Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

Josh Cryer · 2007-04-19 15:43:32

They seem to do what Bush tells 'em...

clark · 2007-04-20 04:25:52

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!

Oh, that is rich. If Hillary attempts to "cease", as in stop, desist, no longer continue dictatorial power and the curtailment of free speech you would call upon the military and people to overthrow her.

ha!

Obligatory Simpson quote, "When I grow up, I want to go to Bovine University!" -Ralph.

Our friend here appears to support the current dictatorial powers and curtailment of free speech currently instutited by our executive branch of government.

Good little brown shirt.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-20 12:49:35

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!
Oh, that is rich. If Hillary attempts to "cease", as in stop, desist, no longer continue dictatorial power and the curtailment of free speech you would call upon the military and people to overthrow her.
ha!
Obligatory Simpson quote, "When I grow up, I want to go to Bovine University!" -Ralph.
Our friend here appears to support the current dictatorial powers and curtailment of free speech currently instutited by our executive branch of government.
Good little brown shirt.

I meant seize.

I believe freedom of speech must be upheld. speech should not be outlawed, if it is not then we can't examine ideas properly and come to imformed conclusions.

Splitting the country does not have to come about as a result of war, it could be something like the splitting of Czechoslovakia. If Liberals are wedded to their antiwar principles, I'm inclined to let them go their seperate way rather than impose something on them.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-20 22:37:59

Also I've noticed Clark is much more interested in killing the Debate through threats and intimidation of the opposing debater rather than simply debating the debate and argue the pros and cons on their merits alone. Does this indicate a weakness of his position? He uses emotionally loaded words such a calling me a Traitor simply for bringing up this subject in this conversation. I'd say this indicates very much that Clark is against free speech, especially speech he disagrees with.

noosfractal · 2007-04-20 23:21:03

If Hillary attempts to cease dictatorial power

That is quite a Freudian slip there Tom

Don't be afraid Tom, I'm sure Hillary will be merciful. I've heard her aides are putting together a program whereby traitors to their country can get their sentence commuted to a type of community service as long as they agree to castration and a course of reeducation through labor. Perhaps you'll be able to achieve so prestigious a position as domestic servant to a party member! You probably shouldn't set your aims so high though. Society is not unwisely reluctant to trust those who have tried to divide and betray them. Regardless, seven years in a concrete box in Guantanamo should make your heart fairly bloom with compassion. They say a liberal is just a conservative who has been arrested

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-21 10:16:46

If Hillary attempts to cease dictatorial power
That is quite a Freudian slip there Tom
Don't be afraid Tom, I'm sure Hillary will be merciful. I've heard her aides are putting together a program whereby traitors to their country can get their sentence commuted to a type of community service as long as they agree to castration and a course of reeducation through labor. Perhaps you'll be able to achieve so prestigious a position as domestic servant to a party member! You probably shouldn't set your aims so high though. Society is not unwisely reluctant to trust those who have tried to divide and betray them. Regardless, seven years in a concrete box in Guantanamo should make your heart fairly bloom with compassion. They say a liberal is just a conservative who has been arrested

I have doubts that Hillary will be elected anyway. I doubt the American people will stomach too much defeatism from the Democratic Party. the Senate Leader Harry Reed has already declared that we lost, and he's threatening to pull funds to make sure that's a self-fulfilling prophesy. The one's that do the dividing are people like him. My thesis is simply that liberals like him make us weaker, not stronger. Now how much constituency behind him is a matter of debate. If we have a population of people clamouring to lose and be defeated by America's enemies, one wonders if they are actually contributing much to the American nation. America cannot survive if their is a large enough population that does not believe in defending her. I could take a different tack if you like. Why not simply expel Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Oregon, and Washington? Anti-militarism is a self-defeating ideology.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-21 10:49:29

If Hillary attempts to cease dictatorial power
That is quite a Freudian slip there Tom

Word substitution problem.
I don't have much time to proof read, I reply to so many posts. I suppose your typing is perfect and you never made such an era in you life.

Don't be afraid Tom, I'm sure Hillary will be merciful. I've heard her aides are putting together a program whereby traitors to their country can get their sentence commuted to a type of community service as long as they agree to castration and a course of reeducation through labor. Perhaps you'll be able to achieve so prestigious a position as domestic servant to a party member! You probably shouldn't set your aims so high though. Society is not unwisely reluctant to trust those who have tried to divide and betray them.

Liberals always want to kill the messenger rather that deal with the contents of the message. You keep on squirming out of the issue, and you haven't answered the question, what would liberals do to stop secession? Do you have an answer or are you going to continue to attack the one who posits it. Personal attacks is a sure sign of weak arguments.

Regardless, seven years in a concrete box in Guantanamo should make your heart fairly bloom with compassion. They say a liberal is just a conservative who has been arrested

Someone advocating a position is not the same thing as a terrorists who murders somebody. Don't you dare equate the two. Terrorists are murderers! Liberals are always looking for excuses to let people out of jail, they don't think anyone in jail could ever actually be guilty of anything.

clark · 2007-04-21 11:19:42

The argument you present is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Your expectation that we are required to meet your supposed points is merely a symptom of your self-inflated ego.

Contrary to your opinion, you fail to provide valid points that establish any basis for debate. Your 'hypothetical' is just pretense at trying to foster a discussion regarding your warped fantasy in a bid at self aggrandizement.

It would be like me saying, "if pink elephants grew on the moon, i think we should invade."

Sure, we could debate the various pros and cons, explore and extrapolate the philosophical points ad nauseam, but what would be the point?

You are a poor debater Tom. And you are not entertaining.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-21 12:23:45

The argument you present is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Your expectation that we are required to meet your supposed points is merely a symptom of your self-inflated ego.
Contrary to your opinion, you fail to provide valid points that establish any basis for debate. Your 'hypothetical' is just pretense at trying to foster a discussion regarding your warped fantasy in a bid at self aggrandizement.
It would be like me saying, "if pink elephants grew on the moon, i think we should invade."
Sure, we could debate the various pros and cons, explore and extrapolate the philosophical points ad nauseam, but what would be the point?
You are a poor debater Tom. And you are not entertaining.

That's ten yous and yours, that tells you something when you can only talk about me and not the subject of this discussion.

A recap:

I say, "what if the South secceeded?" and you say, "How dare you mention it you traitor!" Notice how it avoids answering the question of what an antiwar liberal would do. I guess I'm not supposed to talk about certain subjects because all the freedom of speech I learned about in school is just bogus in your opinion. I can also ask "what if some terrorists were to blow up New York City?" and you'd call me a terrorist for bringing it up. How can we solve these problems if we can't even talk about them, and you treat them as taboo and you question the motives of the person who brings it to you. One of these days, your going to encounter a situation that your not prepared to deal with, because you've meticulously avoided the subject. You see when I bring up a subject that you don't like to deal with you put me in a defensive mode by questioning my patriotism so the subject changes and you avoided answering the question. That is what liberals frequently do, they live in a fantasy world where their ideology works and the avoid talking about the situations where it doesn't work by insulting the person who brings it up.

I have no use for speaking with people who do not listen. Good bye.

Austin Stanley · 2007-04-21 17:22:14

Don't know if Tom's still reading this at all but the reason why succession would never happen today is that the conservative "majority" in southern states is actually quite small. They only have a 10% advantage or so at most. This is quite different then the ACW where the percentage supporting succession was much higher. If presidential electoral votes were allocated proportional to the votes in the votes in the states (instead of the winner take all system we have now) this would be much more obvious.

Earthfirst · 2007-04-24 17:39:48

Just like the liberal states run them selfs. They hate America and they can go away and make there own country.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-24 23:28:29

Don't know if Tom's still reading this at all but the reason why succession would never happen today is that the conservative "majority" in southern states is actually quite small. They only have a 10% advantage or so at most. This is quite different then the ACW where the percentage supporting succession was much higher. If presidential electoral votes were allocated proportional to the votes in the votes in the states (instead of the winner take all system we have now) this would be much more obvious.

I took a break because I am not interested in trading insults with Clark, and I was afraid that if I read Clark's latest response, I'd get angry and end up in an endless cycle of tit for tat. I simply wanted to ask a hypothetical question, because I get exasperated sometimes at how unpatriotic some of the people in our liberal Northeastern and Westcoast population centers can seem sometimes. My purpose was not to encourage the splitting of this country but to demarcate those areas where we are already split. Now if some of us want to cut defense spending and kiss our enemies' asses, fine they can have their own country and do that, they can be a supplicant, grovel and pay tribute to our enemies because they are willing to die for what they believe in and our liberal friends are willing to sacrifice everything to make peace with them, and they are trying to force these policies on my country, that is why I have given serious thought about what my country would be like if it didn't include them hence secession.

Now I don't know why Secession had greater support in the 1860s in the South when it was mainly in support of slavery, as opposed to today, when much better arguments can be found for it now. My point is the liberals have gotten out of control. Too many of them don't support free speech, they just want to shut up dissenting voices. Clark for instance didn't want to argue with me, he just wanted to shut me up by calling me a traitor as opposed to pointing out why he thinks this idea isn't a good one like you did.

There is something seriously wrong with the Liberal movement in this country, one of its leaders, Harry Reed in the Senate proclaims that we have lost the War before our army has even been defeated. I think the Liberal Democrats are way ahead of the enemy in defeating our army by withholding funds. I would dare say the Democrats are the only hope the enemy has for winning. The Democrats want America to lose so they can get elected. This whole attitude on their part runs me the wrong way. If the Democrats are so keen on losing, I certainly don't want them living and voting in my country as I value my freedoms, and I don't want them selling America out and kissing the Enemy's ass in exchange for political power. I also detest big cities, it seems they and the people who live in them are often totally divorced from reality, they think if we stop funding the military, peace will break out. In New York City for instance, they keep on raising and raising the taxes, adding new taxes, jacking up the tolls, and thinking up new ways of collecting money from the public, including a new traffic congestion tax, which is what they think will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it just happens to have that wonderful side effect of giving them more of the public's money to spend, purely by accident of course.

I value this country I live in, if some strange group of liberals manage to spread there philosophy about what a terrible country we are, and that philosophy becomes popular, I'd rather cut them out rather than let them bring the entire country, all 50 states, down on our heads. Now it does seem to me that people living down south and in the rural regions, don't hate themselves and their country nearly as much as the northeast and west coast metro-Americans do.

clark · 2007-04-25 05:48:21

You call democrats and liberals traitors, largely for holding a differing viewpoint from your own. You then find fault when the same label is applied to you for suggesting a viewpoint that encourages the dissolution of our country, which is specifically non-patriotic.

I find fault with the manner in which you choose to discuss this topic largely because of the polarizing language you choose to use, largely to illicit a knee jerk reaction or to foster angry debate. Most here do not seem too keen on taking the bait, and to be blunt, you are not very subtle.

So here we have a hypothetical question centered on the premise asking if liberals who hold an anti-war stance would be willing to stand up and fight for their beliefs, thus undermining their anti-war stance and being denounced as hypocritical. If they are unwilling to stand up and fight for their beliefs, then what good is their ideology. That's the situation, and i find it disingenuous.

But for a moment, let me take this silly premise of yours at face value.

It is a sad state of affairs for our nation that we are polarized and divided along political ideological lines. No longer are we Americans who hold differing views; those views which are expressed by our elected officials and carried out for the national interest. Now we are hyphenated Americans- not of cultural or ethnic backgrounds, but of political affiliation.

We are Republican-Americans. We are Liberal-Americans. We are Conservative-left-of-center-Americans. We are pigeon holed into a demographic voting bloc whose supposed interests and views are defined by bullet point power point presentations and the latest telephone poll.

We have become less united and more stratified. The various sub-groupings are being cut and pasted into shifting alliances to serve short term interests for personal gain, or political expediency.

This isn't my fault as a liberal. This isn't your fault as a conservative. And this isn't the fault of the media any way you want to paint it. This is all the result of a two party system and a largely ignorant uncaring American population that stopped caring long ago.

Perhaps a secessionist movement would be successful, but only because political fringe groups would sub-divide the American population to pit one sub-group against another, while the indifferent majority just goes along.

But if we ever get to that point, there really are no more Americans. All there will be is just a bunch of people defined by a political view-point. I for one choose not to be defined by my ideology.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-25 07:52:12

You call democrats and liberals traitors, largely for holding a differing viewpoint from your own. You then find fault when the same label is applied to you for suggesting a viewpoint that encourages the dissolution of our country, which is specifically non-patriotic.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed weren't simply expressing their view point, they were taking action through their voting and the bills that they authored that was detrimental to the troops. I on the other hand have just expressed an opinion that I haven't taken action on. It is one thing for the Democrats simply to say we should withdraw troops from Iraq, and quite another for them to actually force it to happen.

One can discuss a whole host of things that may be illegal to carry out, but one is well within ones rights to simply talk about them without being called a traitor. What the Confederates did in the 1860s was illegal because first they did it unilaterally and secondly because they lost. Had the CSA won, it would have become a seperate nation and the USA would have been forced to accomodate that new reality, because they were willing to fight to keep them in the Union and fight hard, the Confederates lost and most of them had to be pardoned by the PResident for their crimes. What I see lacking in today's liberals is their willingness to fight for their country. Now if Southerners don't see the Northerners as willing to fight to keep them in the Union, why shouldn't they secede, it would be cost free to them after all? It wouldn't bother them at all if the Northerners sent lawyers to take them to court for their secession, as they'll simply say they have no jurisdiction down here. If the Liberals simply say, "War is not the answer!" Then the Confederates will say, "Then, you'll let us secede? Oh good. If you had shown to slightest resistance to our departure, we would have stopped, but you didn't, and it is that lack of willingness on your part to fight for your country that has caused us to secede."

clark · 2007-04-25 09:46:29

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed weren't simply expressing their view point, they were taking action through their voting and the bills that they authored that was detrimental to the troops. I on the other hand have just expressed an opinion that I haven't taken action on. It is one thing for the Democrats simply to say we should withdraw troops from Iraq, and quite another for them to actually force it to happen.

Last time I checked Senators and Represenatives of the House were supposed to act in the interest of their constituents. How their actions related to meeting those duties and responsibilities to the best of their ability can be characterized as un-patriotic or traitourous is beyond me.

So for you, Liberals must prove their loyalty and love for this country by demonstrating that they are willing to fight fellow americans who don't want to be a part of America anymore?

Do you understand that this is the basis of your argument, and that it is simply asinine?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-25 11:35:08

The basic duty of government is to defend its people. We were attacked by terrorists, and terrorists are operating in Iraq. Our soldiers are our tools for fighting terrorism to protect the greater population of the United States. If Congress forces our soldiers to quit the fight by pulling their funding, it endangers the general public, and it does this especially if it entertains its theories on pacifism and demilitarization. Not everybody in this country wants to endanger their lives and their freedom just because some in Congress want to entertain some fashionable idea of unilateral disarmament. We only got one country to try this out with, and if they are wrong we lose that country and our freedom. Us conservatives have our own ideas of peace through deterrence, not through bold risky measures such as negotiating with terrorists, or by promising not to over throw some dictator, and making compromises with him. How many times has this not worked? Deterrence has worked more often. If the liberals want to gamble everything on risky bold measures and compromises with our enemies for peace, they can do it with a smaller country. As for me, I don't like to gamble my entire life savings on a single roll of the dice.

clark · 2007-04-25 12:16:52

Poor, poor, Cassandra. Will no one heed your warnings? What's that you say, the walls of Troy are burning?! Of dear.

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors to convince misguided Americans that the rationale path to peace is through an unfettered, unquestioned assault on the world.

I am thankful that your charisma is matched by your wit, which safely renders your opinions and ability to influence others impotent.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-26 08:09:52

Poor, poor, Cassandra. Will no one heed your warnings? What's that you say, the walls of Troy are burning?! Of dear.
I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors to convince misguided Americans that the rationale path to peace is through an unfettered, unquestioned assault on the world.
I am thankful that your charisma is matched by your wit, which safely renders your opinions and ability to influence others impotent.

I don't rely on my own charisma, the idea if compelling enough should spread, if men like you nurish it with your continued Liberal extremes. I know there are plenty of people who can't take the sight of their government leaders negotiating with terrorists such as Iran's President, that man is a wanted criminal responsible for taking American diplomats hostage in 1979, he was one of the Iranian Students that seized the US Embassy in that year and threated to kill Americans, we should be arresting that guy, not talking with him.

The new Democratic Governor of my state has a radical agenda, he wants to legalize Unisex Marriage, and he wants to introduce legislation to legalize explicitly late term abortions, some men of conscious might not want to live in a country where that happens.

There are democrats in Congress that want to humiliate our troops by forcing their defeat at the hands of terrorists, men of honor might not stand for that, they may say, "this is not the America I grew up in," perhaps they want an America that is more familiar to them, rather than one with all these Alien values that the Democrats have lately been promoting. Some people might want a traditional America rather than one with all these unneeded radical changes that Democrats have lately been proposing. The fact is I don't trust these radical Democrats, these people who are so arrogant that they want to change generations of tradition with the stroke of a pen, for instance this notion that any two 'beings' can get married to one another, this flies in the face of traditional notions of marriage, and who are these people, who think they are so important that they can change thousands of years of tradition in Western Civilization, some people value these traditions and they aren't quite so willing to throw them all away as the ultra-liberals are. It all started innocently enough with the freeing of slaves and the demand for equal rights, but once these liberals accomplished these goals, they've been going further out on the limbs of the "nut tree" for lack of better things to do. We need civil rights, we don't need people reengineering our society on one of their directionless, rudderless whims. So long as liberals push their ultra-liberal agenda and alienate the conservatives in society, they are slowly nurturing this idea of secession that I've planted. I've removed the racist connotation and emphasized the idea of a "lifeboat". If certain people have had enough of ultraliberal extremism, they can forge their own destiny, and the liberals desire to reduce the effectiveness of the military only aids the would be seperatist's cause, they make it easier to justify this action and easier to prevail.

Liberals started out as patriots you know, they wanted to preserve the Union. Once the whole idea of the United States of America was a liberal one, but the Liberals have since abandoned it, they've abandoned championing of freedom, and the promotion of democracy around the World, now they are quite willing to sit down with dictators that enslave much of the world's population, and they give them a pat on the back and reassure them that the United States will never try to overthrow them. There are very few democrats in the Democratic Party these days, most can be called pacifists, antiwar activists, environmentalists, socialists etc, but few people champion the ideas on which their party was originally founded, namely that of promoting democracy around the world. They are too willing to deal with the World as it is and let the dictators keep their fiefdoms and their thralls, rather than change it. Nancy Pelosi has no reason to sit down with terrorist leaders, such as the President of Syria or Iran, she is not a diplomat, so it is not her job to talk to these people, she is instead showing them support by being there.

I feel I've done my job by putting the idea out there, men like you will only show them that I am right if they keep pushing their radical agenda. I've seen ideas like this snowball before, if the idea is good enough, it will grow. Do I want this to happen? Perhaps all I want to do is give you folks something to think about, that is one of the great things about the internet.

Austin Stanley · 2007-04-26 22:02:57

Don't know if Tom's still reading this at all but the reason why succession would never happen today is that the conservative "majority" in southern states is actually quite small. They only have a 10% advantage or so at most. This is quite different then the ACW where the percentage supporting succession was much higher. If presidential electoral votes were allocated proportional to the votes in the votes in the states (instead of the winner take all system we have now) this would be much more obvious.
Now I don't know why Secession had greater support in the 1860s in the South when it was mainly in support of slavery, as opposed to today, when much better arguments can be found for it now.

I won't get into weather or not you're arguments for secession are better or worse than the ones in the 1860's (largely a matter of opinion), but I can certainly tell you that you're views are in the minority. Like I pointed out before, even in highly republican states (like Texas) the Republican (or conservative) majority is not that great (and in Texas likely to diminish even further). However only a smaller percentage (not a majority) identify themselves as conservatives or republicans. Right now in most of the US it's pretty much a 37-25-37 split between republicans/conservatives - moderates/independent - democrats/liberals. I think we can pretty much agree that it will only be fairly radical conservatives that would actually agree with you're call for secession, so this would be a small minority at best.

Again, during the Civil War secession had almost total support in the states which split. Those states that didn't enjoy total support, generally didn't.

----

But maybe you should ask yourself if secession is really a practical idea for conservative states. The "liberal" east and west coast of the US are home to states with both the largest percentage of US population, as well as US industry/income. California if cut of by itself would have one of the top 10 GDP IIRC. New York probably isn't that far behind. Like it or not, Urban America is where the vast, VAST majority of our nations wealth is.

Heck, Texas (which is number 2), and Georgia (number 10) are the only strongly conservative states in the top 10 of US State Economies.

Gennaro · 2007-04-27 05:53:57

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?

Sense a basic misconception here since Bush is the one who would not let you secede. And yes, he would be backed up by George Soros and Hollywood to name a few.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-27 08:22:50

Don't know if Tom's still reading this at all but the reason why succession would never happen today is that the conservative "majority" in southern states is actually quite small. They only have a 10% advantage or so at most. This is quite different then the ACW where the percentage supporting succession was much higher. If presidential electoral votes were allocated proportional to the votes in the votes in the states (instead of the winner take all system we have now) this would be much more obvious.
Now I don't know why Secession had greater support in the 1860s in the South when it was mainly in support of slavery, as opposed to today, when much better arguments can be found for it now.
I won't get into weather or not you're arguments for secession are better or worse than the ones in the 1860's (largely a matter of opinion), but I can certainly tell you that you're views are in the minority.

As they were in the 1860s, for if those views weren't in the minority, no secession would be necessary.
Secession is what happens when the minority can't stand the decisions of the majority and is prepared to do something about it. Even in the 1860s the secessionists were in the minority. And as I said before, this idea isn't ready yet. The Northern Liberals aren't done alienating the Southern conservatives. The whole thing depends on how far the Liberals push their agenda.

Like I pointed out before, even in highly republican states (like Texas) the Republican (or conservative) majority is not that great (and in Texas likely to diminish even further).

Are you counting illegal immigrants from Mexico? That there may be reason to rebel all by itself! Also what is the proportion of conservatives to liberals in the military itself? I'll bet there are far fewer antiwar Democrats in the rank and file of the US Military than in the General population, and that is what counts. In order for secession to work, it is necessary to have the support of a large segment of the military, perhaps even the majority of them. People who hate the military generally don't join up. I think that is why some Democrats want to reintroduce the Military draft, so as to get people in uniform who hate the military and believe in all the conspiracy theories that they do. All this prejudice against the military in liberal circles is fodder for a secessionist movement.

However only a smaller percentage (not a majority) identify themselves as conservatives or republicans. Right now in most of the US it's pretty much a 37-25-37 split between republicans/conservatives - moderates/independent - democrats/liberals. I think we can pretty much agree that it will only be fairly radical conservatives that would actually agree with you're call for secession, so this would be a small minority at best.

That's how it always starts, the people who make it bigger are the liberals through all their crazy legislation and their raising of taxes and especially cutting of the military budget.

Do the majority of people in the United States want their country to lose to a band of unprofessional soldiers called terrorists? Do they want same-sex marriage, later term partial birth abortions. How about lead-footed governors that don't wear seatbelts? It is only a matter of time, besides, I am more interested in giving liberals something to think about, that if they push too hard on certain issues there may be rebellion in this country. Getting this country to accept losing its second war in 50 years is a bitter pill to swallow, yet the Democrats are trying hard to sell this to the public. Its not the size of the majority but how determined the minority is, whether they'll accept majority rule over certain issues that seem over the top to them like rededining marriage, or losing to a bunch of Third World savages. I think if we were as ruthless as we needed to be, we could certainly win that war in Iraq, but the rules of engagement might prevent us from getting tough enough. Try to build a wall between the sectors in Baghdad, and the government there calls a halt to the project. Or perhaps we should send millions of soldiers their to crush the insurgents. Our country's honor is at stake, and unlike the Liberals, we value honor and our reputation in this world. Most sickening is the visits of our majority leader to Syria and Iran, these barbarians don't even deserve to be talked to until they stop killing our troops.

Again, during the Civil War secession had almost total support in the states which split. Those states that didn't enjoy total support, generally didn't.

They had the support of the local military, because without the military there would be no rebellion. What you'd have instead would be a slaughter of civilians by soldiers.

----
But maybe you should ask yourself if secession is really a practical idea for conservative states. The "liberal" east and west coast of the US are home to states with both the largest percentage of US population, as well as US industry/income. California if cut of by itself would have one of the top 10 GDP IIRC. New York probably isn't that far behind. Like it or not, Urban America is where the vast, VAST majority of our nations wealth is.

Is it an asset though if the majority of its citizens want socialism, if they want to cut our nations military and surrender our position as superpower in the World? If the majority of New Yorkers don't want the US to be a Superpower, wouldn't secession be granting their wishes?, they could then live in a small country which isn't a superpower, and would be on par with France, just what they wanted isn't it? The problem with New York and California is that they have the means but not the will. Much of their population is immigrants and minorities without much sense of patrotism, the USA is just the place they live and not their country. If you see how willing the people of those states are to distrust their government and believe such cockied notions that the US government planned the 9/11 attacks rather than islamic terrorists, you can see a point their. They don't really want to be a part of the United States, but only stay so as to weaken it from within.

Heck, Texas (which is number 2), and Georgia (number 10) are the only strongly conservative states in the top 10 of US State Economies.

Yes, I always thought big cities are a bad idea, they tend to breed liberalism and antipatrotism. With telecommunications technology, we can really get things done without having to congregate in big cities. I've mentioned before how big cities have a tendency to raise taxes and fees higher and higher. Life becomes ever more restricted, regulated, and taxed within them. I say we need only small cities, and zoning laws should prevent them from getting so densely packed as Manhattan is.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-04-27 08:37:41

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?
Sense a basic misconception here since Bush is the one who would not let you secede. And yes, he would be backed up by George Soros and Hollywood to name a few.

I didn't say, now was the right time. I just want the liberals to consider, yes, it is possible, and maybe back off on some of their more crazy left-wing socialist agenda.

To the Liberals, I've always suspected that they considered the United States a unitary state called Theunitedstatesofamerica, where everything comes down from the national government as it does in Europe. Europe is generally a basket case, especially in big states such as France, where the government controls such a high proportion of the economy and employment, and the Liberals in the United States just can't wait to make this country like France.

If you think that this country is called Theunitedstatesofamerica, then the whole thing rises or falls as one single unitary state, but if it is The United States of America, then if some liberals get in charge and decide to puesue crippling higher taxes, then some states may choose not to follow rather than pay the higher taxes. We know what happens to nations that tax their citizens too highly, they decline, their economic growth is slowed, and as their unemployment edges ever higher people start demanding more welfare checks and income redistribution from those people that do have jobs, the incentive for work declines. With fewer people working, the country's economy can't grow as fast. Democrats know this, but they choose to follow this path anyway because they don't care about this country, only about their short term prospects about getting elected, and their most vocal consituencies don't care about this country either, only about getting their piece of the Government's pie.

That is how I see it anyway. Do you want to help support people who don't work or can't find jobs because of antigrowth policies of the Federal government or excessive taxation. I believe it is better to grow the economy than to redistribute. Redistributuion may take care of one's immediate needs in the short term, but it reduces a person's incentive for getting a job. We ought to be following policies that make getting jobs easier, not harder, and the less a government taxes, the easier it is for employers to hire.

Gennaro · 2007-05-05 18:05:14

To the Liberals, I've always suspected that they considered the United States a unitary state called Theunitedstatesofamerica, where everything comes down from the national government as it does in Europe. Europe is generally a basket case, especially in big states such as France, where the government controls such a high proportion of the economy and employment, and the Liberals in the United States just can't wait to make this country like France.

Thanks man...

As a euro-conservative rightist pragmatist, I'm actually convinced some things are better run by the state - i.e, in the socialist fashion, but we don't have to discuss it right here, right now. Dogmatic neoliberal evangelists irritate me almost as much as religiously zealous communists. Deep down they're the same kind.

If you think that this country is called Theunitedstatesofamerica, then the whole thing rises or falls as one single unitary state, but if it is The United States of America, then if some liberals get in charge and decide to puesue crippling higher taxes, then some states may choose not to follow rather than pay the higher taxes.

Thruth be told, you have principally been Theunitedstatesofamerica for some time now, whether you like it or not. Since the Civil War to be precise. And don't blame me, it was the work of the Republicans, no less. Virginia even had it spelled out in writing they'd be allowed to leave the union should the desire arise. It wasn't respected by the Lincoln administration and war ensued. Since then, the original meaning of the United States constitution has been sidestepped.

Good thing or bad? Well, it's not my country, I'll let you decide.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-05-06 07:13:20

To the Liberals, I've always suspected that they considered the United States a unitary state called Theunitedstatesofamerica, where everything comes down from the national government as it does in Europe. Europe is generally a basket case, especially in big states such as France, where the government controls such a high proportion of the economy and employment, and the Liberals in the United States just can't wait to make this country like France.
Thanks man...
As a euro-conservative rightist pragmatist, I'm actually convinced some things are better run by the state - i.e, in the socialist fashion, but we don't have to discuss it right here, right now. Dogmatic neoliberal evangelists irritate me almost as much as religiously zealous communists. Deep down they're the same kind.
If you think that this country is called Theunitedstatesofamerica, then the whole thing rises or falls as one single unitary state, but if it is The United States of America, then if some liberals get in charge and decide to puesue crippling higher taxes, then some states may choose not to follow rather than pay the higher taxes.
Thruth be told, you have principally been Theunitedstatesofamerica for some time now, whether you like it or not. Since the Civil War to be precise. And don't blame me, it was the work of the Republicans, no less. Virginia even had it spelled out in writing they'd be allowed to leave the union should the desire arise. It wasn't respected by the Lincoln administration and war ensued. Since then, the original meaning of the United States constitution has been sidestepped.
Good thing or bad? Well, it's not my country, I'll let you decide.

The analogy is that the Captain wants to crash the ship of state onto the rocks, and its up to the crew to decide whether to mutiny or obey their captain. The Republicans of the 1860s wanted to save the United States, the Democrats of today want to destroy it. Secession would be saving a part of it rather than let the whole thing crash upon the rocks as the Democrats so desire.

Gennaro · 2007-05-06 14:22:06

Fine by me. Good luck!

I simply hope for your sake that you realize your favourite president won't fly the rebel flag, since the actual interest groups who are his puppeteers really couldn't care less about the wants and needs of middle America.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2007-04-19 15:43:32

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#27 2007-04-20 04:25:52

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#28 2007-04-20 12:49:35

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#29 2007-04-20 22:37:59

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#30 2007-04-20 23:21:03

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#31 2007-04-21 10:16:46

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#32 2007-04-21 10:49:29

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#33 2007-04-21 11:19:42

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#34 2007-04-21 12:23:45

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#35 2007-04-21 17:22:14

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#36 2007-04-24 17:39:48

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#37 2007-04-24 23:28:29

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#38 2007-04-25 05:48:21

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#39 2007-04-25 07:52:12

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#40 2007-04-25 09:46:29

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#41 2007-04-25 11:35:08

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#42 2007-04-25 12:16:52

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#43 2007-04-26 08:09:52

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#44 2007-04-26 22:02:57

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#45 2007-04-27 05:53:57

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#46 2007-04-27 08:22:50

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#47 2007-04-27 08:37:41

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#48 2007-05-05 18:05:14

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#49 2007-05-06 07:13:20

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

#50 2007-05-06 14:22:06

Re: Hypothetical - Secession of Conservative States

Board footer