Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

25 Percent Of Americans Open To Secession

Page 10 of 13 [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 Sep 2014, 7:16 pm

The Declaration of Independence lays out the argument

Quote:
"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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."



ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,157

25 Sep 2014, 8:03 pm

Jacoby wrote:
The Declaration of Independence lays out the argument

Quote:
"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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Well, certainly it doesn't change the fact that it happened, but I bet if you could get them to talk about it, the British government, particularly at the time, would have regarded the secession of the 13 colonies to be illegal as well. At some point of course the fact that it happened was a reality that they had to accept. A key difference though is that at the time the Colonists were literally subjects of the British government, with limited rights and representation and participation in that government and if they didn't like something that government did, they had very few options to do anything about it. The people of any state in the US today have the power to redress any issues they have with the federal government - the federal government could, literally, be transformed into another form completely unrecognizable vs. what we have today, by simply following the process for doing so laid out in the Constitution itself, i.e. amending the Constitution. I don't know of any one in America today who can seriously demonstrate that their rights to "life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness" are being seriously infringed upon in any meaningful way.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Sep 2014, 8:05 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
No, Obama's not the Lord And Savior - but he's far from wrecking the country like his predecessor had done.

Usually we only capitalise "lord and savior" when referring to The Lord Jesus. This indicates that you likely do see Obama as your lord and savior.
I wish I was only joking......

Quote:
And I seriously think he's incapable of said predecessor's incompetence that would bring down the economy. And as far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned - again, that's a mess Obama had inherited. A mess that wouldn't exist had a dullard not have destabilized the Middle East for the sake of personal aggrandizement by trumping his father's accomplishments. On top of that, Obama isn't going to be so monumentally ignorant as to be surprised by the notion that not all Muslims are of the same theological and ethnic divisions, and or that destabilizing the area would not bring about democracy, but bloody anarchy.

You can give part of the credit for Iraq to Clinton, who I'm sure you voted for and loved with the same intensity as you do Obama......


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 Sep 2014, 8:23 pm

ScrewyWabbit wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The Declaration of Independence lays out the argument

Quote:
"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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Well, certainly it doesn't change the fact that it happened, but I bet if you could get them to talk about it, the British government, particularly at the time, would have regarded the secession of the 13 colonies to be illegal as well. At some point of course the fact that it happened was a reality that they had to accept. A key difference though is that at the time the Colonists were literally subjects of the British government, with limited rights and representation and participation in that government and if they didn't like something that government did, they had very few options to do anything about it. The people of any state in the US today have the power to redress any issues they have with the federal government - the federal government could, literally, be transformed into another form completely unrecognizable vs. what we have today, by simply following the process for doing so laid out in the Constitution itself, i.e. amending the Constitution. I don't know of any one in America today who can seriously demonstrate that their rights to "life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness" are being seriously infringed upon in any meaningful way.


'And thus only a quarter of Americans currently support secession, I would interested in seeing the splits of this poll and see the results broken down into states. You are correct in saying that the British government didn't recognize the secession of the 13 colonies to be legal, obviously they didn't feel their rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was so infringed which illustrates the silliness of being perpetually bond to such unions. I believe the democratic process is obviously better than the violent one, if the majority of people in state or whatever decide that secession is in order then I wouldn't oppose their right to do it. Whether or not you agree with why they want secession is its own debate but I think our closest allies Canada and the UK have shown us that our democratic institutions do work and the debate is worth having regardless of how it turns out. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe that secession keeps these unions honest and ensures the equality of the entities within it.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Sep 2014, 10:40 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No, Obama's not the Lord And Savior - but he's far from wrecking the country like his predecessor had done.

Usually we only capitalise "lord and savior" when referring to The Lord Jesus. This indicates that you likely do see Obama as your lord and savior.
I wish I was only joking......

Quote:
And I seriously think he's incapable of said predecessor's incompetence that would bring down the economy. And as far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned - again, that's a mess Obama had inherited. A mess that wouldn't exist had a dullard not have destabilized the Middle East for the sake of personal aggrandizement by trumping his father's accomplishments. On top of that, Obama isn't going to be so monumentally ignorant as to be surprised by the notion that not all Muslims are of the same theological and ethnic divisions, and or that destabilizing the area would not bring about democracy, but bloody anarchy.

You can give part of the credit for Iraq to Clinton, who I'm sure you voted for and loved with the same intensity as you do Obama......


You can't seriously expect Clinton to shoulder the blame of the Iraq disaster with Bush! All he did was bomb Saddam Hussein's WMD's out of existence (though it was Bush who claimed those very same weapons were the reason for his invasion).


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

26 Sep 2014, 10:25 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No, Obama's not the Lord And Savior - but he's far from wrecking the country like his predecessor had done.

Usually we only capitalise "lord and savior" when referring to The Lord Jesus. This indicates that you likely do see Obama as your lord and savior.
I wish I was only joking......

Quote:
And I seriously think he's incapable of said predecessor's incompetence that would bring down the economy. And as far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned - again, that's a mess Obama had inherited. A mess that wouldn't exist had a dullard not have destabilized the Middle East for the sake of personal aggrandizement by trumping his father's accomplishments. On top of that, Obama isn't going to be so monumentally ignorant as to be surprised by the notion that not all Muslims are of the same theological and ethnic divisions, and or that destabilizing the area would not bring about democracy, but bloody anarchy.

You can give part of the credit for Iraq to Clinton, who I'm sure you voted for and loved with the same intensity as you do Obama......


You can't seriously expect Clinton to shoulder the blame of the Iraq disaster with Bush! All he did was bomb Saddam Hussein's WMD's out of existence (though it was Bush who claimed those very same weapons were the reason for his invasion).


It was Clinton's intelligence budget cuts that crippled our ability to gather the intel to make an accurate enough determination on whether or not Saddam had WMD's. What tune would you be singing now if he had WMD's and unleashed them on a neighboring country? Let me guess: "Bush was a coward. He had the world's most capable military and refused to conquer Iraq and remove that madman Saddam and save all those lives!"
Retort all you want but that's it for me in this thread.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Sep 2014, 5:09 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No, Obama's not the Lord And Savior - but he's far from wrecking the country like his predecessor had done.

Usually we only capitalise "lord and savior" when referring to The Lord Jesus. This indicates that you likely do see Obama as your lord and savior.
I wish I was only joking......

Quote:
And I seriously think he's incapable of said predecessor's incompetence that would bring down the economy. And as far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned - again, that's a mess Obama had inherited. A mess that wouldn't exist had a dullard not have destabilized the Middle East for the sake of personal aggrandizement by trumping his father's accomplishments. On top of that, Obama isn't going to be so monumentally ignorant as to be surprised by the notion that not all Muslims are of the same theological and ethnic divisions, and or that destabilizing the area would not bring about democracy, but bloody anarchy.

You can give part of the credit for Iraq to Clinton, who I'm sure you voted for and loved with the same intensity as you do Obama......


You can't seriously expect Clinton to shoulder the blame of the Iraq disaster with Bush! All he did was bomb Saddam Hussein's WMD's out of existence (though it was Bush who claimed those very same weapons were the reason for his invasion).


It was Clinton's intelligence budget cuts that crippled our ability to gather the intel to make an accurate enough determination on whether or not Saddam had WMD's. What tune would you be singing now if he had WMD's and unleashed them on a neighboring country? Let me guess: "Bush was a coward. He had the world's most capable military and refused to conquer Iraq and remove that madman Saddam and save all those lives!"
Retort all you want but that's it for me in this thread.


Cutting the intelligence budget was doubtlessly a mistake made by the Clinton administration, but that was done only because we figured that our primary enemy, the Soviet Union and international communism, had self destructed, and there was a very real belief we didn't need such a huge spook apparatus, anymore. No one was expecting such a meteoric rise of militarized Islamic fundamentalism. But I have no doubt that Clinton would have rectified that had 9/11 happened under his watch.
As far as Bush senior's motivation for not taking out Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War being cowardice - in all likelihood, probably not. Rather, he was motivated by his experience as CIA director (and his past affiliation with the agency even before that, which he till this day denies), which told him had Hussein been removed by us, he'd have had the ethnic and sectarian break up of Iraq, which his son later presided over.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

26 Sep 2014, 5:16 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as Bush senior's motivation for not taking out Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War being cowardice - in all likelihood, probably not. Rather, he was motivated by his experience as CIA director (and his past affiliation with the agency even before that, which he till this day denies), which told him had Hussein been removed by us, he'd have had the ethnic and sectarian break up of Iraq, which his son later presided over.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I[/youtube]

Wonder whatever happened to this guy.

As for Saddam's WMDs, we gave them to him that's why we thought he had them. We gave him the gas to use against the Iranians that he used against the Kurds, he invaded Kuwait because he believed we gave him the go ahead.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Sep 2014, 5:42 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as Bush senior's motivation for not taking out Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War being cowardice - in all likelihood, probably not. Rather, he was motivated by his experience as CIA director (and his past affiliation with the agency even before that, which he till this day denies), which told him had Hussein been removed by us, he'd have had the ethnic and sectarian break up of Iraq, which his son later presided over.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I[/youtube]

Wonder whatever happened to this guy.

As for Saddam's WMDs, we gave them to him that's why we thought he had them. We gave him the gas to use against the Iranians that he used against the Kurds, he invaded Kuwait because he believed we gave him the go ahead.


What happened to that guy? That evil old bastard who became Vice President ate him.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

26 Sep 2014, 6:46 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as Bush senior's motivation for not taking out Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War being cowardice - in all likelihood, probably not. Rather, he was motivated by his experience as CIA director (and his past affiliation with the agency even before that, which he till this day denies), which told him had Hussein been removed by us, he'd have had the ethnic and sectarian break up of Iraq, which his son later presided over.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I[/youtube]

Wonder whatever happened to this guy.

As for Saddam's WMDs, we gave them to him that's why we thought he had them. We gave him the gas to use against the Iranians that he used against the Kurds, he invaded Kuwait because he believed we gave him the go ahead.


What happened to that guy? That evil old bastard who became Vice President ate him.


I think he ate this guy too

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc[/youtube]



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Sep 2014, 9:50 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as Bush senior's motivation for not taking out Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War being cowardice - in all likelihood, probably not. Rather, he was motivated by his experience as CIA director (and his past affiliation with the agency even before that, which he till this day denies), which told him had Hussein been removed by us, he'd have had the ethnic and sectarian break up of Iraq, which his son later presided over.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I[/youtube]

Wonder whatever happened to this guy.

As for Saddam's WMDs, we gave them to him that's why we thought he had them. We gave him the gas to use against the Iranians that he used against the Kurds, he invaded Kuwait because he believed we gave him the go ahead.


What happened to that guy? That evil old bastard who became Vice President ate him.


I think he ate this guy too

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc[/youtube]


Goes to show you how party ideology changes a person. Mitt Romney had been a progressive Republican with healthcare and whatnot, but had turned far right to court the the party crowd - and a lot of good it did him.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

26 Sep 2014, 11:13 pm

^

Let's not forget that Democratic senator from Illinois, the constitutional law professor who promised to reign in executive power, avoid wars of choice, and run the most transparent administration in history, among other things. What ever happened to him?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Sep 2014, 11:27 pm

Dox47 wrote:
^

Let's not forget that Democratic senator from Illinois, the constitutional law professor who promised to reign in executive power, avoid wars of choice, and run the most transparent administration in history, among other things. What ever happened to him?


Circumstances ate him.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Sep 2014, 3:08 pm

I just got a message that this thread no longer exists. Wait a minute - - DID RAPTOR SEND ME THIS MESSAGE?! !?!?! :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Sep 2014, 5:09 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Circumstances ate him.


Such as?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

27 Sep 2014, 5:14 pm

Isn't there any way to repost without making people suffer with those awful images of Cheney and Bush,I feel queasy....


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi