Secede much? Or so you hope. The myth of secession.

reply to post by ganjoa


Absolutely agree since the OP brings up some very good questions but like you I doubt anyone has read the entirety of it or visited the link.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


For starters, a good majority of the State population packs up and moves. These petitions are generated by 2% of a states population, so nothing close to the "will of the people."

Then the military packs up its toys and leaves. Property of the U.S. Government, not the (for example) State of Texas.

Big business packs up and moves to the United States. Not all, but a good majority.

Texas soon realizes that there isn't enough revenue to fund the government now that they aren't getting the Federal funding they were used to getting. Texas institutes an income tax (currently Texas has not state income tax) among other increases. The citizens, angered over these taxes, revolt. Irony.

Mexico invades and takes back Texas? Maybe. More likely, the citizens of Texas beg to get back into the United States.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


And that's just an example based on Texas, which isn't landlocked by other states. Imagine Nebraska or Kansas choosing to exit the United States, completely surrounded by the United States! They would soon become even more dependent on the U.S. than they were as a state!

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


Absolutely agree I think many don't think about what happens when you secede. What happens to the benefits that are keeping 60% of the population afloat? What happens when federal aid is cut to not only law enforcement but also every other branch of state government? What type of product will they now 'export' for profit? How will they sustain their growth? I could keep going but clearly the children heading this movement haven't thought about a whole lot.

Lets just imagine the logistical nightmare that would ensue! (If peaceful)

For one thing, they would have to invent their own currency. (Can't use the US Dollar anymore)

All Federal assets would have to be removed. (No military bases, No national Guard)

No Federal disaster relief.


Anybody else care to chime in?

I've had a long day, and I'm tired...

reply to post by IrVulture


Yeah I sited a lot of those problems, especially since Texas has a very large population and does receive quite a bit of federal funding. But I agree let um do it, then we'll see how these morons fend for themselves.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by usernameconspiracy

 

Absolutely agree I think many don't think about what happens when you secede. What happens to the benefits that are keeping 60% of the population afloat? What happens when federal aid is cut to not only law enforcement but also every other branch of state government? What type of product will they now 'export' for profit? How will they sustain their growth? I could keep going but clearly the children heading this movement haven't thought about a whole lot.

I agree that there would be many issues that would arise that many people have not really taken the time to think about. However, I find irony in what your saying, especially the above quote because you have really answered your own question that you began with in the begining of this thread.

People in the center and on the right have been arguing for sometime that these federal handouts that you speak of are NOT the business of the federal government. We've come to suckle upon the federal teet for too long. And for this reason the states have lost their sovereignty almost completely.

There was a point in time where law enforcement was paid for by the state a local communities that they supervised. There was a point where states had there own welfare systems and addressed the concerns that they had locally. There was a time when schools were not directed to teach the criteria by a politician in DC. There was a time when the schools were funded by their communities as well...

So, If a seccession were to happen, then the states would go back to the original systems of government. The way the constitution originally dictated should happen in the first place.

The constitution and the Bill Of Rights were very descriptive in how the government should operate. And when we violate the constitution, we have the problems we have today. It's very simple. And people who are educated and know that flagrant violations of the constitution by US have rightfully called for seccession. Not necessarily for actual secession, but for attention from the federal government. A wake up a call of you will, telling the feds, "We know what your doing and it isn't going to work". This is no different than when the states redeclared their sovereignty last year. This is an issue that crosses both "sides of the fence" and the people aren't going to take it anymore. And there justified in doing so. So states the constitution.

BTW, to the guy who said business would pull out of a state that declared secession. You couldn't be more wrong. Ever half way intellegent business owner knows that setting up shop in a state that's going through some turmoil is an investment that can't lose. There would be a great economic upturn in the states that would do secceed.

Also, I would just like too add. You speak as though the states are totally dependant on federal government. And you sir are very mistaken. The vast majority of local and state government is state funded. Mind you, by the little taxes they impose on their people.

reply to post by NoJoker13


One thing that is good and coming from the secession discussion is how the Federal Government has worked it way into becoming indispensable. The US is only a federation in paper, in some laws and in a minority of minds as it is clear that today most if not all states would be able to survive in insulation.

Having read most of the posts here it clearly becomes obvious that only a group of states working together could manage to exit the federation but that would have a cost to both parts probably resulting in a general civil war, especially a majority of the richer states the formed one of the blocks...

It also becomes clear that the Federal Government has been successful in undermining the independence of the states, going beyond what was the initial intention but ultimately that is the purpose of all power structures as a way to not only guarantee its survival but to gather more power...

reply to post by foodstamp


The big problem with 'going back to the way things were' is that you can't. We don't live in the same world as then and honestly I'd like to keep creationist agenda out of education so hopefully that doesn't back peddle. The world they'd be going back to doesn't exist anymore and with the lack of produce being pumped out by America, although the Texas economy is a good one, wouldn't be enough to pay for their entire population especially their poor. A bit about poverty in Texas here: texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu...

If this was still 1800 and Texas only had a population of 1 million it may be possible, but in 2012 with a population of 25 million it won't.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

For starters, a good majority of the State population packs up and moves. These petitions are generated by 2% of a states population, so nothing close to the "will of the people."

Kind of like that 2% election difference huh? Funny how such a small percentage of the population can make such noise.

Then the military packs up its toys and leaves. Property of the U.S. Government, not the (for example) State of Texas.

Would they? It's not like the US doesnt have military installations in every other nation on earth.
Even if they did pack p and leave would it really matter? Texas is supposedly full of gun-toting rednecks, right?

Big business packs up and moves to the United States. Not all, but a good majority.

Why would they? Suddenly it's more beneficial to operate a business in the US than in a foreign country? Then I guess all these jobs we've lost over the decades should be flooding the borders any day now, right?

Texas soon realizes that there isn't enough revenue to fund the government now that they aren't getting the Federal funding they were used to getting. Texas institutes an income tax (currently Texas has not state income tax) among other increases. The citizens, angered over these taxes, revolt. Irony.

I always have a big problem with this line of thinking. They spend what they have because they have what they spend. All of this nonsense about "red" states getting "blue" state dollars is empty since nobody wants to cut them off. If I lose hours at work I dont go on living like I always have been. I cut my cable, stop eating out, and change my grocery bill.

Since it's only 2% who would actually want the secession couldnt we reasonably expect that 98% or some portion of it to flee to Arizona or New Mexico?

If economies arent endlessly #ed with they balance themselves out.

Mexico invades and takes back Texas? Maybe. More likely, the citizens of Texas beg to get back into the United States.

Maybe. It is loaded with gun-toting rednecks though, right? And Mexico has enough problems with the cartels. Maybe the cartels would invade Texas? The US wouldn't like that very much. Catalyst for some DEA war into seceded Texas or maybe a change in this nonsensical prohibition policy? Right now Latin America is considering ending prohibition to an extent because of Washington and Colorado.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by foodstamp

 

The big problem with 'going back to the way things were' is that you can't. We don't live in the same world as then and honestly I'd like to keep creationist agenda out of education so hopefully that doesn't back peddle. The world they'd be going back to doesn't exist anymore and with the lack of produce being pumped out by America, although the Texas economy is a good one, wouldn't be enough to pay for their entire population especially their poor. A bit about poverty in Texas here: texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu...

If this was still 1800 and Texas only had a population of 1 million it may be possible, but in 2012 with a population of 25 million it won't.

Don't you believe that if a town which regulates it's own school district chooses to teach creationism that it should be entitled too? And those that want to teach evolution with no God that they too should be allowed to do so?

I'm not a Christian nor am I an atheist. Not too mention I think teaching a Biblical idea of creationism would be silly. However, to each community, there own. But on the subject on creationism. REAL creationism. The Idea of and intelligent design, I believe holds just as much credibility as one that does not. How can we as a society just deny one ideal for another when we can't prove either? Forcing that on a nation as a whole is totalitarian to me.

reply to post by foodstamp


No I believe in a separation of church and state, at every level. If they'd like to be involved in either government or education then start paying some taxes. Otherwise if you'd like your child to go to a 'religious' school then that's where you should send them. The constitution has that in there for a reason, the King ruled with religion and the settlers who came here saw the problems with it.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by foodstamp

 

No I believe in a separation of church and state, at every level. If they'd like to be involved in either government or education then start paying some taxes. Otherwise if you'd like your child to go to a 'religious' school then that's where you should send them. The constitution has that in there for a reason, the King ruled with religion and the settlers who came here saw the problems with it.

Right, but I'm refering to "Creationism" which is not a religion. If a school teaches intelligent design from a non-religious perspective, then how is that a meshing of church and state? The founding father's were just as knowledgable as to what a "seperation of church and state" meant. This has no bearing on teaching the theory of an intelligent design. It's just as much of a credible theory as other theories when it comes to creation of the universe. They are both theories based upon the current observations made by science.

And before you debate me on creationism, let me be clear that "intellegence" DOES NOT necessarily refer to a "Heavenly father" in fact, quite the opposite. If you believe that creationism requires there to be a heavenly father or a creator God then I would suggest to take a deeper look at creationism and all it's different facets. It's very interesting.

I read the Jackson statement as a welcoming the state of Texas back into the Union with no hard feelings. To me, it does not read as if they can never leave the Union again.

You can't say We are the American government and we stand for freedom then turn around and become a dictator telling your states they cannot leave if they are unhappy with the federal government. thats silly, and I don't believe there are any real laws against it. Perhaps some hurdles to jump over and red tape, but no laws against it.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I read the Jackson statement as a welcoming the state of Texas back into the Union with no hard feelings. To me, it does not read as if they can never leave the Union again.

You can't say We are the American government and we stand for freedom then turn around and become a dictator telling your states they cannot leave if they are unhappy with the federal government. thats silly, and I don't believe there are any real laws against it. Perhaps some hurdles to jump over and red tape, but no laws against it.

You know, it probably doesn't even really matter what it is meant to say. If a state tries to secede it WILL be met with force and considered an domestic enemy. No doubt.

reply to post by foodstamp


Intelligent design without religious agenda, hmmmm show me one person who does this then. Show me someone who believes in this that isn't trying to further an agenda, since clearly creationism and intelligent design are agendas.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by foodstamp

 

Intelligent design without religious agenda, hmmmm show me one person who does this then. Show me someone who believes in this that isn't trying to further an agenda, since clearly creationism and intelligent design are agendas.

If by "agenda" you mean a "Christian bent" Then I know of a few schools in the local area that teach it. So I'm sure I could find a few articles for you. If by "agenda" you mean that they teach intellegent design. Well, then, I probably have no example. Please clarify agenda, I'd love to debate this with you and see what we can find.

Ohh, If by an "agenda" you mean someone trying to obtain followers or take your money, then I would use schools as an example, because, I thought that's what we were talking about. If you can find schools that REALLY teach INTELLEGENT design and their not using it as a cloak to save your soul. Then I guess you've found what your looking for. Someone teaching with no real agenda other than to educate..

I mean, saying people have an "agenda" is pretty vague. Clearly a school has an agenda to "educate" you on popular theory and facts correct? I definatly need clarification on what you mean.

reply to post by foodstamp


I mean 'agenda' in the sense that people have reasons for wanting people to believe in it. With Christianity it's usually control, etc. If you do have articles in unbiased teaching I'd like to see them, but remember teaching one without going over the other is biased.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by foodstamp

 

I mean 'agenda' in the sense that people have reasons for wanting people to believe in it

Well bud, Doesn't the same logic apply with Evolution or non-creation theory? Or big bang theory? Or inflation theory? etc etc. I mean, teachers teach and scientists postulate cause they believe it's the most probable outcome correct? Basically speaking anyway. I know of course teachers have criteria to follow.

With Christianity it's usually control, etc.

I agree

If you do have articles in unbiased teaching I'd like to see them, but remember teaching one without going over the other is biased.

I think I know what your looking for. Lemme do a little looking and see what I can find and we could go from there. Aside from that, I'd like to say I also agree with the fact that both should be taught. Absolutely! In fact, I'd probably go one farther and say that their should be MANY more scientific theories taught than just big bang and the following evolution of species. People have the freedom to put "God" into ANY theory if they so choose.

However, I DO think that "Intellegent design" Is a feasible scientific theory as well. And should be taught with the same credibility as those theories that have no intellegent design. Perhaps you find fault in that. If so, please explain.

This is a little off-topic. But have you ever seen any information on the dude that created "The Sims" and his theory that he's been pushing about us being a part of a pixelated matrix? Very good stuff. Not to be confused with matrix theory. If not, I'd find you a link to that too..

Ohh, BTW, just to put it out there. I am well aware of Christians using the cloak of "intellegent design" to push a Christian "agenda". I agree with you there and wouldn't argue that. However, please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we debating weither or not "Intellegent design" should be taught at all(you thinking it should not be taught)? And weither or not the federal government needs to dictate what we teach because they need to impose a seperation of church and state? I wanna make sure I'm arguing the proper points here.

edit on 11/27/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)

reply to post by NoJoker13


Wow! I did not know this. Thought I'd share it with you. According to wikipedia, The very definition of "creationism" WAS in fact formed by a conservative think tank called the Discovery Institute.(en.wikipedia.org...)

According to this "Discovery Institute" they do in fact have and "agenda" called the "Wedge Strategy" and this Wedge Strategy has a goal to implement Christian Beliefs and values through the teaching of "creationism" in schools! (en.wikipedia.org...). Wow! That's ugly buddy... I stand corrected. Perhaps the "Intellegent design" that I have spoken of does NOT exist in the way I had mentioned before in my previous posts. Hmmm, I know for a fact though that my daughter is taught a type of intellegent design that is without bias. I wonder if it has a name or something that's more structured so I can give you info on it.

The quest continues.

But with that being said. It would appear that in the general sense, "creationism" is IN FACT a ploy to infiltrate schools WITH Christian ideals. Now I understand better your opinion. Check out those links. Hope it helps you when it's time to sharpen your proverbial blade.

My quest continues... I will show you some real non biased "intellegent design" if it kills me!