Image

Do-It-Yourself Impeachment, no joke

User avatar
Taney? But yup, that is what I was alluding to about Texas. Of course, the way I see it, all states have the right to secede, at least if this truly was a free country. The original 13 colonies chose to join the union, and it's hard to justify why it should not still be the case. Rather, Lincoln showed it was held together under threat of arms. So if a state, a people if you will, are forced to remain in union under threat of arms, where is the freedom I ask?

 

 

User avatar
RedtheProgressiveFox wrote:You know that is right.  As always with everyone else, when I was young it was explained to me by people (besides my parents of course) that the south was in rebellion.  Then I got into college and my (take note) extremely *liberal* pro-Hillary history professor informed us that he would dispute the very fact that we were in a "civil" war.  He said that we, the south did indeed have our own military, currency, and our own president.  It just does not fit the profile of a "civil" war.  Them @*!^& Republicans (irony, no?) attacked us because all we wanted to do was leave, and for what? No, not slavery as everyone says, that was the argument, but the war was over states rights, how big do you want your federal government, the same thing that we are still fighting politically over today.  By the way, love the "War of Northern Aggression" bit, my father, born and raised in South Carolina (got to Texas as quick as he could) was taught that very thing in his text books.

OUT OF CHARACTER
Eggsactly! Slavery was of course the flash point issue, an issue I must point out to those who talk about the slow progress of the Iraqis, took this country nearly a hundred years and a massive war to begin to settle since it was never settled when this country was founded. In the end, it was about state rights, and believe me, we ALL lost the war, for it was the War of Northern Aggression that made the federal govt supreme rather than the states, and we have been paying for that ever since.

People who think it was only about slavery really do not understand the history. The percentage of people who owned slaves was very low. Those men who marched into the face of rifle and cannon fire watching their friends being mowed down, were not making the ultimate sacrifice so that some rich plantation owner could keep his slaves and thus his riches. Most fought for their state, for their neighbors and their right to make their own decisions... ie... democracy. I am certainly not defending slavery, but any one who thinks that say the 10,000 men (or shall we say, nearly 3 times our total loss in Iraq) that fell in but one afternoon in Picket's Charge did so to defend a plantation owners right to keep slaves, is sadly misinformed. I had relatives that died fighting for the south in the War of Northern Aggression, I have seen their graves in Arkansas. But I guarantee, there has never been any rich people in my heritage.

 

 

User avatar
Commissar Pupovich wrote:
People who think it was only about slavery really do not understand the history. The percentage of people who owned slaves was very low.

And let us not forget as well, even at those numbers, they were diminishing.  People were letting their slaves go free even before the war started.  All the experts predicted at the time that slavery was going to be obsolete before 1900.  Another thing that I just love, I also found out that Lincoln had originally said to the south that if they came back into the union, that they could keep their slaves <gasp!!>.  Notice that did not happen, sufficient prove that indeed it was over states rights, and not slavery (try to find that one in a party-approved skool textbook).

Commissar Pupovich wrote: I had relatives that died fighting for the south in the War of Northern Aggression, I have seen their graves in Arkansas. But I guarantee, there has never been any rich people in my heritage.

Coolos, as did I.  On my fathers side there was his great-grandfather that was a captain and died in battle, and on my mothers side there is, I do believe that it was a Lieutenant that survived and when he finally did die, left to his son and wife his "Negro" slaves (talk about unpolitically correct, he should have had a more diverse group of slaves :p.)

 

 

User avatar
RedtheProgressiveFox wrote: And let us not forget as well, even at those numbers, they were diminishing.  People were letting their slaves go free even before the war started.  All the experts predicted at the time that slavery was going to be obsolete before 1900.  Another thing that I just love, I also found out that Lincoln had originally said to the south that if they came back into the union, that they could keep their slaves <gasp!!>.  Notice that did not happen, sufficient prove that indeed it was over states rights, and not slavery (try to find that one in a party-approved skool textbook).

That is exactly right. On August 22, 1862, Lincoln explained:

  "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Sad truth is that Lincoln actually had a plan that had it been permitted to be put into effect, it may well have avoided the war. Basically he did recognize the devastating effect that total and immediate emancipation would have on the agricultural economy that was the south. There was a plan that all blacks would be born free. The government would also gradually try through economic aid and even the actual purchase of freedom to ease the south away from dependence on slave labor. You are also right in that no doubt about it, just the sheer advance of technology and economics would have gradually made slave labor unneeded. Just as today machines make manual labor too expensive.

Are we all that different today? For all the talk we hear about who will pick our vegetables if we don't have illegal immigrants seems to me to be nothing more than "progressive" slavery. And just what will our needs be should next year, someone invents a mechanical lettuce picker for instance, ala the cotton picker?

 

 

User avatar
[html]Yes, that's the problem. Texas is Texas. I love going to other states, but Texas is my home. I've lived in Houston, where I went to Rice; Austin, for a while; Midland for years, and Pecos, where I was born, and where I live now, running my business. And even though Pecos is a pit, it's <i>my</i> pit. I love South Padre Island, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Houston, Gaido's in Galveston, the Adolphus in Dallas, the Kimbel Art Museum in Fort Worth, and I even like going to Amarillo once in a while.[/html]

 

 

User avatar
[html]
Commissar Theocritus wrote:Yes, that's the problem. Texas is Texas. I love going to other states, but Texas is my home. I've lived in Houston, where I went to Rice; Austin, for a while; Midland for years, and Pecos, where I was born, and where I live now, running my business. And even though Pecos is a pit, it's <i>my</i> pit. I love South Padre Island, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Houston, Gaido's in Galveston, the Adolphus in Dallas, the Kimbel Art Museum in Fort Worth, and I even like going to Amarillo once in a while.

Running a business, longing for capitalist luxury? Those are some disturbing ideas you are expressing Commissar. Not that one such as you do not deserve such, but one shouldn't express such desires... openly that s. Why, an unscrupulous, power grabbing comrade could perhaps use such comments as evidence against you in a future purge.

There is a Jerry Jeff Walker song I adore, among many, Keep Texas Beautiful. Of course one of the nice things about Louisiana vs Texas is that one does not have to live amongst the unwashed, we have the finest cuisine this side of heaven, and we can go to Texas easily. Now while I will never admit this, even under threat of being thrown into a stadium big enough to contain the MTE, I have had thoughts of wishing to retire one day in Texas.[/html]

 

 

User avatar
[html]Ah but I'm still reeling that Bob Wills with his Texas Playboys worked with an eye toward buying a ranch in New Mexico and retiring there. I burned their LP--back then that's what they were.

But I really do not run a true business. It's a front, of course. All successful fences need one. After all I can't just throw up a sign saying, "Other People's Property They Wish They Still Had."

Well, I could, you know, but it would smack of some current governmental auctions and then I don't want <i>that</i>.[/html]

 

 

User avatar
Commissar Theocritus wrote:But I really do not run a true business. It's a front, of course. All successful fences need one. After all I can't just throw up a sign saying, "Other People's Property They Wish They Still Had."

That is a great relief to me. I was a bit concerned that you had perhaps exposed yourself to potential blackmail.

 

 

User avatar
Commissar Pupovich, my business is involving myself in other people's business quite decisively and to my benefit. As befits a good socialist.

 

 

User avatar
Commissar Theocritus wrote:Commissar Pupovich, my business is involving myself in other people's business quite decisively and to my benefit. As befits a good socialist.

Ah, so it is For The PeopleTM!

 

 

User avatar
Pup, I shall open another door for you. It is the Socialist's Dictionary:

For the people--something that you say to make them STFU while you do for yourself. See "birdlime."

 

 

User avatar
Commissar Theocritus wrote:Pup, I shall open another door for you. It is the Socialist's Dictionary:

For the people--something that you say to make them STFU while you do for yourself. See "birdlime."

Well of course I knew what the true meaning of For the People was, but I had never heard of birdlime, and I thank you! I now have something new in my vocabulary!

1.  A sticky substance that is smeared on branches or twigs to capture small birds.
2. Something that captures or ensnares.

Yes, our politicians are very familiar with the first meaning no doubt! They smear a lot of substance!

 

 

User avatar
[html]Ah Pup, so often I tire of the physical oppression of the proles--my foot just gets <i>tired</i> on their necks. And so I dip into a little literary oppression: contumely, objurgation, billingstage, obloquy, and clapperclaw. All a specialty, five chairs, no waiting.[/html]

 

 

User avatar
Ah. more evidence of superior Progressive education! But can you use them all in one sentence?

 

 

User avatar
Not without making my head hurt from all the big confusing words....

 

 

User avatar
Premier Betty wrote:Not without making my head hurt from all the big confusing words....

I find it much more intrafibulating to transconmorph my own befuddledazzling words.

 

 


 

User avatar
I am sorry if I disturbed your peace Premier. I am sure you have more important Party issues to concern yourself with tonight.

 

 

User avatar
S.A.F. Marshal Pravda wrote:Because Bushitler and $.$. Halliburton raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the Iraqi countryside.

That enough?

You know, I have read this several times, from when I first saw the light and came here for background information.

What is your point? Did he infringe on a Party copyright?

 

 

User avatar
I thought about the Mime when I read this today on Instapundit:

"When the stormtroopers wear clown shoes instead of jackboots, it’s easy to forget that they’re still stormtroopers."

~ Law Prof Glenn Reynolds

posted June 23, 2008 at 07:50 AM

Image

 

 


 


 

User avatar
Marshal Pupovich wrote:Taney? But yup, that is what I was alluding to about Texas. Of course, the way I see it, all states have the right to secede, at least if this truly was a free country. The original 13 colonies chose to join the union, and it's hard to justify why it should not still be the case. Rather, Lincoln showed it was held together under threat of arms. So if a state, a people if you will, are forced to remain in union under threat of arms, where is the freedom I ask?

Should you not be sentenced to the gulag and a Shovel for asking that question?
You are of course 'Free' to ask it, but then, Marshall, we 'The People' are free to place you in a 'Safe' place while we contemplate the answer and your mental health.
Seceding is allowed, succeeding is not. Join the Union? You mean of course the , then, United States of America, the 'Union' came later with a 'Free' President by name of Lincoln. He was so popular they named a Car after him.
Now we will all await the full unification of this Country by the 'One'. For surely 'The Muslim' will hopefully change the situation and unite all in a 'Union'.

 

 

User avatar
[html]
Commissar Theocritus wrote:Yes, that's the problem. Texas is Texas. I love going to other states, but Texas is my home. I've lived in Houston, where I went to Rice; Austin, for a while; Midland for years, and Pecos, where I was born, and where I live now, running my business. And even though Pecos is a pit, it's <i>my</i> pit. I love South Padre Island, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Houston, Gaido's in Galveston, the Adolphus in Dallas, the Kimbel Art Museum in Fort Worth, and I even like going to Amarillo once in a while.
By Morning?[/html]

 

 

User avatar
Guardian of Pravda wrote:Should you not be sentenced to the gulag and a Shovel for asking that question?
You are of course 'Free' to ask it, but then, Marshall, we 'The People' are free to place you in a 'Safe' place while we contemplate the answer and your mental health.
Seceding is allowed, succeeding is not. Join the Union? You mean of course the , then, United States of America, the 'Union' came later with a 'Free' President by name of Lincoln. He was so popular they named a Car after him.
Now we will all await the full unification of this Country by the 'One'. For surely 'The Muslim' will hopefully change the situation and unite all in a 'Union'.

Image

I was of course speaking OOC....before the cute icons were available Comrade. Facts are.... both sides "lost" the War of Northern Aggression, for with the "retrograde advance" of the Confederates at Appamattox. we have the ascension of the Federal govt as lord over all the states and supreme power. We all lost and are paying for that ever since.

Facts are, what is the meaning of "United States" or the "Union" when states are prevented by the force of arms to stay in this "union?" Is this Consent of the governed?

 

 

User avatar
Marshal Pupovich wrote:
Guardian of Pravda wrote:Should you not be sentenced to the gulag and a Shovel for asking that question?
You are of course 'Free' to ask it, but then, Marshall, we 'The People' are free to place you in a 'Safe' place while we contemplate the answer and your mental health.
Seceding is allowed, succeeding is not. Join the Union? You mean of course the , then, United States of America, the 'Union' came later with a 'Free' President by name of Lincoln. He was so popular they named a Car after him.
Now we will all await the full unification of this Country by the 'One'. For surely 'The Muslim' will hopefully change the situation and unite all in a 'Union'.

Image

I was of course speaking OOC....before the cute icons were available Comrade. Facts are.... both sides "lost" the War of Northern Aggression, for with the "retrograde advance" of the Confederates at Appamattox. we have the ascension of the Federal govt as lord over all the states and supreme power. We all lost and are paying for that ever since.

Facts are, what is the meaning of "United States" or the "Union" when states are prevented by the force of arms to stay in this "union?" Is this Consent of the governed?
Understanding governs all. OOC? Ok.
Both sides lost is true in some ways inaccurate in others. The cost in lives and the resulting split both politically and in the Familial way did cause devastation for a long period of time and it took both sides a long time to overcome that.
As I am Southern Born and a descendant of those who had members of the family on both sides I can tell you that the split still remains although for the most part the enmity has decreased to almost zero. My Great, Great, Great, Grandfather' Brother on my Mothers side was the first Union Soldier buried in Arlington. Two of my Great, Great, Great, Uncles on my Dad's side are buried in Marietta Ga killed at the battle of Kennesaw Ga. One GGG Uncle is buried at Fort Hood, he was a Confederate Cavalry General.
Even now when I visit in Wash Pa I get ribbed about my Southern Heritage. It's friendly for the most part and I give as good as I get.
As to secession. I look at it this way. When the State enters the United States of America it makes a binding contract. If you want out then you need a Clause on the original contract that allows it. As soon as you show me that clause in the Original constitution or create an amendment that allows it, I will agree with you one hundred percent and that would be consent of the governed. No State, at this point, is made to remain by Force of Arms. The reality is that at this time in history no majority in any state wants to secede. That is even in my own home State of Ga and where I currently live in Alabama. It is not practical nor beneficial. The South did indeed rise again. We are very prosperous and we grow in strength both technically and industrially every year. To what benefit would it be to secede? A disagreement over politics does not warrant secession.
All that being said, had I been alive at the time of the War of Northern Aggression I would have fought for the South. It was never a Civil War, the purpose of a Civil War is to overthrow the current Government. We did not want to do that just replace the one Lincoln led with one Jeff Davis led. It did not work and that is the end of that story.
We have consent of the governed. We have some very stupid people that are part of those being governed. We have some very apathetic people also and a number of spiteful types who are more than willing to cut off their own nose to avoid a smell and they along with the apathetic gave us 'The Muslim". I do not like him but he is no reason to secede.
I swore an Oath when I joined the Marines. I swore it again when I became a DOD Criminal Investigator. I meant it both times or would not have sworn it. I love this Country and I love my Southern Heritage and the South.
All views are in the eye of the beholder.
The rest would make for a wonderfull debate.
Here is to the fact we can still differ.
Image

 

 

User avatar
Guardian of Pravda wrote:[
Image
...As I am Southern Born and a descendant of those who had members of the family on both sides I can tell you that the split still remains although for the most part the enmity has decreased to almost zero.

As to secession. I look at it this way. When the State enters the United States of America it makes a binding contract. If you want out then you need a Clause on the original contract that allows it. As soon as you show me that clause in the Original constitution or create an amendment that allows it, I will agree with you one hundred percent and that would be consent of the governed. No State, at this point, is made to remain by Force of Arms. The reality is that at this time in history no majority in any state wants to secede. .....

To what benefit would it be to secede? A disagreement over politics does not warrant secession.

Image

I too had relatives on both sides of the WONA.

When I refer to both sides losing, I am only referencing the fact that the result of the war led to todays tyranny of the federal govt over the states. It cemented it.

As for the constitution, can you show me where it says it is binding for all time? That a state can not voluntarily choose to leave it?

I think one of my favorite quotes of all time answers this question quite nicely, and it was made by a very famous Supreme Court justice:

"If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion."
- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court privately delivered this opinion on charging captured Confederate officers with treason.

"No State, at this point, is made to remain by Force of Arms."
Well, since you put the term "at this point" in I suppose this is technically correct. For there were quite a few states forced to remain by the force of arms in the past. I dare say you can look at this from an individual view as well. Why do you pay income taxes that support programs you do not support and perhaps even your elected representatives opposed? Because you may be jailed if you do not. Why would you go to jail against your will? Because the state has the gun and the permit to use it. I have to admit I am using some of the same argument here that Ayn Rand makes in Atlas Shrugged.

Benefit of secession? My basic argument is that there is indeed "Two Americas" that you hear so many people talk about. It has been apparent for many years now, and is getting more and more so. So why not just admit it? Basically we have about half the country that believe like most of us here that I can see, and the other half that believe like the moonbats. In the end, I think you can almost boil it down to those that believe in the Constitution as it was written and with the intent of the Founding Fathers, and those who feel it is a "living" document and the needs of the country are different today because it doesn't fit modern culture etc.

 

 

User avatar
Marshal Pupovich wrote:
Guardian of Pravda wrote:[
Image
...As I am Southern Born and a descendant of those who had members of the family on both sides I can tell you that the split still remains although for the most part the enmity has decreased to almost zero.

As to secession. I look at it this way. When the State enters the United States of America it makes a binding contract. If you want out then you need a Clause on the original contract that allows it. As soon as you show me that clause in the Original constitution or create an amendment that allows it, I will agree with you one hundred percent and that would be consent of the governed. No State, at this point, is made to remain by Force of Arms. The reality is that at this time in history no majority in any state wants to secede. .....

To what benefit would it be to secede? A disagreement over politics does not warrant secession.

Image

I too had relatives on both sides of the WONA.

When I refer to both sides losing, I am only referencing the fact that the result of the war led to todays tyranny of the federal govt over the states. It cemented it.

As for the constitution, can you show me where it says it is binding for all time? That a state can not voluntarily choose to leave it?

I think one of my favorite quotes of all time answers this question quite nicely, and it was made by a very famous Supreme Court justice:

"If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion."
- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court privately delivered this opinion on charging captured Confederate officers with treason.

"No State, at this point, is made to remain by Force of Arms."
Well, since you put the term "at this point" in I suppose this is technically correct. For there were quite a few states forced to remain by the force of arms in the past. I dare say you can look at this from an individual view as well. Why do you pay income taxes that support programs you do not support and perhaps even your elected representatives opposed? Because you may be jailed if you do not. Why would you go to jail against your will? Because the state has the gun and the permit to use it. I have to admit I am using some of the same argument here that Ayn Rand makes in Atlas Shrugged.

Benefit of secession? My basic argument is that there is indeed "Two Americas" that you hear so many people talk about. It has been apparent for many years now, and is getting more and more so. So why not just admit it? Basically we have about half the country that believe like most of us here that I can see, and the other half that believe like the moonbats. In the end, I think you can almost boil it down to those that believe in the Constitution as it was written and with the intent of the Founding Fathers, and those who feel it is a "living" document and the needs of the country are different today because it doesn't fit modern culture etc.

I do not believe the Constitution is a living document.
As you say, it does not say you cannot secede nor did I say that it did. What I did say, and hold to, is that by joining you agree to certain conditions as in a contract. I perceive the 'Joining' of a State on a Voluntary basis the same as entering into a contract. Can you back out of every contract regardless of whether it is in print? In some cases you can. That does not mean you are right to do so nor does it excuse it. If you opt out on a Contact it should not be simply because the other person has said something you do not like. In this Country we do recognize both Legal and Moral Contracts. If your State of it's own free will joined the Unite States and of it's own Free will it decides to opt out I would expect that it would have a better reason than. 'This President is someone we do not like'.
How successful would a Secession be? I doubt seriously that there would be any 'Force of Arms issue" There are way too many reason for that and going into them here would require extensive time I do not have.
Do we agree the Fed is too Big? Yes. Do we place blame on the Fed or on the Congress and the Representatives and Senators that allowed and even encouraged it? Democrat for the most part but with help from the GOP on occasion. Can we reduce that grip? Yes. Will we? I doubt it will be by much as we have a Nation of Apathetic types who are enjoying the Largess they get from a Big government and would not support decreasing it.
Two Americas? Perhaps three would be more accurate. Yes indeed at least two. Our side is poorly led and Represented. We do Little about that except re-elect the same wimps every time like they do in SC with Graham and we did in Alabama with Rogers. If it be Tyranny it be Tyranny we elected and did little about. Did the WONA cement it. No more so that the preceding Presidents and Congress people who little by little enacted Laws that were in direct contradiction to the Constitution. (The Tax one holds no water. There is an Amendment and it was ratified, which is a prime example of voting in the tyranny.) We em placed a SCOTUS that exceeds it's Authority and endorsed it's doing so. Witness Eminent Domain.
I too read Atlas Shrugged (When I was Fourteen) and other Ayn Rand books. Some believe she was a Libertarian. I do not know that I agree with that but I agree she had Libertarian ideals in some areas.
I am a Libertarian in the Fiscal and Government department. Better Government is smaller Government and let the Free Market go.
I know of no other States other than my own of Georgia and the rest of the South that attempted secession after opting in. You seem to be indicating there were some. I love being Educated. To whom do you refer? Or were you referring to the CSA?
"No State, at this point, is made to remain by Force of Arms."
Well, since you put the term "at this point" in I suppose this is technically correct. For there were quite a few states forced to remain by the force of arms in the past.

We are as we are, locked in a battle for the Constitutions and it's meaning in full. Not 'meanings' assigned it by some drop out tune in dried out left over Hippie and a Generation of Moonbats with Ipods.
Will we Win that battle? I do not know. If we do not we surely will not decrease Government or 'Free' the Free Market.
Here's to the War on Moonbats.

 

 

User avatar
Chairman M. S. Punchenko wrote:I second comrade Laika's call for a Troll Warning Awareness Tag (T.W.A.T) for all post deemed to be made by a thought offender. We should ask the collective to submit ideas for how to label such pricks.

How about a giant tag saying "T.W.A.T." across their avatar?

 

 

User avatar
Guardian of Pravda wrote: As to secession. I look at it this way. When the State enters the United States of America it makes a binding contract. If you want out then you need a Clause on the original contract that allows it. As soon as you show me that clause in the Original constitution or create an amendment that allows it, I will agree with you one hundred percent and that would be consent of the governed. No State, at this point, is made to remain by Force of Arms. The reality is that at this time in history no majority in any state wants to secede. .....

To what benefit would it be to secede? A disagreement over politics does not warrant secession.

ImageWhy would the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, presume that this "contract" is holding in perpetuity? These are the same people who so eloquently stated:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

and

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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It would seem to quite hypocritical to say we were within our rights to pull out of our "contract" with England and form a new country, yet a state in the current union is bound to that union in perpetuity. King George failed to enforce his "contract" under force of arms, while Lincoln, under force of arms, succeeded in holding the "union" together. And as for what constituted a valid reason for such a split was nothing more than a disagreement on taxes and representation. I dare say the "two Americas" I see have even more substantial differences than that.

One of the stated reasons for the right to bear arms as explained in the Federalist Papers was the desirable effect for the civilians to have their own arms to keep their government from becoming tyrants. In fact, it stated that is why guns were prohibited in the European governments because the rulers feared the loss of their power.

No. my call for secession goes beyond the mere disgust of our incoming Marxist president, it is the culmination of decades of increasing disparity between what this country was intended to be, the sort of people we were once, and what it has become.

 

 

User avatar
I do not believe I said anything about the Founding Fathers holding such a view. I said I did. As I stated before. The entrance into the United States is voluntary and no one was forced in. Actually no one was forced out either. Indeed I read and understand the Constitution all too well it is part and parcel of what I do, I am well acquainted with the Preamble and the Federalist papers as well. I do not deny the right to secede I say only that if you entered voluntarily you should not leave simply because you do not like what some one said. If that were precedent I can tell you of Counties in Alabama that would withdraw from the State Government in Montgomery in a heartbeat given the chance. At what point does this 'right' stop?
If you have enough people supporting your point of view in your state then go for it.
I do not believe you have that support. The Dem's have done too well at setting the public trough. I do not think the US Government would use Force of Arms to make you stay. It would make excellent legal fodder. Beyond that it' impractical and of no benefit to the State that seceded. They would have to increase their Government fivefold to make up for what they lose from the Unification .

I can no longer stay logged into the cube. I am thrown out each time I log in so this becomes more difficult. If it follows precedent I can make on or two more log ins before ti rejects my efforts entirely.
Do not take what I say as criticism it is not. I cherish the 2nd Amendment and hold it dear to my heart and I understand fully why it it there.I just do not think the election of 'The Muslim' rises to the level of being a reason for seceding.
Be of good cheer Hope and Cahnge are on the way. The Industries of America hope to get your Change and 'The Muslim' hopes to give it to them.

 

 

User avatar
I've been having problems with my connection too.
Rather strange.
I'm going to call Red later.

I'd love to have Western PA secede from the eastern part of the Commonwealth.
Give them everything east of the Susquehanna and that includes Harrisburg.
Most of our state tax dollars goes to run the giant welfare megapolis that is Filthadelphia.
If West Virginia could do it, why not?
I think the example of West Virginia flies in the face of this whole argument.
Why wasn't WV returned to VA after the WONA?

 

 

User avatar
Greetings Space Hero Dog,

Image
Please explain WONA?

I too, have had these thoughts of seceeding, being from the Gulag of Upstate New York. The government here, listens to no one from Upstate, and hasn't in an eternity. I would propose that New York City be made into an entity such as the District of Columbia.
Hopefully, that would ease the considerable pain of non-representation in Albany that Upstate has bear, but the chances of success are at best, minimal due to the sheer voting block downstate. New York City has almost as many people as are in the rest of the state, and I am sure the majority of them are Demoncrats.
If this is what you mean by lack of representation, being a reason to succeed, then we are a good example of why it should be allowed, but alas, never will happen.

 

 

User avatar
WONA.....War Of Northern Aggression......I do believe.

 

 

User avatar
Laika the Space Dog wrote:I've been having problems with my connection too.
Rather strange.
I'm going to call Red later.

I'd love to have Western PA secede from the eastern part of the Commonwealth.
Give them everything east of the Susquehanna and that includes Harrisburg.
Most of our state tax dollars goes to run the giant welfare megapolis that is Filthadelphia.
If West Virginia could do it, why not?
I think the example of West Virginia flies in the face of this whole argument.
Why wasn't WV returned to VA after the WONA?
Having been held Prisoner in the City of Brotherly Love otherwise herein known a Filthadelphia I wholeheartdly agree. (My Dad was stationed at the Philly Naval Yard fpor a LOOOOOng year.
West (By God) Va seperated from Va and went Union. It was quickly recognized as a State by the North. It was considered a 'Breakaway State" The territoryy now called West (By God) Viriginia was claimed by both Pennsylvannia and Virgina. The result was a State called Kentucky. My Father and Grandfather hailed from West (By God Virginny) I believe you would be hard put to ever get them to re-unite with'The Other Virginia'.

 

 

User avatar
Lenin 'n' Thingies wrote:WONA.....War Of Northern Aggression......I do believe.
Absolutely correct suh.

 

 

User avatar
City of Brotherly Love
Sorry...we lovingly refer to it as "The City of Brothers on Drugs".

Yes, even before the Revolution, many in Western PA, my forefathers among them, considered themselves Virginians. George Washington himself considered it Virginia. What is now Washington County and Allegheny County was called "West Augusta County" by the Virginians.
A mini "Civil War" was about to erupt between the Pennsylvanians and the Virginians but the news of Lexington and Concord broke that up, differences were put aside, and the dispute was ended with the extension of the Mason-Dixon line after the Revolution.
A fine example of a colonial southern plantation could be found at Woodville Plantation. Next time you're up this way Guardian, we could have an adult beverage and I'll give you a tour. It's on the Washington Pike about 15 miles above Wash PA.

 

 

User avatar
ImageNo one would advocate secession on the grounds of not agreeing with one person, or even one president. But we are talking far more than that, at least I am. I am referring to the split in this country in regard to the right to life, to the split in those that see a place for religion in their life and those who do not (and I do not mean to advocate a particular belief here, I am just talking of a basic split in those that see no harm in having "In God We Trust," a county putting up a nativity display, a high school prayer at a football game etc, vs those who are scared to death that any mention of a God is a violation of their rights etc), between those who believe the government is responsible for their care and those that believe govt is a necessary evil to be used only for those tasks beyond an individual's ability. I could go on and on. What I was arguing is that you seemed to suggest that once the state agreed to join the Union a couple of hundred years ago, it is bound to remain in that union forever.

 

 

User avatar
I can no longer remain signed in and I am being rejected each time.
Your not talking Secession sir. You would have to have all, or a large majority, of the others in your State feel as you do. I doubt that is so. Your talking about starting your own country. Good luck with that. You need a State to agree to give you the territory. No State is going to voluntarily give up a part of itself to someone that wants to pull a Brigham Young.
It is not secession it is separation. I for one will never leave this Country. Too many sacrificed to make it work. I hold life scared but I am not going to create another country because I disagree with Abortion on Demand or because some asshole in a City Council says no Nativity Scene.
Sir I do not suggest a state is bound to remain forever. I state it. Unless the State can show just cause I do not believe it should secede. By it's own moral code it is bound to remain simply based on the fact it joined voluntarily and I do not see any State advocating secession. I do hear others such as yourself advocating the existence of another State or County. Bueno Suerte

 

 

User avatar
Laika the Space Dog wrote:
City of Brotherly Love
Sorry...we lovingly refer to it as "The City of Brothers on Drugs".

Yes, even before the Revolution, many in Western PA, my forefathers among them, considered themselves Virginians. George Washington himself considered it Virginia. What is now Washington County and Allegheny County was called "West Augusta County" by the Virginians.
A mini "Civil War" was about to erupt between the Pennsylvanians and the Virginians but the news of Lexington and Concord broke that up, differences were put aside, and the dispute was ended with the extension of the Mason-Dixon line after the Revolution.
A fine example of a colonial southern plantation could be found at Woodville Plantation. Next time you're up this way Guardian, we could have an adult beverage and I'll give you a tour. It's on the Washington Pike about 15 miles above Wash PA.

LOL. I know the Area well. I have Grandfathers and Grandmothers and Cousins buried all over the place. I have Cousins and a Sister and a Brother still in Wash PA. Hubochers and Christmans. My Greatgrandfather started the Washington Newspaper the Observer. I attended Washington High School for a year.
This is my Mothers birthplace and as to the rest. Look for Johnsons all through that area. All the way into West VA. They are mine. My Dad's side. All the way from Grafton West VA into Bucks County and along the Allegheny. I'll take you up on that offer and it may be sooner than you think. Got a Straub?

 

 

User avatar
Got a Straub?
Love Straub's. Excellent choice.
Christman? My college roomie my freshman year was a Christman.
Have you seen Mr. Denny's contributions in the Observer?

 

 

User avatar
Guardian of Pravda wrote: Your not talking Secession sir. You would have to have all, or a large majority, of the others in your State feel as you do. I doubt that is so. Your talking about starting your own country. Good luck with that. You need a State to agree to give you the territory. No State is going to voluntarily give up a part of itself to someone that wants to pull a Brigham Young.

ImageOh? Yet every election of late shows basically the same division of the same states, the blue and the red. So would it be so impossible for those same states to form a political union of together? It's been done before over a concept called "States rights" and that same concept exists today. I have been angered for years by states rolling over to the capricious desires of the feds. Go back to the times the Fed has threatened to cut off money to the states in order to force them to capitulate on the 55mph speed limit, alcohol limits, and more recently motorcycle helmets. The sheer audacity.... the money that comes from these states, is sent to Washington, who then threaten to withhold sending that money back to the states unless they pander to the dictators in the Congress. I applauded Montana and Wyoming for instance for years for their fight, and yet I am in complete disgust at the sheer hypocrisy that this same Congress would never even deem to threaten to hold back funds against those cities that insist on openly flaunting the law in regard to illegals, or to those cities that threatened to shut down Marine recruiters because of their opposition against Iraq.

I dare say the majority of voters in my state, and that of many others, feel as I do, and is backed up by their voting patterns. It is having the courage to do something about it that is lacking.

"I do not see any State advocating secession."

May I suggest South Carolina, Tennessee, and as always, Texas. Interestingly, Vermont is showing signs of liberal state seeking secession.

 

 

User avatar
Marshal Pupovich wrote:
Guardian of Pravda wrote: Your not talking Secession sir. You would have to have all, or a large majority, of the others in your State feel as you do. I doubt that is so. Your talking about starting your own country. Good luck with that. You need a State to agree to give you the territory. No State is going to voluntarily give up a part of itself to someone that wants to pull a Brigham Young.

ImageOh? Yet every election of late shows basically the same division of the same states, the blue and the red. So would it be so impossible for those same states to form a political union of together? It's been done before over a concept called "States rights" and that same concept exists today. I have been angered for years by states rolling over to the capricious desires of the feds. Go back to the times the Fed has threatened to cut off money to the states in order to force them to capitulate on the 55mph speed limit, alcohol limits, and more recently motorcycle helmets. The sheer audacity.... the money that comes from these states, is sent to Washington, who then threaten to withhold sending that money back to the states unless they pander to the dictators in the Congress. I applauded Montana and Wyoming for instance for years for their fight, and yet I am in complete disgust at the sheer hypocrisy that this same Congress would never even deem to threaten to hold back funds against those cities that insist on openly flaunting the law in regard to illegals, or to those cities that threatened to shut down Marine recruiters because of their opposition against Iraq.

I dare say the majority of voters in my state, and that of many others, feel as I do, and is backed up by their voting patterns. It is having the courage to do something about it that is lacking.

"I do not see any State advocating secession."

May I suggest South Carolina, Tennessee, and as always, Texas. Interestingly, Vermont is showing signs of liberal state seeking secession.
Go for it. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I disagree. I believe we shall end this here as it goes nowhere.

 

 

User avatar
Actually, I wish I was younger, healthy, and had the cash to run for even a local office. For you know, the best way to begin is to run for local offices with the message that you support eventual secession should all other methods to return this country to it's values fail. Trust me, in the parish I live in, I could easily win advocating secession.

 

 

User avatar
I am related to the Long's of Louisiana. I am very well acquainted with Parish and State Politics. Huey was my great uncle.

 

 

User avatar
Then you no doubt have heard how where I live, they still like to call the "Free and Independent Republic of Livingston Parish?"

 

 

User avatar
Yep. Your close to Baton Rouge and French settlement is part of the Parish. Are you in Livingston? You live near the lake? I spent some time in the Killian area.

 

 

User avatar
Nein, though of course I am not far from many bodies of water. I live in Denham Springs now, and work in Albany. I do love the French Settlement area.... riding my bike when I was in the wind, eating at the many great places, drinking at the numerous bars on the bayou. I have no doubt you certainly will remember Freds?

 

 

User avatar
Marshal Pupovich wrote: "I do not see any State advocating secession."

May I suggest South Carolina, Tennessee, and as always, Texas. Interestingly, Vermont is showing signs of liberal state seeking secession.

Here in the American Siberia, we have the Alaska Independence Party. Which, unfortunately, is kind of stupid, seeing that we are very reliant on Federal Dollars.

Tennessee seeking secession? The people there will have to work harder on making themselves more independent to make that happen. Most who work there tend to be funded by state dollars in some form. How else would Al Gore get elected as their Senator?

 

 

User avatar
Marshal Pupovich wrote:Nein, though of course I am not far from many bodies of water. I live in Denham Springs now, and work in Albany. I do love the French Settlement area.... riding my bike when I was in the wind, eating at the many great places, drinking at the numerous bars on the bayou. I have no doubt you certainly will remember Freds?
Are you referring to the one in Tigerland used to be Shanahans or Faps or something like that.?
As I understand it the Blind River Bar and Freds on the River near Vincent were re-opened.
Earl was know to 'Dally' a time or two in your area. On his 'Trips' to Baton Rouge.

 

 

User avatar
I was referring to the infamous Fred's near Port Vincent. It was nearly destroyed during Gustav. So when are you going to make it down this way again?

https://www.2theadvocate.com/news/29824004.html

 

 

User avatar
Probably sometime in the June July time frame.

 

 

User avatar
Then Comrade Pravda, I will be expecting you to report into my Headquarters so that I may conduct a personal debriefing on all your activities in support of the Party. However, do be sure to watch to make sure you are not being followed by the Chairman. You can well imagine the sort of difficulties his, shall we say, "differently challenged," set of moral codes could cause here in southern Louisiana.

 

 

User avatar
Thyey are so secret I do not even know. I was once told that if I found out I would have to committ Soroside.
I will let you know.

 

 

User avatar
I will be looking forward to it, and keeping an eye out for the best places for fried Nutrea on a stick.

 

 

User avatar
We shot at those things along the banks of the river that ran just south of Earl's home. Can't remember the name of it although I think it was Nastiche or something like that. Those things were big enough to make a pit bull backdown. We used pellets and it usually just made them mad and they would hit the water and swim away.

 

 

User avatar
We used pellets and it uisually just made them mad and they would hit the water and swim away.
Try turkey load next time if you can't hit 'em with a slug. Of course there wouldn't be much left for the stick if you used a slug, so I suggest a .22LR with hollow points.
Beavers and Nutrea have oily fur which makes it like armour against pellet shot.

GOP, do you remember Chartiers Creek?

 

 

User avatar
Buffalo Creek, Ten Mile, Pigeon, Wheeling. Yeah I remember them. Went swimming in Chartiers more than once. Built a raft on it out of old inner tubes.
Little Chartiers ran through Cannonsburg.

 

 

User avatar
A HISTORICAL BUMP IN TIME.
PBUH THE MIME™.

 

 

User avatar
Oh, Laika, this shows your good nature. The Mime was the nastiest bit of work that I've ever seen and a truly great prog.

It's kind of you to wish a fellow prog well instead of sinking a knife into his back.

We love you, Laika.

Or we wuv you.

 

 

User avatar
Laika the Space Dog wrote:A HISTORICAL BUMP IN TIME.
PBUH THE MIME™.

Poor Rudolph. He did everything he could to reach across the divide and extend the gentle hand of friendship and offer an end to hyper-partisanship and a means to come together for a common purpose - just as Obama has tried to do with those nasty republicans for the last two years. Foolish dreamer idealism. In the end, after all his hard work to make friends out of enemies poor martyr Rudolph was only scorned, called names, rebuffed, given a silly avatar - just like Obama - and he had to wipe all of his posts of pleas for peace, crying. If ever there was an American Gandhi that man was Rudolph. But he was a man ahead of his own time. There is no reaching across the aisle to the Right. Poor innocent young naive Rudolph found out the hard way and now he is dead.

 

 

User avatar
I am fingering the tears from my eyes while contemplating the Moaning Minnesota Moonbat Mime. Which is not to be confused with the Moaning Murderous Moonbat Mike Malloy. 4M v 5M.

Do you recall his justified complaint about not being given enough of a per diem for breakfast while he was peddling his mimesis? I was touched, truly touched.

And then Jodin Morey. I can never forget his display of throwing down his cell phone lest the nazis think it was a weapon, and how he was in haste to remove his Gitmo Garb, which he'd put on to express solidarity with America-hating terrorists, but which he was fast to pull off just before some nazi cops told him to lie on the ground.

And do you remember how inflamed he was that they only once asked if he was okay?

Poor little Pussyboy Jodin. It's so hard being a good prog when you shriek like a chihuahua puppy.

 

 

User avatar
Dear Father Prog Theocritus wrote:Poor little Pussyboy Jodin. It's so hard being a good prog when you shriek like a chihuahua puppy.

Jody isn't just a flower, he is a whole bouquet of pansy left.

 

 

User avatar
The evil ReTHUGliKKKan Mark Steyn was mocking Dear O'Leader with the Straw Man's song from our own Oz.

With the thoughts I'll be thinkin' I could be another Lincoln
If I only had a brain.

Dear O'Leader has an enormous brain. Unfortunately it's 99% occupied by ego and self-regard, leaving little room for other things. But that's why I love him.

That's why I love Pussyboy Jodin. Just howl.

 

 


 
POST REPLY