50 States Secede

[VMI77]

If you're implying, however, that our country during WW2 was somehow "more free" than it is today, I disagree.

Actually I believe it could be argued quite convincingly that the country was indeed more free --though perhaps not for everyone. I was born in the 50's and the country is definitely less free now....though it is more free of common sense. Those who were less free weren't liberated, those who were more free simply had their freedom curtailed. It's too complex an issue to deal with in a forum like this....and we may not even agree what freedom means. But no, that was not a point I intended to make. The point I attempted to make is that the country is now further removed from it's founding principles then it was in WW2.

Are you saying that because the people of those states exercised their right to vote in a democratic election and the majority of the people of those states voted for a President whom a minority voted against that somehow those states no longer share the freedoms enjoyed by the U.S. Constitution?

Not at all. I didn't say anything about their freedoms actually, or at least, I didn't intend to...but again, what I'm saying is that the population and government of those states has become so far removed from Constitutional principles that they are not recognizable as government intended by our founders. In other words, such states are collectivist in nature, and the majority of their populations share collectivist beliefs. As for freedoms enjoyed by the Constitution.....for one thing, the Constitution isn't just about "freedom," it also specifies how the government shall operate, and nearly all of those functional specifications are now null and void. But as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, ALL of us no longer enjoy those rights recognized by the Constitution.

Lastly, talks of secession in my opinion invoke unpatriotic defeatism, disloyalty to one's country and downright whining for the sake of whining of the loser, quitter attitude that is so un-American. It's akin to the unsportsmanslike behavior of one who is losing in a game to just quit for the sake of quitting because he can't stand being so inept and uncompetitive. Whatever happened to the capitalistic competitive drive that the Republican party once stood for? Is that what many in the Republican party have become? If so, no wonder the party's doomed! Sheesh! For once, how about if the party tried to educate the populace in areas where a majority has traditionally voted Democtratic? But quit and give up on one's country after so many have shed their blood defending it? I think not!

Lastly, I'm not advocating succession. In fact, I said, though not in so many words, that it is only going to happen, if at all, subsequent to a national catastrophe.

[powerboatr]

signed it today
I cant beleive Colorado is one of them as well, they all voted for barry and now they want out

[equin]

If you're implying, however, that our country during WW2 was somehow "more free" than it is today, I disagree.

Actually I believe it could be argued quite convincingly that the country was indeed more free --though perhaps not for everyone. I was born in the 50's and the country is definitely less free now....though it is more free of common sense. Those who were less free weren't liberated, those who were more free simply had their freedom curtailed. It's too complex an issue to deal with in a forum like this....and we may not even agree what freedom means. But no, that was not a point I intended to make. The point I attempted to make is that the country is now further removed from it's founding principles then it was in WW2.

Are you saying that because the people of those states exercised their right to vote in a democratic election and the majority of the people of those states voted for a President whom a minority voted against that somehow those states no longer share the freedoms enjoyed by the U.S. Constitution?

Not at all. I didn't say anything about their freedoms actually, or at least, I didn't intend to...but again, what I'm saying is that the population and government of those states has become so far removed from Constitutional principles that they are not recognizable as government intended by our founders. In other words, such states are collectivist in nature, and the majority of their populations share collectivist beliefs. As for freedoms enjoyed by the Constitution.....for one thing, the Constitution isn't just about "freedom," it also specifies how the government shall operate, and nearly all of those functional specifications are now null and void. But as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, ALL of us no longer enjoy those rights recognized by the Constitution.

Lastly, talks of secession in my opinion invoke unpatriotic defeatism, disloyalty to one's country and downright whining for the sake of whining of the loser, quitter attitude that is so un-American. It's akin to the unsportsmanslike behavior of one who is losing in a game to just quit for the sake of quitting because he can't stand being so inept and uncompetitive. Whatever happened to the capitalistic competitive drive that the Republican party once stood for? Is that what many in the Republican party have become? If so, no wonder the party's doomed! Sheesh! For once, how about if the party tried to educate the populace in areas where a majority has traditionally voted Democtratic? But quit and give up on one's country after so many have shed their blood defending it? I think not!

Lastly, I'm not advocating succession. In fact, I said, though not in so many words, that it is only going to happen, if at all, subsequent to a national catastrophe.

Touche' and very well said, although I think we can both say that we agree to respectfully disagree on the issue regarding the differences in freedom from the past and today and the other states' methods of governance. But you do a make an excellent point on the curtailment of other freedoms or the invocation of certain restrictions. I think the Patriot Act comes to mind. Ironic it was signed into law by a Republican President, though. Also, I did not mean to imply that you were advocating secession. I did not understand that to be your intent.

[canvasbck]

Do you really think that we are as free as we were when we could open up the Sears catalog, order a rifle, and have it delivered to our house? REALLY?

I will not argue that there have been times throughout our history where we (shamefully) supressed the freedom of certain groups. But as a population, we are far from being as free as we have been historically.

I do not blame the Democratic party for it. The only difference between the two parties is which part of the constitution do they chose to turn into toilet paper. Dem's have attacked the first two amendments along with the tenth and will continue to do so. Republicans trashed the 4th (TSA and patriot act) along with the 10th and would do more if given the power.

Unfortunately, when there is a change in power the new party does nothing to repair the parts of the constitution destroyed by the former party and goes about trampling on the sections that are in the way of their agenda. This has led many to throw up their hands in frustration at the whole process and this frustration has turned into dreams of starting a seperate country that adheres to the values of our forefathers. No reasonable person believes that secession will actually happen in our lifetime, but what is wrong to letting those in power know that secession is preferable to continuing down the ruinous path that we now find ourselves on?

[gdanaher]

So, most everyone here is good with having the Republican party stand pat on their current platform, whose social planks were largely rejected by a majority of the populace which includes Democrats of all flavors and a whole bunch of moderate Republicans. It's hard to prove, but a lot of voters threw in with Romney because they couldn't handle Obama any longer, so it might not be fair to Republicans to say that 48% of the voters agree with the party platform. Had the Democratic candidates have been someone else, that 48% might well have been much lower. How much? Who knows? But you have to agree that many here have commented that they were voting for Romney while holding their noses. So, if perhaps a third of the population agrees with the party platform how do you propose to elect Republicans, and if not elected, how do you propose they execute change that favors the Republican agenda? You have to hold the office first.

As for secession, it all reminds me of the little boy who when not able to get his way, takes the ball and goes home. Work harder to make it a better and stronger nation.

[sjfcontrol]

WBAP is reporting that 25K signatures were met on the Texas petition as of 2:00PM this afternoon. Reportedly that means the Obama admin MUST consider the petition.

[Oldgringo]

WBAP is reporting that 25K signatures were met on the Texas petition as of 2:00PM this afternoon. Reportedly that means the Obama admin MUST consider the petition.

If he says, "okay", what do we do next?

[VMI77]

As for secession, it all reminds me of the little boy who when not able to get his way, takes the ball and goes home. Work harder to make it a better and stronger nation.

Edited for substance:

As to the first part, no, it's not like the little boy who is not able to get his way and takes his ball home, unless you mean that after supplying the ball, many of the people playing refused to play by the rules, in which case, it would be foolish to continue to let them use his ball. As to the second part, because they mean different things to different people, and especially in this context, to the collectivists and Constitutionalists, "harder, better, and stronger" are meaningless terms.

[RoyGBiv]

WBAP is reporting that 25K signatures were met on the Texas petition as of 2:00PM this afternoon. Reportedly that means the Obama admin MUST consider the petition.

If he says, "okay", what do we do next?

Party like it's 1799.!!

I'll bring the mead and barleywine.

[Oldgringo]

Not that I mind, but isn't this a thread?

It's gittin' close to gittin' personal but, what the hey?

[VMI77]

If you're implying, however, that our country during WW2 was somehow "more free" than it is today, I disagree.

Actually I believe it could be argued quite convincingly that the country was indeed more free --though perhaps not for everyone. I was born in the 50's and the country is definitely less free now....though it is more free of common sense. Those who were less free weren't liberated, those who were more free simply had their freedom curtailed. It's too complex an issue to deal with in a forum like this....and we may not even agree what freedom means. But no, that was not a point I intended to make. The point I attempted to make is that the country is now further removed from it's founding principles then it was in WW2.

Are you saying that because the people of those states exercised their right to vote in a democratic election and the majority of the people of those states voted for a President whom a minority voted against that somehow those states no longer share the freedoms enjoyed by the U.S. Constitution?

Not at all. I didn't say anything about their freedoms actually, or at least, I didn't intend to...but again, what I'm saying is that the population and government of those states has become so far removed from Constitutional principles that they are not recognizable as government intended by our founders. In other words, such states are collectivist in nature, and the majority of their populations share collectivist beliefs. As for freedoms enjoyed by the Constitution.....for one thing, the Constitution isn't just about "freedom," it also specifies how the government shall operate, and nearly all of those functional specifications are now null and void. But as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, ALL of us no longer enjoy those rights recognized by the Constitution.

Lastly, talks of secession in my opinion invoke unpatriotic defeatism, disloyalty to one's country and downright whining for the sake of whining of the loser, quitter attitude that is so un-American. It's akin to the unsportsmanslike behavior of one who is losing in a game to just quit for the sake of quitting because he can't stand being so inept and uncompetitive. Whatever happened to the capitalistic competitive drive that the Republican party once stood for? Is that what many in the Republican party have become? If so, no wonder the party's doomed! Sheesh! For once, how about if the party tried to educate the populace in areas where a majority has traditionally voted Democtratic? But quit and give up on one's country after so many have shed their blood defending it? I think not!

Lastly, I'm not advocating succession. In fact, I said, though not in so many words, that it is only going to happen, if at all, subsequent to a national catastrophe.

Touche' and very well said, although I think we can both say that we agree to respectfully disagree on the issue regarding the differences in freedom from the past and today and the other states' methods of governance. But you do a make an excellent point on the curtailment of other freedoms or the invocation of certain restrictions. I think the Patriot Act comes to mind. Ironic it was signed into law by a Republican President, though. Also, I did not mean to imply that you were advocating secession. I did not understand that to be your intent.

BTW, it just occurs to me now after reading your response, but listen to the way the liberals are talking about the election....that we're finally moving away from 18th century thinking -- (I.e. we're moving away from the thinking that made the US and the freedoms we still enjoy possible); and that the last election shows that we're becoming more like Europe. It used to be the goal even of the more "liberal" Americans for other countries to become more like us.

[TexasCajun]

Yeah, about that. Secession didn't work out so well the last time it was tried. I don't think the outcome would be much different for a second go-round. Not to mention the fact that Texas and several other states are still taking pay-back from the Reconstruction era. I really don't think that it's a viable option at this point.

Either the Republican party is going to have to figure out how to appeal to more than the same dying group of angry, white, rich guys without compromising its core beliefs, or this country will have to crash head-first into the ground under the intesifying yoke of socialism & then rebuild from below the basement up. And since no one can really forsee or guarantee what that rebuilding would look like, I'd much rather see the first option given a fair & honest shot.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

I don't put any stock in that kind of thing. Many of you well know how much I loathe and despise the current administration, but some petition on a website ain't going to lead to secession. There would have to be enough citizens in each state to bring it to some sort of a vote in that state, and the majority of the people of that state would have to vote for it. That I might consider seriously, but it ain't going to happen...too many people LOVE the free phones, birth control and other handouts. Why would they want to be cut off?

Also, they'd pretty much be saying that the American Experiment more or less failed, and that's not a statement to be made lightly.

The American Experiment has, more or less, failed, and it started to fail as soon as the land of "opportunity" became the land of "entitlement".

It's just a matter of time IMO.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

[SewTexas]

the Founding Fathers didn't expect it to last this long.

[The Annoyed Man]

My son sent me a text earlier today asking me to sign this thing. I haven't done it yet, and I'm not going to. IF things ever come to that I'll do my part, but I don't want my name on a list handed to Obupkis. I'm going to have to talk to my son about discretion.

And honestly, although I am very skeptical about the future national integrity in the long term, I love my country, and I don't want to see it disbanded. What I want to see is for the democrat party—the greatest evil this country has seen in 80 years—to be disbanded.

I do have an opinion about what I think is likely to happen to the U.S. over the next 50-75 years or so, maybe longer, maybe less, but it's not something I like. I think that the gulf between conservatives/libertarians on one side, and liberals/communists on the other side has become unbridgeable. I think this is for easily understood reasons, and they need no justification as far as I am concerned. The commies want to keep dragging the country further left. I don't want to go one single millimeter further leftward than I have already be dragged in the last 40 years. I'm not compromising anymore. When the other side consistently, over 40 years, refused to compromise, then compromise is not possible any longer. I've been pushed as far as I'm willing to be pushed. Either the pendulum begins to swing the other way of its own accord, or people like me are going to give it a push. As I've posted elsewhere, apparently this makes me an extremist to some people. I never saw myself that way before. I see myself as being principled, and willing to defend my principles and refusing to compromise with evil. But if that makes me an extremist, then I'll wear that label without apology.

What I see happening in the long term future is the United States "balkanizing" into smaller autonomous regions of like-minded and culturally similar peoples. By "culturally," I am NOT talking about race or ethnicity. Rather, I'm talking about cultural values, like self-reliance versus a collective mentality.....stuff like that. I also think that, eventually, there will be significant population shifts between those autonomous regions, as people begin to sort out what kind of regional culture they want to live in. Perhaps those autonomous regions will become loosely allied for purposes of mutual defense and commerce—EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS ENVISIONED—but they will likely never give big centralized government a chance for to form again.

Again, the reason I think this is exactly because the philosophical and cultural divide between left and right has become too large to mend....so something else has to happen.

I know that this vision is, in part, a sort of Jeffersonian fantasy, but it is more than that. The alternative is an increasingly large and oppressive centralized government. There will be no middle ground. Things are going to keep going in the direction they're headed—toward the large and oppressive—or they can reverse themselves and head toward what I described above. Stasis is not possible because the status quo is not stable. The commies aren't through yet, and they're fired up, and people like me are sooooo done with that crap.......so stasis is not stable, and it must tip one way or the other.

That's just how I see it. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.