You are not logged in.
What if Conservative America were to secede from the Union, leaving states like California, New York, and Massasschusetts behind? Who would stop them? The Peace Now Movement? The US Military whom Liberals disrespect and burn in effigy in Portland Oregon? I just wonder who would stop them if they decided to secede? Maybe some of the conservatives aren't as willing to trust in our enemies as the liberals are as they demand disarmament and congressional oversite of the military. There is precident in the 1860s during the Civil War, and there were Northerners willing to fight to keep the South in the Union, but what about now?
Seems are the left-wingers and Bush haters don't believe in War and so don't want to fight. Anybody else? The Democrats? How many Democrats are in the Military? Would Ted Kennedy put on a Uniform and lead the troops?
Offline
I'm a bit disappointed, the Liberals have nothing to say, nothing at all? Where are all the Liberal Patriots that fought to preserve the Union in 1861 - 1865? What a sad state the Liberal movement has come to. In the 1860s the Liberals were fighting and dying to end slavery and preserve the Union against Confederate Seperatists, but not a peep from them now, tsk tsk tsk. Maybe the South's time to rise again has finally come, and not just the South, I might add, but much of the Mid West, the West and the Rocky Mountain states excluding California Oregon and Washington, and including Alaska, that is what I picture the new Confederacy as looking like if all those ultra liberals don't really care if they secede. The Liberals used the United States as their instrument to drive their liberal agenda, they started out by freeing the slaves and giving them citizenship, they gave women rights, they fought Nazism, and now they don't care to defend the Union anymore, too bad. By the way, this has nothing to do with racism, if the Confederate flag offends, maybe they could change the 'x' into a '+' on their flag and have some 25+ stars run down that intersection. Overtly Christian perhaps? To some that would be equally as offensive as slavery if not more so. There is slavery in the Middle East, but the Liberals don't want to fight it, "I've waved the Confederate flag in their faces," yet they are too timid to rise to the challenge, what a shame. Maybe we need a smaller Confederate States of America to lead the Free World as the United States falls down and is unwilling to defend itself.
Offline
If you don't love your country as it is, then maybe you should leave.
There are plenty of bullyboy juntas out there who'll "believe in War" with you. As long as you can land a position where you can dribble out dolce et decorum est shit all day long and never actually have to murder someone, you'll have a grand ol' time.
( By the way, capitalizing "war" as if it were a god is a seriously psychotic thing to do. You should see a doctor. The life you save may be your own. )
Fan of [url=http://www.red-oasis.com/]Red Oasis[/url]
Offline
If you don't love your country as it is, then maybe you should leave.
That's the problem, the liberals who don't love their country and undermine the troops in their attempt to protect it, don't leave. We can't constitutionally force them to leave, so the next best thing is that we leave them, don't you see?
I don't like it when the liberals gain the majority and force a hands off policy on Iran while they build nuclear weapons and threaten to distroy us with them! The libs say, the Iranians would never attack us with them for that would be suicidal on their part, so therefore we should allow them to have them, but what if they are wrong and the Iranian government is suicidal? Seems to that having one government only that makes the wrong decisions for us all is like putting all our eggs in one basket. What if the Confederate Armed forces continues an aggressive fight against terrorism with a civilian population that supports it, while the remaining United States of America sikmply fortifies its check points with additional inspectors and waits for the enemy to attack them at home. Some protestors in the USA might protest the way the CSA fights terrorism, and they can stage sit ins at our embassies and protest our harsh treatment of those "poor innocent terrorists with the watery eyes" who are just misunderstood and only human, but it isn't any of their business and they stay out of our way as we fight them.
There are plenty of bullyboy juntas out there who'll "believe in War" with you. As long as you can land a position where you can dribble out dolce et decorum est shit all day long and never actually have to murder someone, you'll have a grand ol' time.
( By the way, capitalizing "war" as if it were a god is a seriously psychotic thing to do. You should see a doctor. The life you save may be your own. )
That's the problem, people say they are "against war" and to prove they are "against war" they help out the enemy to win by undermining support at home so as to end the war quickly by giving the enemy what he wants.
I love my country, not war, if something should threaten our country, I believe we should fight to secure it, not give in to the enemy as many anti-war people want in order to avoid fighting. The concept of being "against war" has been used to justify all sorts of treason against one's country, it has even been used as a justification by Benedict Arnold for his attempted betrayal of George Washington.
What is dangerous is that the Anti-War meme becomes too wide spread and popular thus forcing government to cut defense spending on the theory that if we cut defense spending War would go away. Well cutting defense spending only invites our enemy to attack because he sees vulnerabilities. The enemy does not attack because he is "mad at us" for some reason, or that he feels "threatened by us", he attacks because he thinks he can win and thus gain power at our expense. What worries me iswhat if the Majority of Americans follow this dumb line of thinking and what if they are wrong? What if the enemy invades and we are not prepared because we unilaterally disarmed ourselves, thinking that if we make ourselves "nonthreatening" we will be safe from attack, we could lose our freedom if this were to happen.
So what is the lesser evil to prevent this outcome as had happened to France during World War II?
1) We could have the military take over the country and force us to spend money and maintain our preparedness for war, but we'd have to give up our constitutional rights and democracy to do that, not a good solution I think.
2) We could split the country, part of it could experiment with disarmament and trying to adopt an nonthreatening stance to our enemies and see if that works, and
the other part would send the necessary amount on defense to prepare for the enemy to attack us. We would gerrymander the second part of the country so as to include as few liberal areas as possble while keeping the states whole. So what we end up with is a few high population "blue states" and alot of low population rural "red states". Cities it seems, appear to cause liberalism and strange bedfellows who have funny ideas like unilateral disarmament and social experiments and "isms" that they think would improve their society. We could let New York, Massachusetts and their ilk experiment with socialism, vegitatianism, and all sorts of popular isms, and they can raise their own taxes, and we can see how that works for them, while another part of the country keeps their taxes low, remains prepared in case of war and practises Capitalism and we can compare one part of the country against another and see objectively which part is doing better, and which part ends up with moribund stagnant economies living under single party states where the government has a firm lock on power through their control of the media. I like that better than the Liberals dragging the rest of the country toward disaster. If one side tries to impose socialism, unilateral disarmamant, and high taxes, and the other side does not want them, perhaps it is better that we go our own seperate ways rather than fight each other.
We conservatives believe our way of life is worth fighting for, while the liberals priority seems to be peace at all costs. If we can't convince the liberals that the country is worth fighting for, then perhaps it is better if we live in seperate countries, it worked for Czechoslovakia after all.
Offline
Tom, you little dickens ... it's an April Fool, right?
Offline
Yep.
I prefer to keep the country whole.
But its tempting sometimes.
Offline
I like the fact that you ask these questions though. Why don't you check out http://www.cleanslatesociety.com and post some of your ideas there?
- Mike, Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]
Offline
I like the fact that you ask these questions though. Why don't you check out http://www.cleanslatesociety.com and post some of your ideas there?
When I have time to register an all, perhaps I will.
This Secession thing is what I consider the lesser of two evils. I'm not quite ready to give up on the whole country yet. The Confederacy idea is useful when considering whether to try to save the whole country or only part of it that wants to be saved. I certainly don't want to lose the whole country to a bunch of radical "isms" that may prove disasterous for everybody, such as Communism proved to be for the East Bloc and Russia. These "isms" seem to congregate in our Nations big cities, these are places where alot of poor and recent immigrants, both legal and illegal congregate to look for jobs. Many of these immigrants come from poor Third World countries that have been infected with "isms". Most of the Third World "isms" have to do with redistributing wealth in the name of the "people", but it really amounts to redistributiong wealth out of private hands into government.
Another "ism" that has been very popular in the West has been the Anti-War "ism", this "ism" is of the "out of sight out of mind" variety, these anti-war people figure that if we cut our Defense spending, we would reduce our chances of ever ending up in a war where our young men and women might get killed. These people figure that if we cut our supply of weapons and equipment to our soldiers in harm's way, they'll be withdrawn sooner rather than be killed by the enemy due to lack of supplies, this puts our soldiers in greater danger to accomplish an objective that our liberals want, namely the ignomous defeat of our armed forces. I'm pretty sure that most of our men and women in uniform don't agree that losing to an enemy composed of religious fanatics and terrorists are a good idea, but those liberals far away from battle don't mind risking these soldiers lives in their showdown with President Bush, they have even tried a word game, attempting to define the "Global War on Terrorism" out of existance by avoiding the term, a return to "out of sight out of mind". This is very dangerous thinking that has become popular in our American society, and it seems to have greater attraction in our Urban Metropolitian regions. I personally think this sort of thinking, while seemingly attractive to the weak minded, is dangerous for our Republic, and if we can't prevent this idea from becoming mainstream, then one alternative is to save part of this country rather than lose the whole thing.
I think what has traditionally been know as the South, is full of people with more common sense than those teaming millions of people living in out big cities on the East Coast and in the West, a sizable portion of our population lives in those cities, and if some radical "isms" should become popular and fashionable, rather than the Military rising up and taking over the country, it might be better to preserve democracy and have part of this country, the more sensible part, seceed from the other part that's more inclined toward radical ideas, this has been tried before to preserve slavery and I think that's a bad reason, but if this country seems inclined to go down the socialist route much like with what Huga Chavez did with Venuzualia and if we cannot disuade the majority of America from following this path, then perhaps a sizable minority that does not agree can take the military that the Left dispises and form its own republic. The Confederacy as the history books tell us had a nearly identical constitution to the United States when it was formed, its sole purpose was to resist change, namely the Abolishion of Slavery, I think this was a reprehensible goal, but another goal, such as avoiding the disasters imposed on Eastern Europe by socialism, might be a more worthy one. Radical "isms" are untested and dangerous, and should not be imposed on a whole country such as the United States, by a bare majority of people. What Congress is doing is dangerous, it has wages a war against the Presidency rather than on the terrorists. Perhaps a subset of the United States might be more willing to fight terrorism than the Whole, which consists of politicians scrambling for power at each others and sometimes the country's expense.
The Confederacy in my mind would have a Constitution that's identical to the United States as it now stands, but would be interpreted by a strict constructionist Supream Court, that would demand that if the people want changes, that they go through the amendment process rather than have judges make new interpretations and see things in the Constitution that isn't there. Let politicians and not judges make decisions as to whether Abortion should be legal for instance. If liberals insist on trying out these new radical ideas that they think are so cool, I'm inclined to let them, but not with the whole United States. let them take their Massachusetts and New York and California and try reordering their own society, and raising taxes on themselves. We could have a side by side comparison and see which part of the country is doing better, the South and Midwest, or the Radical Coasts. the Military would presumably go with the South I think, as the New Left has made it clear that they don't like or want the Military. Fine by me, the Pentagon is sited in Virginia anyway, we could have a Capital in Richmond and if the liberal parts don't like it, there would be nothing they could do.
As I said before, this Confederacy would have nothing to do with Racism or Slavery, and would instead be an embodiment of Conservative American ideas, seems fair to me, and I don't think there would be any Civil War over this. If there are Northern Libs who are actually willing to fight for their country and to keep it whole, that would be a positive development, but so far I have not seen this.
Offline
Oh great, another George Bush junior lover who wants to break up his own country. You see these kinds of lunatics posting at the freerepublic website all the time, others can be found cheering their support for the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Dann coulter.
No liberal Democrat is defending Afghan suicide bombers, but I get the feeling they feel the Iraq war was BS, even well known Republicans are starting to admit Bush got it wrong.
So you're going to declare a pre-emptive strike on the liberal states -
Boston? California ? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the damn monuments are up there in the 'liberal' backyard ? and haven't you realized some of the best military forts/afbs exist because of the liberal states - NS San Diego, Los Angeles AFB, Fort Drum, McGuire AFB, Fort Hamilton, NWS Earle....plus the East coast and West coast are the economic powerhouses of the USA creating financial security for Americans, how the heck is the 'South' going to survive without liberal states ?
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
Interesting thing about who the military'd side with. The most recent realignment shifted significant amounts of the military out of liberal states to expanding bases in conservative ones. Guess military employees don't like being hated on by their neighbors. Funny to see the liberals whine and cry about the money they're losing by all these folks they dilike moving out.
Truthfully though I'd rather go back to the way it used to be with states offering a great deal of variation in laws than see us go our separate ways. It's wierd you know. After watching 300 me and some my friends were talking about how wierd it was that the Spartans and Athenians could be so different but view each other as Greeks. We used to have that strongly in the USA, but it's slipped away a lot in recent years.
Now as for the South making it own its own I don't see much of a problem. The federal government would be a shell of what it is in the US now. The military and a few other things that would be funded at the same or higher level percentage wise. The open shop states would continue to attract new industry as they already are. Lowered taxes would attract further foreign investment. Meanwhile New England and California could tax themselves into oblivion (without conservative states to hold them back) to support a welfare state that would be as large as any in Europe and continue to drive away employers. With just a little luck the Californians would shut down a lot of their farms, and they'd have to import their food just like the New England states.
Offline
Interesting thing about who the military'd side with. The most recent realignment shifted significant amounts of the military out of liberal states to expanding bases in conservative ones. Guess military employees don't like being hated on by their neighbors. Funny to see the liberals whine and cry about the money they're losing by all these folks they dilike moving out.
Truthfully though I'd rather go back to the way it used to be with states offering a great deal of variation in laws than see us go our separate ways. It's wierd you know. After watching 300 me and some my friends were talking about how wierd it was that the Spartans and Athenians could be so different but view each other as Greeks. We used to have that strongly in the USA, but it's slipped away a lot in recent years.
Now as for the South making it own its own I don't see much of a problem. The federal government would be a shell of what it is in the US now. The military and a few other things that would be funded at the same or higher level percentage wise. The open shop states would continue to attract new industry as they already are. Lowered taxes would attract further foreign investment. Meanwhile New England and California could tax themselves into oblivion (without conservative states to hold them back) to support a welfare state that would be as large as any in Europe and continue to drive away employers. With just a little luck the Californians would shut down a lot of their farms, and they'd have to import their food just like the New England states.
I'm not ready for the United States to split up either. The above I said is a conditional. It all depends on how far left the Left goes and how much of a majority they make and how dangerous their policies are. It bother's me when they look at stagnant growth European socialist economies with admiration, and they seem eager to raise taxes by a record amount within the first 3 months on power. I sometimes wonder if the American People knew who they were voting for when they elected the current crop of Democrats into the Senate. There is nothing more dangerous than a protest vote.
It seems clear to me, that they were protesting the apparent lack of progress in the war, somehow thay felt that Congress was somehow responsible for this lack of progress and they punished the Republicans instead of placing the blame with the Executive branch. The problem is, the President serves in 4-year terms and the electorate couldn't wait as they were goaded on by the liberal media that was painting that all hope was lost in wining this war, they were also grooming this dark horse candidate Barak Hussien Obama as some sort of "affirmative action" for anti-war Presidential candidates, they gave him nothing but positive coverage while saving the harsh questions for other candidates.
Seems the Democrats were hiding their true colors in the general election. Most of the candidates were moderates, and leaders such as Nancy Pelosi were keeping a low profile, and once elected the radical leadership rose to the top, the democratic moderates were just the candy coating for Nancy Pelosi's radical politics, and she's wasted no time in smoozing with the leaders of terrorist states and dressing the part as an Arab woman. It seems the modern Democrats are more Anti-American than they are liberal. I would be for secession if that was the only way to save American culture and to prevent a liberal majority from surrendering the country to outside powers as some sort of imagined "atonement" for supposed past crimes against the Third World by the United States.
Offline
Oh great, another George Bush junior lover who wants to break up his own country. You see these kinds of lunatics posting at the freerepublic website all the time, others can be found cheering their support for the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Dann coulter.
No liberal Democrat is defending Afghan suicide bombers, but I get the feeling they feel the Iraq war was BS, even well known Republicans are starting to admit Bush got it wrong.
Well know liberal Republicans who want to straddle the fence and please the liberal media. I didn't know that Ann Coulter had a brother, I assume that was a typo. I don't want to break up my country, but I would consider it, if it means saving at least a part of it from liberal folly. By the way, liberal anti-militarism robs them of the tools they could use to stop a secessionist movement. Unlike the liberals who stopped the Confederacy during the Civil War, these liberals are pacifists, they believe war is not the answer and would prefer to send up diplomats instead of military force to crush the rebellion. If all they can think of is more and more negotiation, they can talk themselves until they are blue in the face and the South would win by default. A Southern Conservative rebellion is no different than any other military enemy. If the liberals can do nothing but further negotiate and never resort to military action, then the South can simply leave these fools in the dust, and the terrorist leaders of the world would have new worries as the CSA Armed forces bear down on them as the irrelevant Northern states slide into socialism and neutrality.
So you're going to declare a pre-emptive strike on the liberal states -
Boston? California ? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the damn monuments are up there in the 'liberal' backyard ? and haven't you realized some of the best military forts/afbs exist because of the liberal states - NS San Diego, Los Angeles AFB, Fort Drum, McGuire AFB, Fort Hamilton, NWS Earle....plus the East coast and West coast are the economic powerhouses of the USA creating financial security for Americans, how the heck is the 'South' going to survive without liberal states ?
Yes once upon a time, Boston was a center of Patriotism, they used to cheer returning victorious US troops in New York City with ticker tape parades and they sold War bonds on Wall Street. The latest anti-war craze began with the Democrats in 1968, in that year some of the democrats began rooting for the enemy, they started calling US troops war criminals and baby killers, based on a series of unfavorable propaganda by NBC, and CBS who tried to villify our troops, then came the AntiWar protests, some Democrats capitalized on the Anti-War Anti American fevor and pursued their own path to power by pandering to the constituency that hated their own country that they lived in. These people wanted handouts from the government, income distribution while the condemned the government that was the instruments of these policies as imperialist. When US soldiers got attacked and killed they cheered the enemy and said that those soldiers deserved it for being imperialists and oppressing the Third World. Seems to me, that if there was a secessionist movement, our Nation's military would get shoved into it by liberals that didn't want them and condemned them as Imperialists. What would you do if you were a soldier and the people you were fighting for and trying to preserve the Union for hated your guts and called you things like baby killer, Imperialist, or mercenary?
The problem with the Nations big cities is that they got too big, too filled with immigrants that only came here for a job and didn't give a crap about the country they lived in, and they were prodded on by self-hating Americans that grew long hair, and did drugs, and anarchists without morals who say, if it feels good then do it, while all sorts of moral relativism rules the roost. Maybe some rural folks don't like the direction some of our big cities elites are leading us in. I think with modern telecommunications, we don't need big cities anyway. The cities were the roots of modern liberalism. If we can get our business done without being in the same room with other people, we don't really need big cities. Big cities are vulnerable to nuclear attack anyway, its better that we don't have so many people packed together in such a small space anyway and therefore vulnerable.
Offline
What are the odds that Bush would step down from office if it meant that Democrats would support continued efforts in Iraq?
Purely hypothetical, but I don't think Bush would even contemplate it.
I find this topic boring. Are we so unimaginative as to think that America might, or should, or even consider breaking up on the notion of being "gung-ho" about war? What adolescent fantasy did this come from?
Why did America break up Billy? Cause yell’er belli’ libs don’ts’ likes to fight!
And this passes for a topic of conversation? The dim bulbs sure do look bright in this vacuum of ignorance.
But I leave you to it, for I will fight to the death for your right to say what you want, and in all likelihood I will kill myself if I have to continue to read this prattle.
Hang together, or hang separately. But whatever, what do I know.
Offline
It started out, supposedly, as an April Fool ... but then the "fool" got carried away. One April 1st per year is sufficient, Tom, so turn the page!
Offline
What are the odds that Bush would step down from office if it meant that Democrats would support continued efforts in Iraq?
Mostly because George Bush wouldn't trust the Democrats to keep their word, and once he stepped down from power there would be nothing he could do about it once they hadn't.
One circumstance where he might consider it would be if the Democrats made it impossible for him to do his job and protect the United States, by cutting off funds. Rather than remaining in office and presiding over America's defeat at the hands of terrorists due to the funding cut off, I think it would be wiser for him and Cheney to let Nancy Pelosi shoulder all the responsibility for this defeat as the default President, for with the power comes the responsibility. If Nancy Pelosi became President, she would have less than two years remaining in Office, and then the Republicans would put up some challengers and run against her, putting her feet to the fire as the only US President to allow her country to be defeated by a band of outlaws, then the Republicans can sweep her out of the White House and the Democrats out of the House and Senate. Assuming of course that the majority of Americans are still Patriots and prefer to win over losing a war, and as I said before, if the majority of Americans do not want to win, perhaps they ought to be ekected from the country, and the mechanism to do this as demostrated by the Southerners durring the secession in 1861 is secession. We could get a temporary name change and not include all those states where their is a majority of unpatriotic self-hating Americans. Probably what remains could not hold itself together as one country called the United States of America, as that collection of liberal states is only a handful, they would not be interested in doing so anyway, so the Confederate States can change their names back to the United States as that name would no longer be in use, and by that process the US can eject the dead gangeious parts of itself that undermine this country's ability to defend itself. After all, what good is an army if the liberals won't let us use it?
Purely hypothetical, but I don't think Bush would even contemplate it.
I find this topic boring. Are we so unimaginative as to think that America might, or should, or even consider breaking up on the notion of being "gung-ho" about war? What adolescent fantasy did this come from?
The other solution would be for the military to take over the government, displacing the elected leaders over the whole United States, and continuing the War in Iraq, would you prefer that? I do not, for once liberty is lost, it is hard to get back.
Why did America break up Billy? Cause yell’er belli’ libs don’ts’ likes to fight!
I noticed none of you have said the Liberals would fight to the death to preserve the Union as their forebears did during the Civil War. The whole point of this topic is to show that the Liberals are unwilling to fight to preserve their country, they have over time lost their patriotism. The only patriotic group left in this country seems to be the conservatives. If we could carve a country out of the United States where the majority of its people are conservative, then that part would be able and willing to defend and protect its liberty and freedom. Now I'm waiting for some liberals to show me otherwise, but so far here they have not even made that argument, they have just said how dumb and boring secession would be. Did you know by the way that Nancy Pelosi, the House Majority Leader is going to visit Iran and its President? A President that was once a terrorist who took Americans hostage. What I'm trying to get is a reaction from the liberals to prove me wrong, I want to see liberals who will defend this country and not always criticise it all the time. In 1861 there were liberals who were willing to fight to preserve the Union and their country, they were willing to fight the conservatives down south who wanted to break out and continue slavery. Today we have liberals who are willing to talk to slave owners in the Middle East and are willing to help them out, just so long as they are Anti-American and help undermine the Bush Presidency. Yes, I question anyone's patriotism who would meet with a terrorist who kape Americans hostage during a Democratic Administration for 444 days!
And this passes for a topic of conversation? The dim bulbs sure do look bright in this vacuum of ignorance.
So tell me how you are a patriot Clark. Tell me how you think all the Liberals will stand up and fight for this country, fight against terrorism! Fight these dictators and their oppressive tyrannies. Aren't the words Liberal and Liberate related words? Seems that these days, the liberals don't want to liberate anybody, all they want is power!
But I leave you to it, for I will fight to the death for your right to say what you want, and in all likelihood I will kill myself if I have to continue to read this prattle.
Hang together, or hang separately. But whatever, what do I know.
Offline
I find it ironic that a self-identified Conservative of Republican leaning values carries on in a conversation that looks to justify sedition against the United States of America.
I also find it ironic that he makes his argument on the premise that the Unites States military would disavow their oath to uphold the Constution, which they have sworn with their life, and commit treason in the name of establishing a new "United States" where like minded citizens are allowed to agree to war unfettered by debate or thos who question the manner or the justification for such action.
The fact that you persist in light of this obvious situation only demonstrates what a boob you truly are.
Even Benedict Arnold thought himself a patriot, but history paints a different light.
Like any good patriot, Tom, I love my country. And like every good American, I distrust my government.
You on the other hand seem to dislike parts or your country, but blindly worship your government. You, afterall, are calling for the disolution of your country to form a more perfect government.
Traitor.
Offline
I find it ironic that a self-identified Conservative of Republican leaning values carries on in a conversation that looks to justify sedition against the United States of America.
Well you know, sometimes the doctor says, "amputate" if the limb is rotten and cannot be saved. I am not sure parts of the United States are so rotten that they cannot be saved, but as any surgeon can tell you, it is better to cut off the limb than to lose the whole patient.
I also find it ironic that he makes his argument on the premise that the Unites States military would disavow their oath to uphold the Constution, which they have sworn with their life, and commit treason in the name of establishing a new "United States" where like minded citizens are allowed to agree to war unfettered by debate or thos who question the manner or the justification for such action.
Many of them had no problem doing that the last time around, men like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Stonewall Jackson. It was the military that beat the secessionists the first time around, and back then we didn't have a liberal movement that hated the military, now we do, I think it sould be an easy matter for the US military to go where they are wanted, rather than serve masters that hate their guts and want to abolish them. The liberals in this country used to be the ones that abolished slavery, were willing to put on blue uniforms and fight for their country to stop the secessionists. I don't see much of that anymore.
The fact that you persist in light of this obvious situation only demonstrates what a boob you truly are.
No, I am only making a point here, whats the point of following orders if those orders only lead to the destruction of one's country? The liberals would dismantle the army and leave us vulnerable to foreign invasion and take over. The CSA is still American, I'd rather have them picking over the carcass than a bunch or terrorists or Islamic fundamentalists.
Even Benedict Arnold thought himself a patriot, but history paints a different light.
Benedict Arnold wanted to advance his position and be on the winning side, he perceived the British to be winning and he didn't like the way some in the contitnetal army treated him. What I want to do is save a part of the USa if the whole thing cannot be saved. If the majority want to go down the suicidal path of disarmament and be ruled by some other country, then I think a minority that believes in preserving their country can be allowed to split off.
Like any good patriot, Tom, I love my country. And like every good American, I distrust my government.
Lincoln and the American people trusted the government when it came to beating the South, if they did not, they could not win. Your problem is that you and what army are going to beat the secessionists? You don't trust your own government or its army, so be default the side that does automatically wins, and the hypothetical secessionists don't want much, they just want to break off from the fools who want to see their country perish from the Earth. If they had the loyalty of the US Military, they could easily establish a military government over you, but they'd much rather break off and let you suffer from your folly.
You on the other hand seem to dislike parts or your country, but blindly worship your government. You, afterall, are calling for the disolution of your country to form a more perfect government.
Traitor.
I just don't want to have to bow to some Ayatollah, or some radical terrorist leader that the liberals in this country don't want to defend against. I believe in democracy. If the democratic majority wants to end their freedom and become subserviant to some radical muslims, I choose not to follow. If you fail to defend your freedoms, then you are basically handing over your government, which you do not trust, over to them.
Offline
All you do is put words together.
A coherent thought that does not make.
Offline
All you do is put words together.
A coherent thought that does not make.
I can point your nose in the right direction, but I can't make you see the light. You have predetermined conclusions. I gave Secession as a hypothetical example. (hyp-o-thet-i-cal), I guess you don't know what that word means. You call people Traitors for expressing certain ideas, but I have not done anything that can be called treason unless you call "thought crime" or exercising my freedom of speech as Treason. The Czechs and the Slovaks did it, and we don't call either one of them traitors. I think splitting the differences is one way of settling the differences peacefully. If you for instance want a socialist state, you can more easily have one if you don't have southern states holding you back, the same goes for Southern States wan'ting small government and low taxes, they don't need socialists levying high taxes on them and redistributing their income. Now instead of one group imposing their way of life on the other, why not split the difference? The Socialists think their right and the Conservatives think they are right, the only way to settle this is through a scientific experiment with the South as the Control group and the North as the Experiment. If they want to experiment with socialism, they need a control group, (ie the south) to measure their progress against. Historically most social experimenters and radical revolutionaries have neglected to have a control group, they've always preferred to to perform their social experiment on the whole country or population without leaving a control group that remained the same.
Offline
Hmmm... you call democrats and liberals traitors for expressing their view point.
You are like a spoiled child, pouting and whining, demanding to take their ball home because the game is not being played in the manner they wish.
In our Republic you get a little of what you want, and someone else gets a little of what they want. You take your lumps as they come.
Your hypothetical idea is ill conceived and without merit since it would require the disolution of the united states. The matter was settled long ago, and individual states receive more benfeit from a union than through independance from our social compact.
You're a little Stalin, blithley discussing the round-up and forced relocation of those who do not share a certain politcal view and sending them packing. Oh, that's nice. Very scientific.
You are rationally calling on the United States army to help dissolve the country they have sworn to protect and defend with their lives. Very proper. Very patriotic.
You demonstrate little or no understanding of the meaning of your discussion. Your analogy of cutting off a limb to save the body to somehow justify this misguided point of yours is akin to a doctor suggesting to the patient that cutting off the head is a rational choice to save the foot. In your case, perhaps that would be a good start.
Just so you are aware, an american citizen calling on the united states army, or fellow citizens to overthrow the government is, and has always been considered treason.
And you persist in this misguided conversation of yours because you disslike people debating the need and neccessity of war? Good little brown shirt. Want a club to beat us with?
Last I checked, we still had a right to question our government and hold our elected officials accountable for the decisions they make. But whatever, what do I know.
Offline
Hmmm... you call democrats and liberals traitors for expressing their view point.
Your the one who is accusing me of commiting "Thought Crime".
Saying we should not be in a War is not treason, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy is.
Saying we should open up dialog with the enemy isn't treason, but actually doing it without your government's permission is.
What the Confederates did during the Civil War by rebelling against the authority of the United States was treason, but merely advocating secession but not taking action on it isn't. It is my right as a citizen to express my opinion on what should be, if that becomes illegal and considered treason, then this isn't a country that's worth defending.
What's important are the values this country represents. If this country got taken over by a dictator and the South Rebelled to continue their democratic traditions, then I wouldn't call that treason, though the dictator might. There are circumstances where I'd considered Secession acceptable, the abolition of slavery isn't one of them, but someone trying to establish a dictatorship in this country would be considered sufficient cause to rebel.
Imagine how much better the World would be if half of Gemany decided to rebel when Hitler rose to power as Chancellor. I think if some ambitious figure such as that were to rise to power in the United States, I'd like to reduce the size of the prize. So long as the State continues to defend its citizens liberties and civil rights, it is worth defending, but once it ceases to do that, then secession becomes perfectly legitmate. If the country will not defend itself against terrorism, then the states of the Union are within their rights to form their own associations that will. the Federal Government cannot force the states not to defend themselves against an external threat. If Washington says we are to turn the other cheek against terrorist threats and the Southern States refuse to do so, what is a Federal government that has shown itself powerless going to do?
Could you imagine Jimmy Carter putting down a Southern Rebellion if the South decided to declare War on Iran durung the Hostage Crisis? If Jimmy Carter was so weak that he couldn't deal with Iran, how could he be strong enough to put down southern secession? Not that I'm advocating it, but I do like to raise the question in a country that the Democrats do not believe in defending against Terrorists.
Maybe some democrats believe in passive resistance rather than an active defense policy, but not everybody in this country wants to depend on their anti-war theories to protect their freedoms. There were many countries that fell to Hitler because they had silly ideas about national defense that just didn't work. I think for instance if France split into two countries, one composed of "hawks" and the other composed of "Doves", Hitler could have conquered the dovish part of France, but the Hawkish part would have given him considerably more trouble.
Now if splitting up France prior to World War Two would have given Hitler much more trouble, should that be considered Treason? Especially in light of the fact that the majority of French at the time considered building a Wall to be an adequate defense against the Germans.
You are like a spoiled child, pouting and whining, demanding to take their ball home because the game is not being played in the manner they wish.
National Defense is not a game! If you lose your freedom once, you may never get it back. People who advocate cutting defense are taking chances with the freedoms of everybody in the country. What if the Majority of people elected Walter Mondale for instance, and he began the Unilateral disarmament of the United States' Nuclear deterrent in the face of a Soviet Threat? What if the South though that constituted surrender to the Soviets and they didn't want to take chances and become "Amerika" and so rebelled to become the CSA instead? I think people who value their freedoms have a perfect right to seperate from their country if they thing their elected leadership is transitioning to communism or leaving the country open to foreign invaders that would take away their liberties.
In our Republic you get a little of what you want, and someone else gets a little of what they want. You take your lumps as they come.
Your hypothetical idea is ill conceived and without merit since it would require the disolution of the united states. The matter was settled long ago, and individual states receive more benfeit from a union than through independance from our social compact.
Majority rule has its limits, sometimes the majority makes a foolish decision and decides to trust in a leader that wants to take away their liberties, as had happened in Germany and lately in Venuzualia. I can't say I would defend this country under all circumstances, especially of some of those circumstances include the rise to power of a dictator through elections such as had happened in Germany, Russia, and Venuzualia, if such were to occur in the United States, then holding the Union together would not be the "end all and be all". The United States is only worth preserving if it protects our freedoms, if it ceases to do that then all bets are off. Now I see Democrats trying to stear this country down a path of increased socialism, higher taxes, and cutting of defense spending. Taxes were enough to incite the first American Revolution after all. We try not to let that happen, but if we can't, we may look at other alternatives to protect our freedoms.
You're a little Stalin, blithley discussing the round-up and forced relocation of those who do not share a certain politcal view and sending them packing. Oh, that's nice. Very scientific.
You are rationally calling on the United States army to help dissolve the country they have sworn to protect and defend with their lives. Very proper. Very patriotic.
Under certain circumstances I would, that's why I call the question hypothetical.
I would not defend King and Country because I do not believe in Kings, and if we ever were to get a King, then I'd either advocate otherthrowing that King or failing that secession. Id call upon the military to over throw that King even if the public wants to live under one, because I don't. Up to a point I'm happy to live under majority rule, but when the Mojority wants to give up their rights, that is where I will not follow.
Secession is quite rational when you are faced with these three choices for instance:
A) The majority of Americans want to appoint a dictator for life to rule over them cause he's very popular.
B) Inciting a Military Coup to take over the government and over ride the poppular will.
or
C) Secession of a section of this country that will not support this dictator for life and still wants to have elections and values its freedom.
I think the case of Russia and the election of Putin is illustrative of what might happend to a democratic republic.
You demonstrate little or no understanding of the meaning of your discussion. Your analogy of cutting off a limb to save the body to somehow justify this misguided point of yours is akin to a doctor suggesting to the patient that cutting off the head is a rational choice to save the foot. In your case, perhaps that would be a good start.
That's your opinion that the liberal antiwar part of this country is the "head" and not the "foot". I however think we would do fine without places like San Fransico where people think we don't need a military, and think the Battleship Iowa is a symbol of War rather than one of freedom.
Just so you are aware, an american citizen calling on the united states army, or fellow citizens to overthrow the government is, and has always been considered treason.
Under what circumstances is secession justified? Would you be for the Union under all circumstances. You are not for in in the Iraq War? Many liberals want to break off pieces of Iraq and call that a legitimate solution to Iraq's troubles and a way to end the War, isn't that the same thing as what you call treason?
And you persist in this misguided conversation of yours because you disslike people debating the need and neccessity of war? Good little brown shirt. Want a club to beat us with?
If you do so while undermining our ability to fight it, you are in fact helping the enemy. The enemy wants you out there debating the necessity of the War because they want to win, and demoralizing the United States is the only way they know how. They certainly can't beat the United States Army militarily, but if they can undermine the support at home for the War in this country, they can cause the United States Military to involuntarily withdraw due to lack of funds, in this Nancy Pelosi is on their side. Yes I call that treason. And If Nancy Pelosi gives us such a fine example, why shouldn't the South Rebel? Maybe we don't want to make peace with terrorists, maybe some of us simply want to destroy them because they are evil. And if we see our US government dealing with evil foreign terrorists and inviting them to the White House for tea, we may just decide to rebel against that government. After all they have murdered many Americans, and just because the US government wants to bury the hatchet and make peace with these terrorists doesn't mean that we all want to forgive them, far from it.
Last I checked, we still had a right to question our government and hold our elected officials accountable for the decisions they make. But whatever, what do I know.
And last I heard we still have freedom of speech. If one person can advocate making peace with terrorists who have murdered many thousands of Americans, then another person can advocate sucession. Isn't that logical?
Offline
What the Confederates did during the Civil War by rebelling against the authority of the United States was treason, but merely advocating secession but not taking action on it isn't. It is my right as a citizen to express my opinion on what should be, if that becomes illegal and considered treason, then this isn't a country that's worth defending.
Title 18; Part I; Chapter 115, Section 2383
Section Heading: Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Advocating secession is incitement. What you are advocating is an insurrection against the United States of America by a coaliation of States, individuals, and her military. You are clearly stupid.
Offline
Luckily, the Patriot Act will make it easy for us to round up people like Tom after the 2008 elections.
Hillary's angels gonna be knockin' on your door Tom. Where ya gonna run to?
Fan of [url=http://www.red-oasis.com/]Red Oasis[/url]
Offline
What the Confederates did during the Civil War by rebelling against the authority of the United States was treason, but merely advocating secession but not taking action on it isn't. It is my right as a citizen to express my opinion on what should be, if that becomes illegal and considered treason, then this isn't a country that's worth defending.
Title 18; Part I; Chapter 115, Section 2383
Section Heading: Rebellion or insurrectionWhoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Advocating secession is incitement. What you are advocating is an insurrection against the United States of America by a coaliation of States, individuals, and her military. You are clearly stupid.
Then I guess calling for cuts in the military might also incite them to rebel.
The word Hypothetical offers me protection, since I'm not calling for secession right now, I am merely suggesting that it might be a good idea if future circumstances were to warrant it, you know such as a dictator taking over the United States. Are you saying you'd rather live under a dictator and lose your right to vote that break off from the United States were that to occur? The ability to express an idea shall not be infringed. We can talk about it here without fear that the government is going to arrest us for inciting a rebellion. You should really work on your reading comprehension Clark. You take only bits and parts of what I'm saying and using only those bits and parts to prove your predertemined conclusion without taking the whole thing in its context.
Saying that "If you raise our taxes, curtail free speech, and surrender this country to a foreign enemy, then we will rebel and split off from the United States.", is not the same as saying "We will spit of from the United States.".
The first sentence is a conditional in the form of If .... Then ... You know of course that is the If part is true and the Then is true the conditional statement is also true.
If the If part is false, the condition is not met, so it is not a call to incitement. A call to incitement would also require a direct communication to the generals in question among other things. I'm merely expressing that it might be a good idea should conditions warrant. If we can't talk about such things as they are officially Taboo then this is not a country worth defending.
Would you rather live in a country where there is official censorship and you can't talk about certain subject among your friends?
Also if no one actually rebels, there has been no incitement as there has been no effect. Talking about it is not incitement.
Liberals don't believe in free speech anymore, they want taboo this and taboo that. Well were not a bunch of primitive savages with bones in our noses that have taboos are we. If we can't discuss an idea fully and weigh its merrits there is something wrong here, but I believe we can.
Saying, "Fire!" is not the same thing as saying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The circumstances and context in which something is said makes all the difference. Or would you rather have your Socialist Big Brother?
Offline
Luckily, the Patriot Act will make it easy for us to round up people like Tom after the 2008 elections.
Hillary's angels gonna be knockin' on your door Tom. Where ya gonna run to?
If Hillary attempts to cease dictatorial power and curtails free speech, then your darn right I would call upon the military and the people to overthrow her! Failing that a secession from the parts of the United States containing her supporters would be second best. I do not expect US Generals to swear fidelity to a dictator, nor should they!
Offline