It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by HopSkipJump
I don't see making a stand for a Constitutional right as being traitorous by any means. It is each states right to secede. Just because you do not agree with it does not make it traitorous.
Originally posted by HopSkipJump
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Then what are you and I going to do to change that? Will our actions build the country up into something better or will our actions tear it apart and destroy it based on what some elected officials may be doing? That is the question. What are we going to do and what effect will those actions have?
Those wanting to secede will destroy it. They are traitors, the very definition of traitors. They are not patriots, that's not what a patriot is. They are being manipulated by others who want to destroy what stands and we cannot allow that to happen.
This bears repeating for those that might have missed it. I agree completely and I find statements like this a sight for sore eyes. You are giving "Patriotism" a second change for me as I loath the word right now.
Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Boy howdy.....this happens so rarely for me here on ATS.....I do not wish to be rude, but I disagree with absolutely everything you wrote...
You are disagreeing with the political office holders at the present time and you are transferring that to the government as a whole. The people who hold an office are NOT the "Government". The government is the system that has been set up according to the Constitution. You are using your dislike of a current office holder to justify ... well.... treason against the Constitution that you claim you support.
The small groups of people within certain states saying they want to secede are doing so for one reason and one reason only, their political party didn't win the election. They can deny it all they want, but that's the sole reason for it. It's a bad case of "sore loser-ism". Instead of working to better their platform and to promote the passing of laws they support or the defeat of laws they don't support they want to play the game of "I'll take my ball and go away".
Our government was set up to be representative of the people at large. There are elections where the majority gets to choose who will hold certain offices. Just because your side loses doesn't mean the form of government has changed, it doesn't mean the Constitution has changed. It merely means that the people who are presently in charge of upholding the Constitution are of a different political party than the minority of voters happen to be. If the losing side seceeded every time we had an election, our country wouldn't be over 200 years old.
The people who are shouting about seceeding are not a majority, not even a majority of their own states. They are ranting and raving because somebody told them to rant and rave. The people who told them to rant and rave knew that those people didn't have a concept of what the government actually is or even what they were ranting and raving about.
You don't like the President. Well, at least half the country didn't like the last president but they weren't ranting and raving about wanting to secede. They worked hard to ensure their candidate won the next election. At one point in the last presidency, only 23% of the population approved of him. That didn't mean they wanted to commit treason and do away with the government, that meant they didn't like the guy who sat in the White House.
If people are not able to differentiate between the government and a political office, our country won't survive much longer anyway. When you go against the government, when you want to secede, you are going directly against the US Constitution, not against Obama, not against Congress, you are going against the United States of America. There is a big BIG difference in a political office holder and "the government".
Originally posted by Kevinquisitor
reply to post by HopSkipJump
Our country has existed for 237 years. Things have changed from what they used to be. You are describing what our country should be like, but for a while now it has been different. Our government is doing whatever it wants to do regardless of what the majority of the people want.
People have been trying to go through the right process to vote and make desired change to better welfare, but it just does not work anymore. What else can you do but secede?
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
To solve a problem you need good information first and foremost. Unfortunately I see people are focusing on the wrong issues and the msm is mostly to blame for lack of journalistic integrity. Since people are being distracted with non-issues or at best minor issues I see no hope for a better tomorrow. Sure you can be as eccentric as you want, like me for example, but that seems a very small minority compared to the sheep. The sheepherders, the extremely rich and/or masons, are very cunning to effect what they want.
How do we solve a catch 22? How do we untie the gordion knot? Secession is one answer but most likely not the best answer. There is a conspiracy to undermine america and I think you and others are oblivious to this!
Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by HopSkipJump
When the country no longer represents you and your rights as a citizen and becomes tyranical, you have a duty to those who gave their lives to insure your freedoms as well as for your children. The traitors are those who would shred our Constitution.
Originally posted by METACOMET
Originally posted by HopSkipJump
A patriot supports his/her country/government regardless of who may be in political power at the time.
Wrong
Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
To solve a problem you need good information first and foremost. Unfortunately I see people are focusing on the wrong issues and the msm is mostly to blame for lack of journalistic integrity. Since people are being distracted with non-issues or at best minor issues I see no hope for a better tomorrow. Sure you can be as eccentric as you want, like me for example, but that seems a very small minority compared to the sheep. The sheepherders, the extremely rich and/or masons, are very cunning to effect what they want.
How do we solve a catch 22? How do we untie the gordion knot? Secession is one answer but most likely not the best answer. There is a conspiracy to undermine america and I think you and others are oblivious to this!
Yes, we do need good information. Yes, the MSM, all sides of it are distracting us. No, secession is not an answer, it is a bigger problem.
I don't think you are looking at what secession really entails, what it really is. It's not an answer at all. It's either an empty threat or it's the biggest mistake that could possibly be made.
Originally posted by Observor
Originally posted by HopSkipJump
That would be the cowardly, traitorous way out. Plain and simple.
You seem to have pretty strong words for anything that could actually work. Quite hilarious.
Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by HopSkipJump
I would take it that those who wish to secede do so because their Constitution is being shredded.
The new nation would be overcome by the same capitalist interests that the US is taken over by.
Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX
I agree with METACOMET. This sentence kind of discredits your whole argument... to me, anyway.
If tyrants ruin our country, the only way that may be possible for us to save our country is to break off with what little slice of the country we still have some control over. That's why I can't wait to get back home to my Texas.
Ah, yes, that is the root of evil in the world....
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
So what solutions do you propose?
Do you prefer empty rhetoric, much like the people you criticise?
JFK tried and he got killed in a conspiracy of its own.
Yes some folks take secession lightly and others fully comprehend its meaning.
en.wikipedia.org...
Corporatism, also known as corporativism has more than one meaning. It may refer to political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests. Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".
In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".
www.britannica.com...
corporatism, Italian corporativismo, also called corporativism, the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the “corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups.
Although the corporate idea was intimated in the congregationalism of colonial Puritan New England and in mercantilism, its earliest theoretical expression did not appear until after the French Revolution (1789) and was strongest in eastern Germany and Austria. The chief spokesman for this corporatism—or “distributism,” as it was later called in Germany—was Adam Müller, the court philosopher for Prince Klemens Metternich.
Müller’s attacks on French egalitarianism and on the laissez-faire economics of the Scottish political economist Adam Smith were vigorous attempts to find a modern justification for traditional institutions and led him to conceive of a modernized Ständestaat (“class state”), which might claim sovereignty and divine right because it would be organized to regulate production and coordinate class interests.