Patriots don't secede

reply to post by HopSkipJump


The flaw with saying to secede is to crumple up the constitution is confusing the "Union" with the "Constitution".

The red states, for example, could sececde for the express purpose of re-instituting the Constitution, in it's original form, allow states their freedoms, without the Bribes/blackmail from the federal gov't.

Don't misunderstand, the States are equally guilty for the current mess, by accepting, even encouraging the feds buying those state rights with money.

You are right to the extent that with secession, the original Union and it's goal are forever gone.

However, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights are ideas, not locations or Unions. If those ideas are weakened to a point of no return, then those very ideas need to be reestablished even with a new Union of those that subscribe to it and allowing those that prefer the "5.1" version to have theirs....

Originally posted by eNumbra
A patriot defends his or her country, politicians are not the country.

Politicians are NOT the government. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding that??

The government is the structure set forth by the Constitution. We are not a monarchy, we are not a dictatorship, the politicians are NOT the government. The government is not a physical entity, it is the form by which our country is governed. It is made up of branches that serve as checks and balances (not that the people holding the offices always do a good job of it). The people who hold those offices are NOT "the government", they are nothing but political office holders.

reply to post by WaterBottle


the term "corporation" has little to do with corporatism, or corporativism as it is also known.

no no, I am sorry for you.

Did you even read what I posted? Or did you just come here to talk at people, not converse WITH people.....

I explained it rather succinctly. You just ignored it because it lacks the ##SNIPPED## twist.....

have fun talking to mirrors and such. In the real world you address what people say, not just say NO; and move on...

well the foxboro Patriots will lose to Baltimore (my bets)
just like Atl will decision over the 49'ers

time stamp above... my time is 4:58 PM EST sunday

reply to post by HopSkipJump


We will be traitors? Perhaps you are guilty of treason by allowing your party to be highjacked by the "Move on" crowd-wish they would move on..

If JFK was here and saw what was going on with his party, he'd cross the floor in a heartbeat, IMHO.

I'm guessing your a moderate in your party. If so, take your party back and you won't have to worry about our solution.

Yes. You're right. Your thread deserves so many flags and stars because you
understand how the American Public feels.

Now what are you going to do about it?

reply to post by WaterBottle


the hell makes you think I am right wing?



I am a son of the republic bub. Left or right as we come. I have READ my own history and OUR constitution. YES actually read it. I have had excellent teachers and have been a loyal American my whole life. THAT is why I say what I do.

NOT because I try to get laid at star bucks by passively advertising my ideologies, or because I want to get more drinking buddies by hanging out at gun shows and saying the right things..

PEOPLE LIKE YOU who choose sides are against the country you wish to divide......

but being right wing I don't expect you to understand economic systems

The hell is wrong with you?

How does my personal political ideologies impair me from understanding a thing? So you are not a liberal but call conservatives dumb? Nice way to divide us up pal.....

you are a special kind of stupid arent you....I cant believe that today in age, at the stage of the game we are in, that you still cling to party lines....and you call yourself progressive....

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by eNumbra
A patriot defends his or her country, politicians are not the country.

Politicians are NOT the government. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding that??

The government is the structure set forth by the Constitution. We are not a monarchy, we are not a dictatorship, the politicians are NOT the government. The government is not a physical entity, it is the form by which our country is governed. It is made up of branches that serve as checks and balances (not that the people holding the offices always do a good job of it). The people who hold those offices are NOT "the government", they are nothing but political office holders.

When the driver of a bus is careening it towards a cliff I suppose you'll just sit in the back and shrug, "he's not the bus, he's just an office-holder."

You seem to be blatantly(whether willfully or not) ignoring the idea that said politicians can destroy a country(see my Nazi example) and thus, standing against them and the government they're trying to create is not unpatriotic. If said people are subverting the constitution to change the country how would supporting them be patriot.

You seem addled and confused, maybe you should sit down, drink some hot tea and realize you're not in Kansas anymore.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz

the hell makes you think I am right wing?

I've read your posts. They are all filled with US right wing propaganda and talking points.

PEOPLE LIKE YOU who choose sides are against the country you wish to divide......

You just called me a libtard, what a hypocrite.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by HopSkipJump

 

We will be traitors? Perhaps you are guilty of treason by allowing your party to be highjacked by the "Move on" crowd-wish they would move on..

If JFK was here and saw what was going on with his party, he'd cross the floor in a heartbeat, IMHO.

I'm guessing your a moderate in your party. If so, take your party back and you won't have to worry about our solution.

Treason isn't defined in that manner.

Too many terms are thrown around too freely on here without bothering to use them properly. If we are going to be successful (not secesful) in discussing topics, it's important that the correct terminolgy is used.

I'm of the firm belief that the two members who posted about the football game between Patriots and Ravens did so in jest, but they are also showing how terminology is important.

Treason is a very strong term. It means betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy

Supporting one political party or the other is not an act of treason. Of course extremists on either end throw the term around so loosely that they degrade the value of the term.

If Obama seeks to do away with all guns by enacting laws and an ammendment, it's not treason. I do hope he would not be successful (not secesful) in it, as I disagree with it. However, it would not be treason. A political party seeking that isn't guilty of treason. However, if he sets out to take the guns without going through the processes to make it legal, just decides to take them because he feels like it, then gives them to China so China can attack us, then it is treason. He would be aiding the enemy (they'd be the enemy if they attacked us). If a President or anyone else is guilty of treason, then we do rise up against that person with force, all the force needed to take him/her down. Political rhetoric discussing the status of guns is not treason.

I disagree with taking them and would oppose any effort to do so, but it's not treason. I also wouldn't commit treason while opposing it. I would work within the allowances for what I can do. I may even choose to break the law and hide my guns, I don't know, but that is not something we will likely have to decide as the Second Ammendment protects our rights to bear arms. Unless that Ammendment is revoked, which is NOT easy to do and not possible for him to do even if he wanted to, it's not going to happen.

Originally posted by streetfightingman
Yes. You're right. Your thread deserves so many flags and stars because you
understand how the American Public feels.

Now what are you going to do about it?

Good question, I have no idea

I'm open to intelligent ideas though.

reply to post by HopSkipJump


Unless you are prepared to war against, say, a Texas, then nothing would happen. Any failure to have a mutual defense pact with the remaining states, negotiated as equals, trade pacts, so on, would result in other nations outside North America to slide in and fill the vaccum.

As nothing would happen, business wise, others would be quick to join in. Frankly, I doubt, Texas would be first. Idaho, Alaska, Utah are far more active in challenging violations of the tenth, than Texas ever was. Continue with this gun thing and half of the south would join em, after all they've done it before and are still pissed at losing.

It sounds like you haven't really spent much time in these states talking to the real people, the grass roots. I suggest you do. Your understanding of the bitterness that's brewing, for a long time, is growing quickly. It may even be too late to fix.

reply to post by WaterBottle


my posts are not "talking points" if anything they paint the picture of an independent who is dead center ideologically.

oh and you get what you give....

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


How exactly did they earn the right? Hitler gained support by manipulating public polls
and causing violent riots, and then his soldiers fought for his bloody ideologies because
they were too scared to say or do anything like the majority of the North American public
and their local police authorities.

They were lost. And had no sense or purpose in their life, so they voted for a tyrant who made
them feel special.

Sure, let's keep letting Jamie Dimon and HSBC launder in crack money. That's fine.

reply to post by HopSkipJump


As i posted earlier, it is more symbolic than literal. They have been heard.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Hitler's biggest mistake was declaring war on the U.S., not Russia. With no U.S. to worry about ie, second front, eventually Russia falls....

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I didn't say they weren't bad, I feel they were horrible. But they were still patriots to their own country. Horrible, horrible patriots, but patriots none the less.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
The United States is a country that is defined by the government set forth by the Constitution of the United States that was ratified by the states upon its formation as well as by the states that joined the union afterwards.

What makes this Union perpetually binding on all subsequent and future generations? What if the people feel that the federal government is no longer representing their best interests? Is it still binding then? What unbiased body decides if it is perpetually binding?

The SCOTUS is a branch of the federal government having them be the final arbiter of what is legally binding is like letting the bank decide if the contracts they issue are binding.

In theory if a State wishes to declare/reclaim its sovereignty based on the will of the people that would make them equal to the federal government as a separate body petitioning for redress. Force of arms was the chosen method of making this legal decision last time... Not the most legal of reviews - whoever wins the war is right? Please don't site the self serving SCOTUS decision after the Civil War, the SCOTUS is a part of the federal government of course they decided the Union is perpetually binding.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
If your government sets out to change laws or create new laws, there is a process that must be gone through in order to do so. You have a say in it. You elect officials to represent you in making these decisions. If the elected official doesn't agree with you personally, then you have the opportunity to help elect a different official in the next election. However, you do not have the "right" to ignore what those officials decide, you do not have the right to rise up against those officials, who were elected by a majority, you do not have the right to do whatever you want to do. The government exists because we chose for it to exist and the majority of the citizens in the country voted for the officials that now hold office.

One could argue that these elected officials are not representing the will of the people - Missouri was 75% against Obama care in all polls prior to the vote. However, the Senator (who represents the people) voted for it? Not all that hard to see that they stopped giving a # about the will of the people.

The people of California voted to not have to pay for the education of the children of individuals who come to the US illegally. However, the courts declared that they did not have that as an option. Will of the majority indeed. How many referenda have been enacted by a State to go challenged by the federal government?

Sorry...The only option left is this one.

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

www.archives.gov...

I just hope that this time the world supports the States rights to self governance like the US has done every single time in the past 40 years some State wants to break away from an oppressive central authority.