TexasCHLforum.com

pbwalker wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

pbwalker wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
Nonsense. It's not unconstitutional and it's not treason.

If you tried to rebel, the FBI and the US military will beg to differ. And yes, its treason.

How?

Derp derp, advocating the breakup of the Union. The case of Grant v. Lee (cert denied) settled this question.

Weiner,

Derp derp? Resorting to insults already? I asked how it was treason, and you have yet to answer it. Obviously, you don't have an answer, other than to throw around insults.

Since I'm "derp derp", why don't you point to me exactly where it is in this legal definition?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pbwalker wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
Nonsense. It's not unconstitutional and it's not treason.

If you tried to rebel, the FBI and the US military will beg to differ. And yes, its treason.

How?

VMI77 wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

canvasbck wrote:

Furthermore, unrelated to what I quoted, all this talk about secession over mere election results is highly immature. Don't you guys who support it realize you're saying that you're so uncivilized that you can't stand to even be in the same country as someone who dares to disagree with you? Grow up! If you want to talk secession because the federal government actually did or didn't do something (like that TSA-TX spat a couple years ago), fine, then there might be something worth talking about. But seceding over people voting differently than you is just nuts. Wasn't the 1st amendment put there to protect varying political ideas? And don't we claim to be the political group that loves & respects the entire US Constitution, rather than just the parts that suit our purposes?

For the record, I advocate the threat of secession as an extreme measure to attempt to reign in the federal government and force them to abide by the constitution. I advocated for this during Bush's term and not because of the result of one election. What this election did for me and, I believe, many like me is highlight the fact that the majority of our population is no longer interested in a government that stays out of our lives and out of our way. Four years ago, I was disapointed because I thought that most of the country fell for the "rainbows and unicorns" promises that spewed from the mouth of the infested pustule. (credit to anygun for that term) and didn't do any research into the man's beliefs or background. This time around, it is clear that 52% of our citizens who care enough to vote knew exactly what they were voting for and have caused me to loose faith in this country's ability to ever return to our founding principals.

Excellent, you espouse treason. If you don't like our ways, leave. Don't think you will ever, ever be permitted to drive this state from the Union. We settled it once, and will settle it again.

Nonsense. It's not unconstitutional and it's not treason.

atticus wrote:VMI77, Good points. But just because collectivists impose outrages on their fellow citizens today, I'm not willing to follow their lead in terms of imposing secession on the unwilling. It would be justifying the means because of the ends. Further, just because tories were treated harshly during and after the Revolution does not mean we have to follow that example today. The reason is much the same as why we shouldn't follow the Omamanoids in trashing the Constitution. Consider the crimes committed in the South by carpetbaggers during reconstruction. Under color of law, and with self-righteous zeal, they treated their fellow citizens in the South like dogs. If we end up treating non-secessionists like post-revolution tories, what will we have accomplished? What will we have become? As bad as the current political situation is in the USA (and it is hard to imagine it being much worse), I'd sooner look for other solutions than secession at this point.

canvasbck wrote:

Furthermore, unrelated to what I quoted, all this talk about secession over mere election results is highly immature. Don't you guys who support it realize you're saying that you're so uncivilized that you can't stand to even be in the same country as someone who dares to disagree with you? Grow up! If you want to talk secession because the federal government actually did or didn't do something (like that TSA-TX spat a couple years ago), fine, then there might be something worth talking about. But seceding over people voting differently than you is just nuts. Wasn't the 1st amendment put there to protect varying political ideas? And don't we claim to be the political group that loves & respects the entire US Constitution, rather than just the parts that suit our purposes?

For the record, I advocate the threat of secession as an extreme measure to attempt to reign in the federal government and force them to abide by the constitution. I advocated for this during Bush's term and not because of the result of one election. What this election did for me and, I believe, many like me is highlight the fact that the majority of our population is no longer interested in a government that stays out of our lives and out of our way. Four years ago, I was disapointed because I thought that most of the country fell for the "rainbows and unicorns" promises that spewed from the mouth of the infested pustule. (credit to anygun for that term) and didn't do any research into the man's beliefs or background. This time around, it is clear that 52% of our citizens who care enough to vote knew exactly what they were voting for and have caused me to loose faith in this country's ability to ever return to our founding principals.

canvasbck wrote:I signed the Texas one, even though it will mean nothing