Patriots don't secede

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
When a state leaves, they don't take everything they have with them, they leave with NOTHING. They don't get to take federal military bases with them, they don't take soldiers with them, they don't take equipment with them, they don't take funds with them, they take NOTHING but what they can carry on their backs.

Has it been discussed that any states that seceded would be taking their share of the national debt?

Originally posted by Kashai
And there is also this

Any thoughts?

As far as Iacocca goes, I would imagine he considered himself a great patriot and businessman and even if he wasn't a prince of a guy behind closed doors, at the very least he provided tens of thousands of Americans with good paying jobs. The Pinto was an unmitigated disaster, no argument about that, but out of over 350,000 of them sold at less than $2,000 apiece, there were only 27 deaths recorded due to those stupid gas tanks.

So all in all, many people look back on that era as "the good old days" ~ maybe even the LAST of the good old days when there was still a sense of stability in the economy and patriotism toward government was the default position.

On that other link, I can't see how a piece of murderous Russian slime figures into this conversation at all.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
When a state leaves, they don't take everything they have with them, they leave with NOTHING. They don't get to take federal military bases with them, they don't take soldiers with them, they don't take equipment with them, they don't take funds with them, they take NOTHING but what they can carry on their backs.

Has it been discussed that any states that seceded would be taking their share of the national debt?

Why would they be doing anything so ridiculous?

The Concept of Odious Debt

Odious debt is an established legal principle. Legally, debt is to be considered odious if the government used the money for personal purposes or to oppress the people. Moreover, in cases where borrowed money was used in ways contrary to the people’s interest, with the knowledge of the creditors, the creditors may be said to have committed a hostile act against the people. Creditors cannot legitimately expect repayment of such debts.

www.jubileeusa.org...

Or in other words they bought it, they got it, toyota.

For breakaway states there is the option of creating public banks and/or alternate currencies that answer to the people, not the corporations.
www.publicbankingcoalition.org...

Originally posted by Observor

Unlike you I don't need any "talking heads" to tell me what happens. I have the brains to figure out for myself.

evidence would be to the contrary

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
When a state leaves, they don't take everything they have with them, they leave with NOTHING. They don't get to take federal military bases with them, they don't take soldiers with them, they don't take equipment with them, they don't take funds with them, they take NOTHING but what they can carry on their backs.

Has it been discussed that any states that seceded would be taking their share of the national debt?

Perhaps given the circumstances, they should take the entire debt for the Iraq war, the tax cuts for the rich and any other bush incentive with them since they only want to leave because there's a black democrat president.

We'd be out of the recession and back on track.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
since they only want to leave because there's a black democrat president.

Excellent use of the race card!

Bravo - I am sure Barrack would be proud it's been working for him for years...got him into the White House in fact. Course he personally uses it sparingly because why use it when you have an army of sycopahnts and minions to do it for you?

There cannot possibly be any other reason a State would want to secede right?

BS I can list 100 grievances, instances in which the federal government has abused its authority forcing States to enact laws contrary to the wishes of the people of that State by using threats of withholding funds, drinking age and national speed limits come to mind... There are many more.

The taxes they are withholding in the name of compliance came from the people of the States.

If I were to collect money from people against their will, then tell them as long as they did as I wished they could have some of it back it would be called racketeering, graft a protection racket.

Yet put on a $1000 suit and it’s called a tax and incentives program.

Federal Department of Education - same thing, collect money from the States, keep a cut to run the bloated bureaucracy that really serves no purpose other than to make rules so that the party line in the country for indoctrination is working as intended. Then they give back some of the money in programs if certain conditions are met - i.e. follow the party line or you won't get your money back.

The Federal Government has become a bloated monster that feeds on the States not vice versa....

The purpose of the federal government was limited to 18 enumerated powers – the Constitution of the United States was to be a document constraining their power not granting us freedom.

Really any government (State, local Federal - whatever) only has two legitimate purposes – to protect you from other governments (international defense) and to protect us from each other.

Never should be used as an engine for charity (safety nets and welfare) never should have the power to protect people from themselves (seat belt laws, helmet laws etc.).

I want the government out of my life – old republican white guys, young sexy democrat black men, white women, hispanic women, asian men and everything in between.

The race card is base and desperate - be above that!

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
reply to post by Honor93

 

Again, you are incorrect. If you wish to discuss a topic, at least use the correct terminology for the topic. You are sounding foolish and showing you have no knowledge of what you are trying to discuss. Deny Ignorance.

en.wikipedia.org...

hmmmm, wiki or the Founding Fathers who wrote it ???
wow, tough choice ... for non-Americans

you can have your Wiki and your illogical nonsense too.
enjoy your delusion.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
When a state leaves, they don't take everything they have with them, they leave with NOTHING. They don't get to take federal military bases with them, they don't take soldiers with them, they don't take equipment with them, they don't take funds with them, they take NOTHING but what they can carry on their backs.

Has it been discussed that any states that seceded would be taking their share of the national debt?

what national debt ??
a state nor its people can owe "fiat currency" since it doesn't exist

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
reply to post by Honor93

 

Again, you are incorrect. If you wish to discuss a topic, at least use the correct terminology for the topic. You are sounding foolish and showing you have no knowledge of what you are trying to discuss. Deny Ignorance.

en.wikipedia.org...

hmmmm, wiki or the Founding Fathers who wrote it ???
wow, tough choice

... for non-Americans

you can have your Wiki and your illogical nonsense too.
enjoy your delusion.

Wikipedia doesn't work for research papers or published articles, but it will suffice for an internet message board. If you are able to show where it is incorrect in what it says, please do, otherwise, address the topic instead of tryiing to insult your way around it.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Has it been discussed that any states that seceded would be taking their share of the national debt?

what national debt ??
a state nor its people can owe "fiat currency" since it doesn't exist

Hey, I'm not aware of the particular intricacies. We have our regular amount of secession threat from Quebec...and I know it's a different system...but my gut reaction stems from those lessons. From an outside perspective, I can't see that seceding states would be permitted to skedaddle with all the goodies and leave behind the liabilities. Is it not true that the so-called red states do quite well as far as regional equalisation of national asserts goes? And what about things like the Mississippi River, which health is deemed as an issue of national security and maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers? Do the red states have the resources to support themselves? What about financial credibility? From my perspective, secession is a lurch towards the 19th century.

I speak as one who believes in fixing stuff from within the system. And it all comes back to the ballot. If you don't like the choices offered...then change them. Ultimately, these clowns still need to be elected.

Just my two bits (Cdn)

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Has it been discussed that any states that seceded would be taking their share of the national debt?

what national debt ??
a state nor its people can owe "fiat currency" since it doesn't exist

Hey, I'm not aware of the particular intricacies. We have our regular amount of secession threat from Quebec...and I know it's a different system...but my gut reaction stems from those lessons. From an outside perspective, I can't see that seceding states would be permitted to skedaddle with all the goodies and leave behind the liabilities. Is it not true that the so-called red states do quite well as far as regional equalisation of national asserts goes? And what about things like the Mississippi River, which health is deemed as an issue of national security and maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers? Do the red states have the resources to support themselves? What about financial credibility? From my perspective, secession is a lurch towards the 19th century.

I speak as one who believes in fixing stuff from within the system. And it all comes back to the ballot. If you don't like the choices offered...then change them. Ultimately, these clowns still need to be elected.

Just my two bits (Cdn)

Do you know how many people work for the federal government, or how many depend upon the federal government for benefits checks? Do you think any of these people would vote for a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government? It would be counterintuitive.

Their problem is, with a growing number of people dependent on federal paychecks to survive and with ever fewer people working to fund the government that writes those checks, the system will ultimately implode without one single state seceding or one other source of corruption. Its in the cards. Some of the more forward looking states are probably just attempting to get out of the way of falling derivitaves and mutual funds and QE 1 through infinity before it all comes crashing down on their heads.

What "goodies" would the states be skedaddling with since its the labor of the people of the states that feeds the federal government, not the reverse.

Bottom line, if you saw a train coming straight at you would you vote for it to stop before it smooshed you or would you just get the hell off the tracks?

Looking at it from the same mindset that is held by those supporting it:

Let's see, federal disaster funds will no longer be given:
Texas recieves more than any other state in the Union www.motherjones.com...

The 28% of Texans on welfare will lose their draw

Those who live on a pension for military service will lose thier income

those who recieve foodstamps or other support (about 46% of the population of Texas) will no longer get that

Anyone with a federal retirement program will forfeit that benefit

There will be no government assistance, they give that up

The military bases will close

The soldiers stationed there will be removed

Any federal lands would have to be purchased or retained by the US

There will be no tax returns given

Any federal holdings will be revoked, they don't get to just keep anything within the borders

The land area will have to be divided as some of it will be retained by the US

When all is said and done, Texas will be a 3rd world country.

Let them go, who needs them?


They don't look at the big picture, they have no concept of what will really happen because their puppetmasters haven't told them that part yet. All they know is the storybook ending that they have been told by the people who manipulate them and they don't have the intelligence to look further down the road and realize their empty threat may be called.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Those who live on a pension for military service will lose thier income
Anyone with a federal retirement program will forfeit that benefit
There will be no tax returns given

I think I would disagree with these items as those liabilities are often paid out internationally. The rest? Likely. I wondered myself about those large federal holdings in some states in particular. Let's face it...it would be as neat and pretty as most divorces, but writ large.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Those who live on a pension for military service will lose thier income
Anyone with a federal retirement program will forfeit that benefit
There will be no tax returns given

I think I would disagree with these items as those liabilities are often paid out internationally. The rest? Likely. I wondered myself about those large federal holdings in some states in particular. Let's face it...it would be as neat and pretty as most divorces, but writ large.

But as traitors to the government of the United States, they could be surrendered
If they secede, they are traitors to the US. The argument could be made and upheld. Chances are, with the strong emotions connected to the issue, all measures that can be taken would be taken.

reply to post by HopSkipJump

Wikipedia doesn't work for research papers or published articles,

wiki isn't sufficient for any discussion based on fact ... and that's been proven over and over and over again.

you want to cite a proven error, be my guest.

but it will suffice for an internet message board.

not when you're engaged in discussions with ppl who know better.

If you are able to show where it is incorrect in what it says, please do, otherwise, address the topic instead of tryiing to insult your way around it.

already have, in this thread and MANY others.
sorry, but you'll need a better distraction than wiki ... derail fail

patriots do secede, they have seceded successfully and they will again, regardless what wiki says

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

I can't see that seceding states would be permitted to skedaddle with all the goodies and leave behind the liabilities

that is because, as you said, you cannot see the intricacies of the situation.

all i'm gonna say is this ... those same red states, pay into the system that pays back to them. sure, some states receive more than they provide but that my friend shall balance out, naturally.

your two bits are welcome and some decades ago, the ballot could have had a direct effect ... but that was then and this is now.

as for reverting to the 19th century, not likely.

reply to post by HopSkipJump

wow, you REALLY don't understand how it works, do ya ?

just think, all that currency taken from the states to give to OTHER states, would remain in the originating states which would make the Fed programs obselete anyway

that's the whole point in a nutshell.
besides the fact that the 'currency removed' is still 'currency' ... hence, illusionary.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Those who live on a pension for military service will lose thier income
Anyone with a federal retirement program will forfeit that benefit
There will be no tax returns given

I think I would disagree with these items as those liabilities are often paid out internationally. The rest? Likely. I wondered myself about those large federal holdings in some states in particular. Let's face it...it would be as neat and pretty as most divorces, but writ large.

But as traitors to the government of the United States, they could be surrendered

If they secede, they are traitors to the US. The argument could be made and upheld. Chances are, with the strong emotions connected to the issue, all measures that can be taken would be taken.

hahahahaha, do tell, how does one become a 'traitor of a corporation' ??

the fact is, secession is the only option remaining, as Obama has already granted powers of eminent domain to China ... they will be along soon to collect

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Let's see, federal disaster funds will no longer be given:
Texas receives more than any other state in the Union www.motherjones.com...

Oh, and no federal taxes will be with held either which makes that pretty much a draw.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
The 28% of Texans on welfare will lose their draw
those who receive food stamps or other support (about 46% of the population of Texas) will no longer get that
There will be no government assistance, they give that up

Not sure if you are aware but welfare is administered at the State level. What makes you think that absent the intervention of the federal government it will cease to exist? On the contrary Texas might have to institute an income tax since as it stands now they don’t even require one and manage to keep their State programs running fine. I’d say that they could do at the State level what the federal government does at a lower overal tax rate and more efficiently.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Those who live on a pension for military service will lose thier income

Anyone with a federal retirement program will forfeit that benefit

Here’s a tip I get a military retirement, I get that retirement even if I go to prison, move to another country, renounce my citizenship etc. It is not contiengient on future actions all contractual obligations on my part have been met. It is a contractual obligation for a period of service and not tied to my status as an American citizen.

Same with a federal retirement, one doesn’t even have to be a US citizen to be a federal employee… unless the specific position requires it.

This is with the proviso of course that the federal government if enough States secede might not be able to meet its contractual financial obligations.

If that happened the individual can seek remedy under law and all that property that you claim is “owned” by the federal government could be sold and placed in trust by a court and administered to meet these obligations.

I am sure the Nation of Texas will buy it off their hands for a fair price. – Problem solved.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

The military bases will close

The soldiers stationed there will be removed

True, or the Soldiers will be expelled. Or better perhaps would be to offered lateral appointments (giveing land grants siezed under immanent domain from the former US) into the Army of Texas at the same grade and offered citizenship. After all they would not need to be trained - win/win...

I bet more than half will accept so they don’t have to move.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Any federal lands would have to be purchased or retained by the US

Nope – just like in the US the Nation of Texas can boot out the former land owners under the law of immanent domain if it conflicts with national security. They may offer some compensation or they may not if taken as war reparations I’d say they would not. Ask all the Germans who had thier land/funds siezed during WWII or the Japanese or hell evel AlQ had assets frozen and siezed for national security reasons...

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Any federal holdings will be revoked, they don't get to just keep anything within the borders

Sure they do – the citizens of the State have paid taxes for going on 150 years now and they are entitled to their portion of the assets of the goods and property purchased with that money.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
The land area will have to be divided as some of it will be retained by the US

Nope – immanent domain again, if it is not in the best interest of Texas' National security to let the US Port authority to own/operate a port in Texas they can tell them to get out and not come back keeping the facilities as compensation for years of grievances.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
When all is said and done, Texas will be a 3rd world country.

Let them go, who needs them?

If that were true the federal government would have let the poor rural southern States go the first time….

It is fairly obvious that Texas is necessary it has a large population and thus a tax base.

You think if it were in the governments best financial and international best interest to let a failing State secede they wouldn’t do it in a heartbeat?

I'd the southern and red States were such a drag on the coffers as you make out the federal government would have let them go…

Why fight to retain a failing enterprise?

reply to post by Golf66

well said

and let's not forget ...

If that were true the federal government would have let the poor rural southern States go the first time….

that those "poor rural southern states" were generating the 4th largest economy in the world at that time.