Rick Perry’s kool-aide and than you all will be free.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:02 pmRon who? This guy is a kook along with the 2% who voted for his dumbass.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:03 pmSwedishSkinJer Says:
““““““““““““““““““““““““`
What you say may be true but don’t you find it ironic that the republicans with the help of Faux news are pushing this three months after losing power in the government?
Phuck Texas! Let them secede then we can invade them for their oil.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:05 pmIs Ron Paul only crazy half the time?
No.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:07 pmI’m glad to see the fringe kook-o-sphere getting all this attention. They’ve been forced to lurk in the shadows far too long.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:07 pmRight wing extremist groups consider Ron Paul a patriot. Now I agree with some of his ideas like closing down our overseas military bases and getting rid of the FED (which Paul recently stated we couldn’t do now) and getting rid of the income tax and the IRS but Ron Paul is still a Reaganite, trickle down economy and deregulation. He is just the crazy uncle of the republican party. I wonder how he feels about the GOP hijacking his “revolution” movement?
April 20th, 2009 at 1:09 pmIn 1993, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously warned that American society was “defining deviancy down.” To the approval of conservatives, Moynihan cautioned that when it came to crime, family breakdown and other social pathologies, “we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard.”
Now 16 years later, so it is with American political culture. As this week’s Tax Day Tea Parties showed, events sponsored by Fox News and conservative lobbyists, revolution, secession and other incitements to violence once beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse are now treated as mainstream. No doubt, the Republican Party and the conservative movement are defining political deviancy down.
For the details, see:
April 20th, 2009 at 1:09 pm“Defining Political Deviancy Down.”
Should read: trickle down economics…
April 20th, 2009 at 1:09 pm.
Because nothing says, “Country First!”…
… Like talk of seceding from the Union.
.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:09 pmSwedishSkinJer Says:
Bruce, if a government becomes too powerful, then our own Founders encouraged the dissolution of the incumbent government and the power of the governed. It’s a simple matter of states’ rights and checks and balances.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
You must have been all over getting the Bush administration out of power…
April 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pmSwedishSkinJer Says:
Bruce, if a government becomes too powerful, then our own Founders encouraged the dissolution of the incumbent government and the power of the governed. It’s a simple matter of states’ rights and checks and balances.
It is not the Government that has become to powerful. It is the corporations that have been allowed to violate Anti Trust laws and become so large that they dictate and control political policy.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pmOn topic,
Ron Paul is a nut case. Always has been, always will be.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pmI like Ron Paul. He raises a lot of issues which are too often ignored, like the nature of the Fed, e.g., but he’s just wrong here.
There’s no tradition of secession save for the Civil War (and you should read sometime the vile Texas Declaration of Secession). And secession from a reasonably representative democracy is not equivalent to taking up arms against an oppressive monarchy. One’s an act of courage driven by necessity, the other’s holding your breath till mommy gives you another cookie.
Then there’s the rather inconvenient fact that Texas gets more from the Federal government than it pays. Plus all the military bases and defense contractors disappearing from the Texas landscape might cause just a wee bit of angst among the people after the fact. Careful what you wish for, Ron. You won’t look that appealing in tar and feathers.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pmIs Ron Paul an American?
April 20th, 2009 at 1:12 pmSo why weren’t states’ rights a concern when Bush started depleted the states’ National Guard units?
April 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pmOH! I wish they would just stop talking about seceding and do it – ROTFL! Let’s see how far Perry & Paul would get before the citizens of Texas ‘hang ‘em high’!
April 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pmA History Of Fear By The Republican Party:
1935: Social security will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
1944: The G.I. Bill will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
1965: Medicare will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
1994: Health care will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
2003: Terrorists want to kill us all and all of our children.
2009: President Obama is turning us into a socialist country.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:14 pmHe also happens to be right. If states don’t have the right to leave, then what’s the point?
Of course the idea of Texas leaving the US is stupid and crazy, and won’t help either Texas or the US, but it should be considered their right to do so.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:15 pmLet Texas secede. They will soon run out of black gold and fall behind in the new green economy. We get to keep Kinky, Hightower, and Austin btw. ;-)
April 20th, 2009 at 1:17 pmWatching the GOP is like watching a bad comedy. The actors are either crazy old white dudes or unintellegent women. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman are perfect examples. Jeez! Why can’t the GOP attract smarter people? The answer is easy. People are too smart to register Republican.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pmYou know what is so great about SwedishSkinJer, he copies all the RNC talking points word for word without editing anything to make them sound like he had an original thought.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pmYo, Texans!
B-bye!
An’ don’t let the Constitution hitcha in the ass on the wayout…
April 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pmThe Supreme Court disagrees.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pmME FIRST! Country last? What the hell is wrong with these double talking morons?
April 20th, 2009 at 1:19 pmSwedishSkinJer Says:
Bruce, if a government becomes too powerful, then our own Founders encouraged the dissolution of the incumbent government and the power of the governed.
I see absolutely no argument being made today that anywhere near approaches the philosophical validity of the Declaration of Independence, which stated in very concise terms the case for their secession from England at that moment at that time. When somebody writes something as good about Texas today, then you’ll get my attention.
Until then, you just don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Nobody advocating Texan secession has defined what “too powerful,” is, nor made the case that the U.S.A. has crossed any such line. You have no business comparing your little whinge-fest to the American Revolution.
.
SwedishSkinJer Says:
It’s a simple matter of states’ rights and checks and balances.
Now you’re just using words you heard smart people use one time. States’ rights are governed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The words it says actually say what states’ rights mean. It isn’t just a magic incantation you get to wave over whatever argument you want.
But “checks and balances” is way out there. It’s not even relevant. “Checks and balances” is the thing the Bush administration tried to eliminate. But it’s got nothing whasoever to do with the relationship between state and federal government.
Again, you’re making it extremely clear that you have no idea whatsoever what you’re talking about.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:21 pmWrong. The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
Nothing about being “too powerful”. That’s wishful thinking of a libertarian.
And someone says, “Our founders laid down a philosophy of opposition to this. They would fall firmly on the side of the libertarians and constitutionalists on today’s issues” that someone is apparently ignorant of the monumental struggles among the “Founders” regarding the interests of “sates’ rights” (which was always a euphemism for the right to own slaves) versus the need for a strong central government.
Jefferson was always a strong proponent of states’ rights (until he became president and realized the advantages of a strong central executive). George Washington and John Adams, in particular, were strong supporters of the federal government, which is why they were called “Federalists”.
To claim that the Founders were some monolithic body of ur-libertarians is flat absurd.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm.
Dear Texas,
Please take George and Laura with you.
XXOO
America
.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:23 pmTheNextDylan Says:
Let Texas secede.
Eff that. I’ve been itching for a real shooting match against the chickenhawk traitors who’ve been systematically trying to tear apart everything America stands for. If they want to voluteer to a shooting match and we get the U.S. military on our side, then I for one will be glad to have this civil war. Let’s do this thing.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pmNext thing you know our 2nd Amendment rights are going to be taken away and that`s the reason for secession talk along with way to much gov`t spending.I still want to know where these HYPOCRITES were during the Shrub and his crime family were raping and pillaging this country.We won get over it and get behind Obama to get us moving upward instead of our current downward spiral.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pmSomebody left the Swedish fish in the sun, and it melted all over the sidewalk…
April 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pmSwedishSkinJer Says:
Some would be for secession today, others against, but all would fight against the unconstitutional scope of today’s federal government.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
_____________
What about today’s federal government is unconstitutional? Do explain. This should be fun.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pmQuick Overview of a Ron Paul Presidency:
April 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pm1. Take Oath of Office.
2. Abolish the Federal Reserve.
3. Begin impeachment proceedings.
He’s wrong. States don’t have the right to leave. We fought a war over that point at one time. You may have heard of it. Ken Burns made a documentary about it.
The point is… a strong union. that’s the friggin’ point.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:26 pmFrom what I can gather, CTH, it seems that when the American people elected a Democrat as President, the government became unconstitutional.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pmSwedishSkinJer Says:
Bruce, if a government becomes too powerful, then our own Founders encouraged the dissolution of the incumbent government and the power of the governed. It’s a simple matter of states’ rights and checks and balances.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
_________
… says the guy who, one thread ago, was arguing FOR the government’s ability to torture. Which is it, Swede? Do you think the government should be a totalitarian state or an anarchy? It can’t be both, you know.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pmYes, lets cut off a huge section of the US and float it off somewhere far away just like we did when we seceded from Britain.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pmIf these people who advocating destroying the United States ever said the Pledge of Allegience, they lied. What part of “…one nation, under God, indivisible” don’t they understand? Up to now, even though he is a Republican, I had some respect for Ron Paul, now I do not.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pmYeah, Ron, because secession worked sooooo well the first time. Yeah.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:29 pmThis is the standard Republican line now. The secessionists are claiming they have to secede from America because they are more American than we Americans. They will prove their patriotism by leaving the Union. Those of us who remain Americans are unAmerican.
Ron Paul is seriously twisted.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:32 pm.
I guess those that speak of seceding from America…
… Are either against Her future, or are sore losers.
.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:32 pmTexas seceding would be a net gain for the federal treasury. They get more Federal $ than they contribute, as is true for most Southern states.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:32 pmit is very American to talk about secession. That’s how we came in being. Thirteen colonies seceded from the British and established a new country. So secession is a very much CONFEDERATE principle.
HE’S forgetting about that little thing called the civil war. How convenient his short term memory loss is for him.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:32 pmDid you hear the joke,an Alaskan says to a Texan, we split Texas in to two states and that way you Texans can be the 2nd and 3rd largest states.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:34 pmI’m sure you can show us the clause of the constitution that allows for states to secede from the Union. I mean, you wouldn’t just be making sh!t up, would you?
April 20th, 2009 at 1:35 pmralph the wonder locust
Wrong. The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
I think you forgot to read every part of that paragraph except what you italicized.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:35 pmElBruce Says:ut “checks and balances” is way out there. It’s not even relevant. “Checks and balances” is the thing the Bush administration tried to eliminate. But it’s got nothing whasoever to do with the relationship between state and federal government.
The whole premise of the Senate and The House is based on checks and balances so that one or several states may not hold an overwhlming amount of power over the others. House is based on population and every state has 2 senate seats. to balance it out. laws have to pass both chambers and both chambers compromise the majority of Federal Gov or at least one third how ever you want to look at it.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pmRP2012, did you know that the Declaration Of Independence is not a legal document.
What a dumbass.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pmSwedishSkinJer Says:
Bruce, if a government becomes too powerful, then our own Founders encouraged the dissolution of the incumbent government and the power of the governed. It’s a simple matter of states’ rights and checks and balances.
Too bad this hit-n-run hack troll has nothing but a fuzzy interpretation to go on…
April 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pmRP2012 Says:
I think you forgot to read every part of that paragraph except what you italicized
This is directed at the people of Texas specifically? What is the mechanism for secession?
What I love about Libertarians is that they seldom seem to think things through…
April 20th, 2009 at 1:40 pmNice summary! Sadly, the ‘94 health care battle is a fight they won. Ever since then I’ve not been able to look William Kristol w/o feeling a strong desire to throw something at him. That would be bad for my TV though. >.< Hehehe.
At any rate, I find it incredible that we are actually having people seriously talk about secession! This is crazy. Honestly, take a step back and think about this. I find it surreal! Granted, the odds of something like this happening are vanishingly small, but to think someone would actually consider it a viable option.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:40 pmThe Federal Government was never intended to be the all powerful ruler of the land. Checks and balances were put into place so that the federal government would remain small and efficient at what it was designated to do. I can assuredly say the founders never imagined a Government so involved in the way people live their lives everyday.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:41 pmBy definition, it’s anti American.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pmUncle Fester Lurks Says:
A History Of Fear By The Republican Party:
1935: Social security will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
True, see 10 Trillion Dollar Debt.
1944: The G.I. Bill will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
GI bill would seem to have been an excellent program. No arguments there.
1965: Medicare will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
True, see 10 Trillion Dollar Debt.
1994: Health care will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
True, see 10 Trillion Dollar Debt.
2003: Terrorists want to kill us all and all of our children.
What you think that they want to buy us Ice Cream and take us to the park! WTF? Actually they only want to kill those that they can not either convert or tax. See the Qu’ran.
2009: President Obama is turning us into a socialist country.
Um, well yeah… I’m pretty sure Milton Friedman never said the best way to a successful and free capitalist economy was through the aggrandizement of a bloated government.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pmSwedishForeSkinJer Says:
Bruce, if a government becomes too powerful, then our own Founders encouraged the dissolution of the incumbent government and the power of the governed. It’s a simple matter of states’ rights and checks and balances.
History and Education weren’t your strong subjects, eh?
Ah, you Libertarians crack me the Fck up!
Your hero, ManCow, recently was canned here in Kalamazoo because of the low ratings.
Now, Kalamazoo is not known for being a hotbed of Liberalism, but still, it does say something when even the CONservatives here won’t listen to his drivel.
:-)
April 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
Constitutionally speaking, Dr. Paul is correct.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
Cite it, b!tch.
.
ConservativeForProgress Says:
However, history has shown that any attempt at exercising this constitutional right will be met with military agression.
It’s worth mentioning that there has been no Supreme Court decision in over 150 years that makes Lincoln’s attack of the Southern states illegal. Therefore, it’s not only history, it’s also legal precedent. Mind you, it’s law that was written by the winners, but that’s still the governing legal precedent in this instance: try it, and we will f**k you up. So, please – try it.
.
RP2012 Says:
I think you forgot to read every part of that paragraph except what you italicized.
How does the non-italicized part invalidate the italicized part? It’s cute how you people don’t know how “out of context” actually works.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pmActually, they don’t think at all. They’ve been given a few vague ideals to spout by rote about statism, freedom of the market place, ect. When questioned about specific policies, they don’t even know where the Libertarian Party stands. For instance, RP2012 didn’t even know that the LP has called for the repeal of civil rights law. He is an ignorant fool.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pmDoes the legislature of Texas–does even a majority of Texans–have the right to deprive the rest of their American citizenships?
What’s libertarian about that?
States’ Rights, in the case of the Old South, was used to give states the rights to deprive individuals of their rights. Something called slavery.
Using the 10th Amendment has its uses–like refuting right-wing fascists who say ‘there’s no right to privacy in the Constitution!” But the 10th does not give the States any authority, since there’s the addition ‘or the people.’ And we fought a civil war to make explicit in the constitution that the rights of the individual take precedence over the rights of the States.
If we’re talking rights of individuals against the government, a state seceding would be that of a state arrogating sovereign power to itself over its citizens, and removing the protections of the Constitution that the individuals might think they had. Do these jokers actually think that they would fare better with the state government having absolute sovereign power over them? Because that’s what they’d get.
The ‘rights’ the teabaggers seem to feel they deserve are the right not to be taxed and the right to have their way even when outvoted. Those are not rights anybody has ever had,
Oh wait, I’m wrong. Those rights are rights that only one group in history has ever had in any nation–the nobility.
That’s what they expect to have.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pmRP2012
I can assuredly say the founders never imagined a Government so involved in the way people live their lives everyday.
Specious argument at best RP. I don’t think the founding fathers would have envisioned the blackberry or the airplane either.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:46 pmRP2012 Says:
The Federal Government was never intended to be the all powerful ruler of the land. Checks and balances were put into place so that the federal government would remain small and efficient at what it was designated to do. I can assuredly say the founders never imagined a Government so involved in the way people live their lives everyday.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
____________
You’re right. The founding fathers would never have imagined the government regulating things like railroads or air traffic or interstate highways or telecommunications or satellite launches or electrical transmission or container shipping or any other technological advance that hadn’t been invented yet. That’s why they designed a system that would be flexible enough to accomodate a changing social and economic landscape.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:47 pmTweedster Says:
RP2012 Says:
I think you forgot to read every part of that paragraph except what you italicized
This is directed at the people of Texas specifically? What is the mechanism for secession?
What I love about Libertarians is that they seldom seem to think things through…”
First off I didn’t advocate the secession of Texas and I think this blog site (as usual) completely missed the point of the message. Dr. Paul simply said the threat of secession would keep the federal government scared of the states and that this idea should be debated and talked about. Do you really like and support this big bureaucratic centralized government? It goes both ways when you have power like this. Democrats hated what Bush did, Republicans hate what Obama does, so why not shrink the power structure so neither sides can screw everything up like the repeatedly do?
April 20th, 2009 at 1:47 pmindependent989 Says:
Actually they only want to kill those that they can not either convert or tax. See the Qu’ran.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
____________
I have. The “convert or kill” clause isn’t in there.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:49 pmSwedishSkinJer Says:
Bruce, if a government becomes too powerful, then our own Founders encouraged the dissolution of the incumbent government and the power of the governed. It’s a simple matter of states’ rights and checks and balances.
SSJ, Nothing has changed. Government has not “become” anything different than what it was prior to Jan. 20, 2009. You surely do not understand the basics of a democratic, constitutional form of government. Every four years in this country, the eligible voters get together and vote for new leadership. And the government transitions peacefully from the previous leadership to the new leadership. If every time this happened various states considered seceding from the union of states, what is the point of a democratic federal government?
And let me just repeat, nothing has changed except the leadership. The government is the same, the Constitution is the same, the checks and balances system is the same, the states rights arrangement is the same. Enjoy.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:49 pmStates rights is a cry made by those people who advocate not giving the rights to the people. Those fighting against the civil right movement of the 60s, made this argument to maintain the Jim Crow laws and barriers to voting in the south. The equal protection clause has been shown to be of greater weight than states rights. The equal protection clause protects the people not the states. So if Texas were to leave the union, one could project that the residents of Texas could have their rights not protected, as the US Constitution would no longer the necessarily applicable. Therefore it would NOT be legal or constitutional to leave the union as US Citizens living there could lose the constitutional protections.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:50 pmRP2012
So you aren’t advocating actual secession but defend it as a state’s right. So, answer my question please.
What would be the mechanism for secession?
April 20th, 2009 at 1:51 pmRon Paul speaks to the fearful panicked right wing morons. They accept his fear mongering due to their own cowardice.
Why are right wingers such cowards?
April 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pmDemocrats hated what Bush did, Republicans hate what Obama does, so why not shrink the power structure so neither sides can screw everything up like the repeatedly do?
Because nature abhors a power vacuum. If you arbitrarily take power away from the federal government then the states or private entities will rush in to take those powers.
It’s true that there are some things neither government nor anyone else should be able to do — like locking people up and torturing them without fair trials. Texas threatening to secede (even if it weren’t a ridiculous bluff) wouldn’t make this less likely.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pmThis “threat” of succession could be taken more seriously if advocates didn’t wave an American flag at the same time. Leaving the nation isn’t “patriotic” to in the least. It’s the opposite. American didn’t succeed from England because we loved England or wanted to make it better. The South didn’t try to leave the US because it was an American tradition. To claim that the threat is about balance of power, or being more American is utterly cynical. It’s just a stupid PR stunt that a few wack-jobs will get excited about but just comes across as idiotic to everybody else.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pmshoeless Chilopoda Says:
Tweedster Says:
——————————————————————————–
What I love about Libertarians is that they seldom seem to think things through…
Actually, they don’t think at all. They’ve been given a few vague ideals to spout by rote about statism, freedom of the market place, ect. When questioned about specific policies, they don’t even know where the Libertarian Party stands. For instance, RP2012 didn’t even know that the LP has called for the repeal of civil rights law. He is an ignorant fool.”
Actually shoeless, you asked ME what MY position was on the civil rights acts and I have MY own opinions on the issue. I know what the mainstream Libertarian stances are but I do not blindly follow what my party says, like you obviously do. It’s called being an individual and thinking for yourself, I agree with the LP about 90-95% of the time so that is the party I associate myself with. You really grasp at straws when your principles are challenged you sad, ignorant fool.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
Actually they only want to kill those that they can not either convert or tax. See the Qu’ran.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
____________
I have. The “convert or kill” clause isn’t in there.
“Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax.” Koran 9:29
“Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191
“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.”
Koran 9:123
“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5
“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85
“The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”
Koran 9:30
“Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam”
Koran 5:33
“The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.” Koran 9:28
“Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Koran 22:19
“Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.” Koran 47:4
“The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Koran 8:65
“Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Koran 3:28
“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Koran 8:12
“Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” Koran 8:60
April 20th, 2009 at 1:56 pmStates rights have been fought for since the inception of the constitution and albeit it was argued in advocacy of the Jim Crow laws however it has also been an issue with interstate commerce, shipping and transportation routes as well. currently Alaska and Montana are passing laws into their state constitutions solely with the purpose of strengthening states rights. and Constitutional scholars and experts believe it will hold up in the courts. However to actually secede that is just a bunch of Hot Gulf Air blowing out of Texas.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:58 pmThanks for your concern, RP, but no, I didn’t forget to read it. I’ve read it before, and I’ll read it again. It appears that your reading and mine must fundamentally disagree, if you think that you are making any kind of point here.
Not that your comment has any relation to my rebuttal of our Swedish friend’s claim that states have a right to seced when the government “gets too powerful”.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:58 pmIt’s in there. It’s also in the Bible, to be fair.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:59 pmYou lying sack of sh!t. You didn’t even believe me until I showed you the section of the Libertarian Party platform which calls for the repeal of civil rights law. I had to educate you on a fundamental position of the LP. No only are you an ignorant fool, you are also a shameless liar.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:59 pm“Marginalize bigoted, racist and meatheaded trolls whenever possible, and insult them often.”
April 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pmRaven 3:27
Right wingers are simply cowards
they fear gay people
they fear freedom
they fear taxes
they fear strong women
they fear competition
they fear skin tones
they fear facts
they fear truth
they are a bunch of pansy wimps
April 20th, 2009 at 2:01 pmAnyone know which translation of the Q’ran our independent friend is using?
He didn’t provide any links or actual citations.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:02 pmNext thing you know our 2nd Amendment rights are going to be taken away and that`s the reason for secession talk along with way to much gov`t spending.
wanna weapon that’s peerfectly safe from wrongful appropriation?
Get a black-powder, flint-lock muzzle-loader…Your 2nd Amendment is safest there…
What part of “…one nation, under God, indivisible” don’t they understand?”
Mebbe the “under God” part, which violates the First Amendment?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:02 pmblockquote>wags Says:
I have. The “convert or kill” clause isn’t in there.
It’s in there. It’s also in the Bible, to be fair.
Religion of any kind is a mental disorder and should be treated as such.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:02 pmwags Says:
I have. The “convert or kill” clause isn’t in there.
It’s in there. It’s also in the Bible, to be fair.
Proof please, chapter and verse of the New Testament.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:02 pmAre you sure the colonies didn’t secede from England because they felt they were more more loyal to the King than were the British?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:03 pmah, the dishonest tactics of a right wing sissy
he said the bible, now YOU want to limit it to the new testament (whichever translation wasn’t addressed)
anyone that takes literally either book is mentally challenged
April 20th, 2009 at 2:04 pmYou lying sack of sh!t. You didn’t even believe me until I showed you the section of the Libertarian Party platform which calls for the repeal of civil rights law. I had to educate you on a fundamental position of the LP. No only are you an ignorant fool, you are also a shameless liar.”
No you took it upon yourself to post a Libertarian platform and I wouldn’t answer your question because I knew exactly what you were trying to do but alas I gave my personal opinion. Pat yourself on the back Shoeless you think your right. You make me chuckle……”attack the man not the principle!!!”
April 20th, 2009 at 2:05 pmIn the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 1 it reads that “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States”. It has always been understood by the Texas Supreme court that this is a very broad statement as it does not refer to the three branches of the federal government, only the Constitution. Rick Perry was brilliant in pointing to the 11th amendment when making his statement because he was stating the legalese of the matter. The truth is, Texas won’t secede. They are the only state that could pull it off, but they won’t.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:06 pmRantingTommy Says:
independent989 Says:
wags Says:
I have. The “convert or kill” clause isn’t in there.
It’s in there. It’s also in the Bible, to be fair.
Proof please, chapter and verse of the New Testament.
ah, the dishonest tactics of a right wing sissy
he said the bible, now YOU want to limit it to the new testament (whichever translation wasn’t addressed)
anyone that takes literally either book is mentally challenged
No, this country was founded, mostly, by Christians. Christianity is based on the New Testament not the Old Testament. Therefore, if you are going to do any of this “tit for tat” BS, then it is my pinion that you should use the relevant book.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pmI disagree, but this is not the thread for this discussion.
Use the google. I’m sure you know how.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pmlol, I see RP2012 has been caught lying yet again
these right wing sissies never learn. they think they can BS liberals the same way they BS their gullible right wing friends
too funny
April 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pmRepeating the mistakes of our history is not an American virtue.
We fought wars that sacrificied 100s of 1000s of American lives for this kind of thinking.
This was decided. We are a Union.
Just because other Americans did it a long time ago in our history is not a compelling reason to do it again.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pmI suppose that if Texas did succeed in seceding, that Mexico would annex them in a heartbeat.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:08 pmAnd we could sit back and laugh our asses off as the Mexican army re-took the Alamo.
wrong again, sissy
this country was founded by Deists that were decidedly NOT christians
of course, you home-schooled hillbillies wouldn’t have learned that
April 20th, 2009 at 2:08 pmRantingTommy Says:
Right wingers are simply cowards
they fear gay people
they fear freedom
they fear taxes
they fear strong women
they fear competition
they fear skin tones
they fear facts
they fear truth
they are a bunch of pansy wimps”
When the topic arrives at this^^^^ It’s my cue to leave this nonsense. It was fun….especially with you shoeless.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:09 pmwags Says:
Religion of any kind is a mental disorder and should be treated as such.
I disagree, but this is not the thread for this discussion.
Proof please, chapter and verse of the New Testament.
Use the google. I’m sure you know how.
I was asked for proof I provided it. You were asked and yo did not. You lose…Next.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:09 pmAs with most liars, you are continuing to lie even though your lie has been exposed. When I told you Ron Paul supported repeal of civil rights law, you did not believe me. You had no idea that was a plank in the Libertarian Party Platform. To continue to lie to someone, when you know that person knows you are lying, is pathological.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:09 pmUm… did they hit a nerve with you, or are you just letting your anger get the best of you?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:10 pmIt seems like Paul is forgetting who won the Civil War or all those dead Americans did nothing to prevent another civil war.
Constitutional or not, no State is going to secede. This talk is only sore loser tantrum-whinning that won’t even be a thought a few months from now (when the mid-term campaigns start).
April 20th, 2009 at 2:10 pmrun away, RP, you liar and coward
I guess it’s just “indy” the right winger left to carry the water for the cowards now
April 20th, 2009 at 2:11 pmGreat point! I never thought of that! Obviously, Gov. Perry hasn’t thought of it either.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:11 pmTexas won’t seceed. This is just the Governor’s attempt to get some press, and it worked swimmingly.
This is how it works now kids. If you need to keep your name in the media, just say some ridiculous, outrageous thing, and presto! Temporary relevance.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:11 pmI hereby invite any pro-seccession groups or leaders to publicly burn some American flags. After all, it’s not “your” flag, it’s the flag of the nation you want to secede from. So make your anger known by burning it. Go ahead.
.
RP2012 Says:
It goes both ways when you have power like this. Democrats hated what Bush did, Republicans hate what Obama does…
What Bush did: warrantless wiretapping, habeus corpus exceptions (aka. making people disappear), torturing people, signing statements to override the law, lying to start a war, massive deficit spending, destroyed the economy.
What Obama did: slightly raise taxes on the rich (to 1990’s levels), some deficit spending to fix the destroyed economy.
There’s no comparison. Unless you’re an extremely wealthy person who has profited from uneccessary war and the attempt to establish a police state, you have to prefer Obama to Bush. Are you an extremely wealthy person who has profited from uneccessary war and the attempt to establish a police state?
.
ralph the wonder locust Says:
Anyone know which translation of the Q’ran our independent friend is using?
He didn’t provide any links or actual citations.
That’s because he didn’t get it from the Quran. I’m sure there’s an online version somewhere. I’ll go try to check his quotes. I’m pretty sure that they’re all lifted from reversal contexts though. They do that with the Bible a lot, too.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:12 pmYikes! Are we about to refight the Civil War, the bloodiest and most horrible ever on our soil? Did everyone forget? Of course, if we had permitted the South to secede, perhaps so many of our political problems would be gone. Ultimately they might have suffered what they feared most — a slave revolt that succeeded, a la Haiti — but then we would not have to have been burdened with their fierce antipathy to the democratic principles and ethics that the rest of us espouse. Maybe: let ‘em go?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:12 pmFine.
And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. -Revelation, 9/4
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. (Thessalonians 3:14)
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6)
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. (Jude 5)
April 20th, 2009 at 2:14 pmTwo words for Moron Perry and Moron Paul: Civil War. That decided whether states have the right to secede. These idiots must not have paid attention in their seventh grade Texas History classes. NOTHING about seceding was ever in our constitution. The deal about breaking into more states is questionable. If we can, I want to be in one of the states without these losers. Kinky Friedman is going to run again, but as a Democrat and we hopefully will be done with this crap.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:18 pmRantingTommy Says:
independent989 Says:
RantingTommy Says:
independent989 Says:
wags Says:
I have. The “convert or kill” clause isn’t in there.
It’s in there. It’s also in the Bible, to be fair.
Proof please, chapter and verse of the New Testament.
ah, the dishonest tactics of a right wing sissy
he said the bible, now YOU want to limit it to the new testament (whichever translation wasn’t addressed)
anyone that takes literally either book is mentally challenged
No, this country was founded, mostly, by Christians. Christianity is based on the New Testament not the Old Testament. Therefore, if you are going to do any of this “tit for tat” BS, then it is my pinion that you should use the relevant book.
wrong again, sissy
this country was founded by Deists that were decidedly NOT christians
of course, you home-schooled hillbillies wouldn’t have learned that
I will concede your point. Therefore are you saying that this in not a Christian Nation? Meaning that the majority of people in this country are not Christian and therefore do not use the teachings of Jesus as a guideline for their everyday lives? Are you saying that the majority uses the Old Testament to as a structure for their everyday lives?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:18 pmindependent989 Says:
“Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191
I’m going with this translation:
As I suspected, you completely raped the context. I’m not even going to waste my time doing the rest. We’ve played this game before, and y’all always bat zero for a zillion.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:20 pmThat’s one thing that really sets me off! I’m so sick of that deluded and misguided evangelical axiom: The country was founded by Christians and Christian principles. OH PLEASE!
That is just a pathetic attempt to try and dictate the rules by which a debate is being had. All it really does is prove that whoever is quoting this little imaginary factoid is parroting the views of Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, etc and doesn’t know history very well.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:21 pmlol, look at the dishonest “indy” trying to change the subject now that he has been proven wrong, YET AGAIN
what a pansy
the majority used to think slavery was ok, too. of course they got that idea from their silly religion, too
our government was founded to PREVENT a religious takeover because, even in those primitive times, our founders realized just how insane you holy rollers get
good thing our Constitution is much much stronger than your “god” (hint: the Constitution actually exists)
April 20th, 2009 at 2:21 pmwags Says:
I was asked for proof I provided it. You were asked and yo did not. You lose…Next.
Fine.
And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. -Revelation, 9/4
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. (Thessalonians 3:14)
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6)
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. (Jude 5)
Dude come on, that is a far cry from ““Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax.” Koran 9:29″ You are actually going to say with a straight face that the above are consistent with the verses from the Qu’ran. Please, you are reaching my friend.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:22 pmUh, no. By saying ‘not a Christian nation’ he means secular. i.e. not a theocracy.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:22 pmThis is a wet dream for Ron Paul. He could repeal civil rights law, and reinsitute Jim Crow in Texas.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:22 pmI had a feelign you’d take this tack.
You want me to cite the OT then?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:23 pmjjm Says:
Yikes! Are we about to refight the Civil War, the bloodiest and most horrible ever on our soil? Did everyone forget?
Yeah, but we’re going to use the might of the modern U.S. army against Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent, so it’ll be a lot cleaner this time. You know, bombing runs over Dallas, bunker-busters in Crawford, etc. It’ll look exactly like Iraq, except probably be over even quicker.
.
independent989 Says:
Therefore are you saying that this in not a Christian Nation?
The United States of America is a secular nation that practices separation of church and state.
.
independent989 Says:
Meaning that the majority of people in this country are not Christian and therefore do not use the teachings of Jesus as a guideline for their everyday lives?
The Bill of Rights was introduced in order to prevent the majority of people living as citizens of the United States of America from persecuting any minority.
Also, the United States of America is a secular nation that practices separation of church and state.
Therefore, what the majority personally believe is in no way relevant to any public policy matter whatsoever.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:24 pmindependent989 Says:
No, this country was founded, mostly, by Christians. Christianity is based on the New Testament not the Old Testament. Therefore, if you are going to do any of this “tit for tat” BS, then it is my pinion that you should use the relevant book.
Actually Christianity is based on the Old Testament AND the New Testament. Both of them. Jesus was a rabbi after all…
April 20th, 2009 at 2:25 pmRantingTommy Says:
lol, look at the dishonest “indy” trying to change the subject now that he has been proven wrong, YET AGAIN
what a pansy
the majority used to think slavery was ok, too. of course they got that idea from their silly religion, too
our government was founded to PREVENT a religious takeover because, even in those primitive times, our founders realized just how insane you holy rollers get
good thing our Constitution is much much stronger than your “god” (hint: the Constitution actually exists)
Typical name calling without proving a thing. Why am I not surprised.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:25 pmNow, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is following suit. In a video post on his Campaign for Liberty PAC, Paul said the secession debate “is worth a discussion“:
Why is a supposedly strict Constitutionalist libertarian so interested is discussing something that is patently unconstitutional?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:26 pmRP2012:
When the topic arrives at this^^^^ It’s my cue to leave this nonsense. It was fun….especially with you shoeless.
Thanks for being a chickensh!t and ignoring my sincere question.
Ashole.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:26 pmKeep riding the CrazyTrain, conservatives…
..these antics will make excellent campaign commercials:
“Ron Raul, advocated secession while our nation was at war! Is this the kind of divisive leadership you want in Congress?”
Vote Any 1. Else for congress.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:26 pmindependent989 Says:
Typical name calling without proving a thing. Why am I not surprised.
Sometimes you get reactions like that when playing semantic games…
April 20th, 2009 at 2:27 pmwags Says:
You are actually going to say with a straight face that the above are consistent with the verses from the Qu’ran. Please, you are reaching my friend.
I had a feelign you’d take this tack.
You want me to cite the OT then?
The OT is not relevant in my opinion for reasons stated above. That is why I stated them because I knew that you would take that tactic.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pmbecause, since it happens so often, you are never surprised when you don’t understand something
you come here to stir up “libruls” and then WHINE when we call you names rather than get down in the mud with your ignorance
maybe we should call whine wun wun and get you a waaaambulance
you sad little right wingers are such wimps
April 20th, 2009 at 2:29 pm101.independent989 Says: No, this country was founded, mostly, by Christians. Christianity is based on the New Testament not the Old Testament. Therefore, if you are going to do any of this “tit for tat” BS, then it is my pinion that you should use the relevant book.
That is demonstrably false.
As far as the Old/New Testament: Same child-murdering, bloodbath inciting God in both….
April 20th, 2009 at 2:30 pmindependent989 Says:
Dude come on, that is a far cry from ““Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax.”
And yet, the Inquisition occurred. The Crusades occurred. Witch trials occurred.
This isn’t a question of having the good religious nutjobs go kill the bad religious nutjobs. This is a question of rational persons preventing religious nutjobs from killing each other… again. Or at least of using the U.S. military as their instrument of holy war.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:30 pmYou mean when it arrives at the point where you have been caught in a lie, you run away. Well, that is better than hanging around and continuing to lie after you have been caught.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:30 pmThen you nullify any argument you had. Christianity is based on BOTH testaments.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:31 pmdishonest people argue dishonestly
April 20th, 2009 at 2:32 pmRantingTommy Says:
independent989 Says:
RantingTommy Says:
lol, look at the dishonest “indy” trying to change the subject now that he has been proven wrong, YET AGAIN
what a pansy
the majority used to think slavery was ok, too. of course they got that idea from their silly religion, too
our government was founded to PREVENT a religious takeover because, even in those primitive times, our founders realized just how insane you holy rollers get
good thing our Constitution is much much stronger than your “god” (hint: the Constitution actually exists)
Typical name calling without proving a thing. Why am I not surprised.
because, since it happens so often, you are never surprised when you don’t understand something
you come here to stir up “libruls” and then WHINE when we call you names rather than get down in the mud with your ignorance
maybe we should call whine wun wun and get you a waaaambulance
you sad little right wingers are such wimps
I don’t “whine” when people make good arguments using facts instead of acting like they are 12 years old and just “get down in the mud” by utilizing juvenile name-calling. Too much gravy and not enough taters. Was that redneck enough for you??
April 20th, 2009 at 2:33 pmYou mean like throwing people in jail for smoking a weed that does less harm that drinking alcohol or taking away the rights of a woman to choose what to do with her own uterus?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:35 pmBS indy, all you do is whine
you are a typical republican crybaby pretending to be “independent” because you are too embarrassed by your party
so get all mad and indignant over getting called out for the pansy little right wing intellectual coward that you are
it provides great entertainment for me and I thank you for that
April 20th, 2009 at 2:37 pmI don’t think we are anywhere close to a state seceding. But, I’ll throw this out there.
Government should really be about responding to the will of the people. There does seem to be a significant ideological divide in the country. (Blue state, Red state or Heartland, Coasts).
Is it possible that the ideological divide becomes great enough that it would make sense to split into two different countries?
I don’t want to see secession, because there are significant ramifications for us as Americans. But, at some point, could the divide become great enough that it makes more sense to split?
If we pass more of the decision making to the states, would that help quell secessionary impulses?
If the people in Texas make more of there own decisions, wouldn’t it be less likely that Texans would contemplate secession?
If the people in California want publicly funded abortion and gay marriage, but the people in Kansas don’t, why not let each state decide for themselves?
Is the one size fits all approach causing the seemingly growing partisan divide?
Just asking the question.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:39 pmComing from Charleston, SC, I seem to remember that State’s Rights are still a huge and passionate rallying cry.
But when we left the Union, the North didn’t take it so well.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:42 pmbackup, the blue states already support the red states, so what happens when you red states split off, will the rest of us have to provide aid to your new little country of cowards?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:42 pmDamn straight, it’s an American principle! Talking about it, that is.
Over beers, up here in the Northeast, who HASN’T idly suggested that Texas leave? Me, I say that more about Florida, but Texas is at least as popular a target of the sentiment as California is.
And I imagine there are beer drinkers in Texas, Florida and California wishing us New Yorkers would leave.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:44 pmindependent989 Says:
I looked up each of these. It seems your version of the Qur’an is divorced from reality.
“Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax.” Koran 9:29
Actual translation: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. (29)
“Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191
Actual translation: (189) Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. (190) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (191) But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.”
Koran 9:123
Actual translation: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). (123)
“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5
Actual translation in context: Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His guidance). (2) And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve, (3) Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). (4) Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (5) And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.
“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85
Actual translation: And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter. (85)
“The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”
Koran 9:30
Actual translation: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! (30)
“Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam”
Koran 5:33
Actual translation: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; (33)
“The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.” Koran 9:28
Actual translation: O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise. (28)
“Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Koran 22:19
Actual translation in context: Lo! those who believe (this revelation), and those who are Jews, and the Sabaeans and the Christians and the Magians and the idolaters – Lo! Allah will decide between them on the Day of Resurrection. Lo! Allah is Witness over all things. (17) Hast thou not seen that unto Allah payeth adoration whosoever is in the heavens and whosoever is in the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the hills, and the trees, and the beasts, and many of mankind, while there are many unto whom the doom is justly due. He whom Allah scorneth, there is none to give him honour. Lo! Allah doeth what He will. (18) These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, (19) Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; (20) And for them are hooked rods of iron. (21) Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.
“Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.” Koran 47:4
Actual translation in context: Those who disbelieve and turn (men) from the way of Allah, He rendereth their actions vain. (1) And those who believe and do good works and believe in that which is revealed unto Muhammad – and it is the truth from their Lord – He riddeth them of their ill-deeds and improveth their state. (2) That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood and because those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus Allah coineth their similitudes for mankind. (3) Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. (4)
“The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Koran 8:65
Actual translation in context: And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, is the Hearer, the Knower. (61) And if they would deceive thee, then lo! Allah is Sufficient for thee. He it is Who supporteth thee with His help and with the believers, (62) And (as for the believers) hath attuned their hearts. If thou hadst spent all that is in the earth thou couldst not have attuned their hearts, but Allah hath attuned them. Lo! He is Mighty, Wise. (63) O Prophet! Allah is Sufficient for thee and those who follow thee of the believers. (64) O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred steadfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence. (65) Now hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a steadfast hundred they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a thousand (steadfast) they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah. Allah is with the steadfast. (66)
“Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Koran 3:28
Actual translation: Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. (28)
“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Koran 8:12
Actual translation in context: When He made the slumber fall upon you as a reassurance from him and sent down water from the sky upon you, that thereby He might purify you, and remove from you the fear of Satan, and make strong your hearts and firm (your) feet thereby. (11) When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. (12) That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment. (13)
“Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” Koran 8:60
Actual translation: Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged. (60)
I did not do any of these translations myself, and am relying on the translations at http://www.oneummah.net/quran/. To translate them all myself would take weeks. At the above link you will also find the Arabic version – if you wish to do your own translation.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:46 pmI don’t “whine” when people make good arguments using facts instead of acting like they are 12 years old and just “get down in the mud” by utilizing juvenile name-calling.
Unfortunately, you wouldn’t know good argumentation if it slapped you across the face with its dick.
Which it has, repeatedly, in this thread.
You seem not to have noticed.
.
backup Says:
Government should really be about responding to the will of the people.
By polling data, or by who whines the loudest? Because neither the election nor subsequent polls support the whiners at all.
Speaking of which, wasn’t it Bush and Cheney who famously and repeatedly said they didn’t care about polls, or about what the American people wanted at all, ever?
.
backup Says:
If the people in Texas make more of there own decisions, wouldn’t it be less likely that Texans would contemplate secession?
If the people in California want publicly funded abortion and gay marriage, but the people in Kansas don’t, why not let each state decide for themselves?
Is the one size fits all approach causing the seemingly growing partisan divide?
First of all, I personally want Texas to try and secede.
Second of all, states rights’ doesn’t extend to the level of something being true in one state but false in another. Human rights aren’t location-specific.
Thirdly, the wingnut states would use that as an excuse to avoid paying their fair share so they can suck more transfer payments out of liberals, who actually are willing to chip in to prevent the country from being flushed down the crapper.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:47 pmMy god, George W. Bush got out of bed every morning violating state’s rights. WTF? Where was all this talk of secession when Bush and Co. were violating evey state’s right they could get their hands on?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:48 pmHow can a right-wingnut possibly argue that somehow Republicans are intelligent??? When someone bring up Michelle Bachman there’s not much that can be said in defense of the Republican Party. Between her and Ann Coulter I’d think most Republicans would be closeted. Those two are disturbing. These aren’t just Dan Quayle idiots; they’re genuinely insane. Hell I can’t even look at Bachman when she’s on television because those eyes just scream “Helter Skelter!”
April 20th, 2009 at 2:48 pmWell it appears that Texas has to stay. But any secessionists from any state who’d like to leave this country that fairly and unanimously elected President Obama are free to leave. When President Bush with the help of his brother stole his first election did the rest of us threaten to break up the country? When he allowed the attack on the Twin Towers because he refused to pay attention to the daily briefings where he was warned of said attack did we threaten to break up the country? When he invaded a sovereign middle east nation NOT being run by religious fanatics spending over a trillion dollars to make his friends richer did we break up the country?
We complained but we didn’t destroy the country. You right wing cry babies can man up and realize the majority of Americans voted against what you believe in. And if you’re too big of babies to do that pack your bags and leave. Just walk south and keep going. Except you Alaskan secessionists, wave to Putin and maybe he’ll come pick you up.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:53 pmThe drug debate is a decent example to consider the promotion of states rights.
What would happen if the Federal government said that it would no longer weigh in on the drug issue. The states could decide to legislate on the drug issues as they see fit. Hypothetically, Oregon might legalize pot. Mississippi might not. The people in Oregon would be happy and so would the people in Mississippi. Additionally, you would have a couple of test beds to use to evaluate which approach is better.
Obviously, there would be problems. Drug transfers between states, for one. I’m sure there would be others. Would the benefits outweigh the negatives?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pmindependent989 “quotes” from the Koran to show how terrible their religion is (compared to Christianity). But this had the feel of a copy-and-paste, so I browsed a couple Koran sites, comparing to make sure I wasn’t on some overly cleaned up site, and here’s what I found:
The real text: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
(more Christian-sounding “we’re better than the Heathens stuff”)
The real text: …And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
… And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
(basically, “defend yourself, but don’t go overboard” – sounds downright Christian to me)
The real text: …But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful… “2.193″:And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
(basically, “don’t fight them if they don’t oppress you”)
The real text: “And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
(basically, “meh! those wackos!”)
The real text: “5.33″:The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or (more bad stuff) and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
(now that’s pretty harsh – yet not it’s prefaced with “those who wage war” – it’s a defensive statement)
The real text: “8.12″: …therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them…. This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle — then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil).
(basically, some rather over-the-top self defense)
——–
I could go on and on but got tired of comparing texts and didn’t want to take up too much room. Bottom line, the original quote is carefully edited and dumbed down to make it much scarier. That inaccurate version gets passed around and around and everybody gets all outraged at how Islam is Out To Get The Christians. But the reality is very much like Christianity: a fairly large amount of crazy-talk, some of it threatening, some of it wise. Most of the quotes I found were really about self-defense and how Islam Is Better (the Christians can say that but the Muslims can’t??)
If people like independent989 want to contribute, they need to do better than just do a bulk copy-and-paste from an anti-Islam propaganda site and claim to make a point.
My personal view is that all religion is insane. Christians cherry-pick the parts that appeal to them and for sure the Muslims do too. And there are sub-groups that pick their favorite parts. There are the “God is love” Christians like in my wife’s church and the “Kill gays and Muslims” Christians on hate radio. I’m sure the Muslims do the same. Rather than just mindlessly copy-and-paste some text that reinforces your pre-existing beliefs, why not try something truly risky, and try to learn something new?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:58 pmUncle Fester Lurks Said:
A History Of Fear By The Republican Party:
…
2009: President Obama is turning us into a socialist country.
——–
I would rewrite that as :
2009 : President Obama’s tax cuts (which benefits 98%
April 20th, 2009 at 3:05 pmof small businesses) will break small business, become a huge tax burden on our citizens, and bankrupt our country!
Just when I thought that the good Dr. Paul had more sense than the average Republican, he goes and says that this nutjob of a governor has a point?
Look, ripping a star off our flag is the most unpatriotic thing you can advocate (Todd Palin & AIP), or even vaguely mention. I know we started by the method, but once we became a whole nation, that option should never be an issue.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:06 pmThe ignorance of history and law in this thread is astounding.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:08 pmMrBrown Says:
Look, ripping a star off our flag is the most unpatriotic thing you can advocate (Todd Palin & AIP), or even vaguely mention. I know we started by the method, but once we became a whole nation, that option should never be an issue.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
__________
Well, we wouldn’t necessarily have to re-do the flag. If Texas goes, we can grant statehood to Washington, DC. Sounds like a good trade to me.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:09 pmbackup Says:
The drug debate is a decent example to consider the promotion of states rights.
What would happen if the Federal government said that it would no longer weigh in on the drug issue. The states could decide to legislate on the drug issues as they see fit. Hypothetically, Oregon might legalize pot. Mississippi might not. The people in Oregon would be happy and so would the people in Mississippi. Additionally, you would have a couple of test beds to use to evaluate which approach is better.
Obviously, there would be problems. Drug transfers between states, for one. I’m sure there would be others. Would the benefits outweigh the negatives?
What does this have to do with secession, backup?
April 20th, 2009 at 3:09 pmIt’s only American is Republicans do it….can you imagine if any blue state had brought this up during the WAR CRIMINAL Bush’s term…
….they would have gone absolutely bonkers.
Fcuk the Republicans
April 20th, 2009 at 3:14 pmYou know what else is “very much an American principle?”
Dueling.
You know, shootouts in the streets at high noon, it’s all fair as long as both parties want to do it. Therefore, the Libertarian Party should support decriminalizing murdering any person who is armed.
As pro-gun-rights people currently show a high degree of overlap with the pants-wetting “safety” wimps, it’d be interesting to see which way they jump if they all legally became fair game for killing.
.
backup Says:
The drug debate is a decent example to consider the promotion of states rights.
What would happen if the Federal government said that it would no longer weigh in on the drug issue. The states could decide to legislate on the drug issues as they see fit. Hypothetically, Oregon might legalize pot. Mississippi might not. The people in Oregon would be happy and so would the people in Mississippi.
Hi there. Oregon has legalized medicinal marijuana. Obama has pulled the D.E.A. off of busting medicinal marijuana clinics. So what you’re talking about is already happening, to a degree.
Here’s why your analogy fails: pot smoking is not a human rights issue.
Ooh, I know, let’s have each state decide whether slavery is OK! Wait, we already tried that one, didn’t we…
April 20th, 2009 at 3:14 pmElBruce Says:
Hi there. Oregon has legalized medicinal marijuana. Obama has pulled the D.E.A. off of busting medicinal marijuana clinics. So what you’re talking about is already happening, to a degree.
Here’s why your analogy fails: pot smoking is not a human rights issue.
Much better case could have been made for Death with Dignity.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:18 pmBut if Texas secedes, then where is the money that Ron Paul gets in earmarks going to come from? Sure ain’t gonna come from the Texas Legislature — they’re all too busy kissing up to Grover Norquist and Hot Tub Tommy to ever pass any bill that would generate enough revenue to make up for what would be lost.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:19 pmthe GOPers are really getting desperate for some attention.
they’re willing to latch on to ANYTHING other than some sound ideas for solving this crisis
i’d say, let them secede! good riddance! they’ll be a third world country in no time without all the government cheese they enjoy..
April 20th, 2009 at 3:24 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
Thanks for going to the trouble chiroptera toasterhead! It’s amazing what a little context and accurate translation can do to put things in a different light.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:29 pm[Perry] really stirred some of the liberal media, where they started screaming about: ‘What is going on here, this is un-American.’ I heard one individual say ‘this is treasonous to even talk about it.’ — Ron Paul
_________________________________________________________
I think anybody who threatens to take their ball and go home just because the game isn’t going quite the way they want it to go doesn’t have much loyalty to the game.
We live in a democracy. And so far, it’s worked. Even though virtually every adult who has grown up in this country has had to put up with somebody in charge they didn’t vote for at one time or another.
But is it treasonous to discuss secession? Treason is generally considered to be any act of disloyalty serious enough to do grave harm — such as overthrowing the government or giving military secrets away to the enemy. Discussion of secession isn’t really treasonous. Actually seceding might be, if the secession is harmful to the parent nation. Although if Texas left, I think the new Republic of Texas would have more problems than the United States would have with their absence.
Is it un-American? Yeah, I’d have to say if you want to quit America, you’re not really all that loyal to America. Most of us love our country enough that if we don’t like the leadership, we’ll hang around and attempt to change it — but we don’t quit.
Is it stupid? Stomping off in a huff, such as Perry has suggested (and Beck and Paul have defended), kind of reminds me of the kid who runs away from home because his mother made him eat his broccoli. You really only get one chance to make a dramatic exit, and after you’ve made it, you tend to find you have bigger problems than those you left. So yeah — it would strike any reasonable person as stupid.
Secession isn’t really going to happen, of course. Most Texans don’t want it, and even if they did, the United States wouldn’t let them leave without a fight. This is just a tantrum Perry is throwing for show.
Bottom line — I’d brand secession talk as not treasonous, but certainly childish and idiotic.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:31 pmWould there be no religious persecution in Texas? Even for Muslims?
Would there be gay rights in Texas?
Would Texas respect a woman’s right to choose?
Would there be no racial bias or racial profiling in Texas?
If the answer is yes to any of the above, then I am all for the change.
Just like the guy who went to the doctor with a broken arm and asked, “After I heal, will I be able to play the piano?” The doctor said, “Of course you will.”
April 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pmThe patient said, “Good. I’ve never been able to play before.”
manny127 Says
April 20th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
i’d say, let them secede! good riddance! they’ll be a third world country in no time without all the government cheese they enjoy.
___________________________________________________________
An independent Texas will have to pay for their own military, their own infrastructure, their own education, and their own everything else they get totally or in part by federal money now. But they’re going to have to keep their taxes lower than the United States levels to keep their people from revolting. This has the potential to make our current economic recession look like a minor dip. They obviously don’t remember from their own history that it was massive debts that caused them to agree to be annexed by the United States (the U.S. promised to take their debts along with the state).
But when the new Republic of Texas is financially ruined, they can console themselves with the thought that they won’t have to worry about Mexicans crossing across their border anymore. In fact, the United States will have to worry about undocumented workers sneaking in from Mexico AND Texas.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:41 pmI would love to see Perry’s reaction if President Obama were to invite him to the White House and call his bluff. Perry would initially think that his posturing got Obama’s attention and his rants would earn him some concessions to shut him up, but that euphoria would quickly change as soon as Obama said, “I understand you wish to leave the union. How soon can you be packed and out of here?”
April 20th, 2009 at 3:50 pmBut in the meantime they can patrol their border with Mexico all by themselves. And they can defend themselves from the drug war. Also, they can give George Bush whatever kind of secret service protection they can afford.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:57 pmIt’s worth noting that the reason Ron Paul gets respect is that he’s incredibly consistent with the libertarian thing. He may be a wingnut, but he doesn’t make exceptions to his “government hands off” for stuff like waterboarding or teh gays. But the fact that he doesn’t make exceptions can lead him to a number of extremely stupid conclusions, because libertarianism is extremely stupid.
.
gummble-bee-itch Says:
Much better case could have been made for Death with Dignity.
Good call. That would have forced me into a total thread derailment to counter.
.
misscoleopteramolly Says:
But is it treasonous to discuss secession?
A more correct term would be “seditious.” Sedition is actually legal. But that doesn’t mean we can’t frown on it.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:59 pmHere’s another example of Ron Paul’s consistency leading him to weird conclusions. Regarding him being recently punked by Sascha Baron Cohen:
CURTIS SLIWA: Well, okay. You ran out. But, did you actually see the original Borat film where he pulls these kinds of stunts?
DR. RON PAUL: No, no. Movies I used to see are Sound of Music. Tonight, I was sitting here watching Gone with the Wind. So, I don’t watch that kind of stuff. And I understand he makes a lot of money. But, if he makes a lot of money — I have to permit the market to do this.
Basically: “so yeah, I was embarrassed and humiliated when that guy started stripping during what I thought was an interview about the Swiss economy, but if the marketplace likes it, then I don’t get to mind.”
You have to admire his consistency… while at the same time shaking your head.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:02 pmIf you really understood what earmarks are and do, you’d realize how stupid your statement sounds.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pmgummitch. There’s better examples, but the idea is that the more you empower the states to make their own decisions, the less likely they’ll want to secede. If the federal government is telling them they can make their own decisions, how would the dissent be directed at the federal government?
ElBruce. You make a good point about human right’s issues. It wouldn’t have been appropriate to just allow slave owning states to continue, just because that’s what they wanted to do on the state level.
The issue of gay marriage is similar for me. It should be a federal right that states should not limit.
But, there are issues that aren’t human rights issues. Budgeting issues is one of them. The more issues that states decide, the less they can oppose the federal government.
The sentiment is common here that once a state (or states) secede, the others would have to bail them out. Why? If Texas seceded, why couldn’t they make budgetary priorities to solve their own economic problems?
I don’t think any secession would be wise on the part of the state or good for the country. But, I’m interested in the pro and con arguments.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:17 pmAre you claiming that Christians don’t believe in the Old Testament?? That’s news to me.
That’s the nice thing about Christianity – their members get to pick and choose God’s purpose. Don’t like the “old” book? No problem, out with the old in with the new! Don’t like a passage in the new one, no problem we have a preacher who can explain it the way we like! Don’t want to act like Jesus says? No problem, Deeds don’t matter! Don’t like that other person’s Deeds? No problem they’ll go to hell!
It’s the all-purpose-mean-anything-you-want-it-to-document!
To bad I have this nagging sense of personal responsibility and integrity – otherwise I could just because a Christian and make it all go away.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:27 pmThat’s *BECOME* a Christian etc… sheesh
April 20th, 2009 at 4:30 pmThis is a little off topic, but spending related.
Democrats are obviously in power. And people are protesting deficit spending and predicted tax hikes at the tea parties.
If the people are genuinely opposed to government spending, the Democrats should cut spending on Republican pet projects.
I don’t really know, but aren’t there some mostly Republican initiated spending programs that could be cut. (farm subsidizes, oil tax breaks?) I don’t know what they are, but I’m sure they’re out there.
Now’s probably the time to cut them. How are those that are supposed to be opposed to spending going to complain?
And the people that really want less spending would be happy.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:36 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
Well, we wouldn’t necessarily have to re-do the flag. If Texas goes, we can grant statehood to Washington, DC. Sounds like a good trade to me.
Aight! Sounds like a plan to me.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:41 pmbackup Says:
What does this have to do with secession, backup?
gummitch. There’s better examples, but the idea is that the more you empower the states to make their own decisions, the less likely they’ll want to secede. If the federal government is telling them they can make their own decisions, how would the dissent be directed at the federal government?
This is all spelled out in the Constitution and subsequent Amendments, and the interpretation has been handled by SCOTUS for, well, a very long time. The States are empowered to make a lot of their own decisions so once again I’m left wondering “WTF is backup on about?”
Specifically, which decisions currently not allowed to the various States do you think would reduce dissent — except no one has suggested that States not be allowed to dissent.
As to your original blue v red question (sorry, I’ve never found an attribution for this widely-circulated letter):
Oct 20, 2008
April 20th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
backup Says:
If the people are genuinely opposed to government spending, the Democrats should cut spending on Republican pet projects.
I don’t really know, but aren’t there some mostly Republican initiated spending programs that could be cut. (farm subsidizes, oil tax breaks?) I don’t know what they are, but I’m sure they’re out there.
Honestly, I think those farm subsidies are off the table with some Democrats as well. Finding any subsidy that doesn’t piss of some powerful politician of either party is impossible — that’s how those subsidies got in there in the first place.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pmstefan. the whole concept is really pretty ingenious. Here’s a document written by God. There’s no real proof, but if you question the premise – eternal damnation. You need priests (or pastors or clerics) to translate it for you. If something in the book sounds crazy, it’s not to be taken literally. But, if the priest needs to make a point, he can selectively take any passage he wants and use it literally. (BTW, if you question the priest – also eternal damnation.)
Best of all, it’s the only business you can run and not pay taxes.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:48 pmThey won’t be American any more and good riddance!
April 20th, 2009 at 4:58 pmgummble, your letter was great!
April 20th, 2009 at 5:07 pmCrazy uncle Ron is full of entertaining “history lessons”, isn’t he.
My favorite part was the explanation of how the word “indivisible” in the Pledge was foisted on us by Francis Bellamy. Sort of like the way “under God” was foisted on us by George Docherty.
Kind of a nice summation of American politics these days. We’re “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” … except for the God and the indivisible bits. Can we all still agree on the “Liberty and Justice”?
April 20th, 2009 at 6:30 pmbackup Says:
But, there are issues that aren’t human rights issues. Budgeting issues is one of them. The more issues that states decide, the less they can oppose the federal government.
To some extent. However, the rest of us would have a hard time standing by while one state allows their homeless to pile up and die, ignores their unemployed, allows their children to go without proper eduction, etc. At some point, budget issues can become human rights issues.
Wingnut policies are designed to lead directly to a third-world military dictatorship with massive poverty resulting from concentrating all wealth in the hands of an ever-shrinking plutocracy. We can’t morally afford to allow any portion of America descend to such a state, no matter how much they bawl that it’s their choice to. Naturally once they faced the actual consequences of turning their fantasy into real policy, they would inevitably change their minds and want – no, need – our help. And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
.
backup Says:
If the people are genuinely opposed to government spending, the Democrats should cut spending on Republican pet projects.
That sounds like some pretty good vengeance, and it’s plenty arguable that there are plenty of Republican pet expenditures that don’t deserve to be subsidised. But slashing things based on who likes it is the sort of thing they’d do, and we can’t afford to continue with those policies any more. Each spending initiative needs to justify itself on its own merits, not on which people like it or don’t.
Besides, that would only make them happy if you assume that they are consistent. But as we’ve seen time and again, they’re more than willing to believe in whatever reality is most convenient for them at any given moment.
By the way, pretty good posts there.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:38 pmI know our Independent friend is gone… but, just in case.
Luke 19:27
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
April 20th, 2009 at 7:30 pmYeah, secession is “American” in the same way that Revolutionary War was so very British. Jolly good show, Washington, now can we talk about how this new nation fits into the British Empire? What? You’re not going to pay taxes anymore? Well, I don’t know what the King is going to think of that. It’s most irregular.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:01 pmOntheinside, you didn’t just use a parable about a demanding ruler to draw a correlation between Islam and Christianity did you? It was a made up story you dufus. You can’t understand that? I sure can’t explain the parable to you if that’s all you got “ontheinside”..
April 20th, 2009 at 9:17 pmOntheinside, you didn’t just use a parable about a demanding ruler to draw a correlation between Islam and Christianity did you? It was a made up story you dufus. You can’t understand that? I sure can’t explain the parable to you if that’s all you got “ontheinside”..
April 20th, 2009 at 9:18 pmBackup, government doesn’t pay taxes. You got anything smart to say about them?
April 20th, 2009 at 9:23 pmOntheinside Says:
I know our Independent friend is gone… but, just in case.
Luke 19:27
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
Luke 19:11. While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12. He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king…”‘
…which story ends in the bit you quoted. Not fair, Ontheinside. That’s what they do.
elbruce 46:27. Trust ye not in lists of citations assembled by others for you to repeat to the unbelievers, for your side is also ridden with serpents, and they will send you to the battlefield with a quiver full of only lies to defend yourself.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:28 pmWhatever the original words were upon Texas joining the USA in the 1840’s, their decision to leave and become part of the Confederacy which was then defeated in war, in my view ,voids the original conditions of entry. Traitorous behavior and humiliating defeat does not win you the right to claim sovereignty after all. We are stuck with Texas and all of it’s excesses and grandiosity and Texas is stuck with us.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:28 amNo one in Texas wants to succeed… this is complete bull. If Perry and Paul got succession for Texas, 75% of Texans would just sit there and stare at them. IT would be funny. And, in Texas, there’s a military base every, like, ten miles. The U.S. Govm’t would just arrest anyone who tried, and everyone in my city would back them- no one but the Hill Country asses would think it was anything more than funny. So, really, all of this talk is to no end… Texas succession is not going to hapen.
April 26th, 2009 at 1:20 pm