Is the intention a Civil War ?

[ArmyCowboy]

The issue of seccession was settled at Appatmotox.

THAT issue of secession was settled.

Really it was a question of "legal" secession under the Constitution. The concept was that conventions, not legislatures voted for the Constitution (accepting the social contract), so only conventions elected for the purpose could remove a state from the union (repudiation of the social contract). Philosophically, the southern states were correct.

However, they were then introduced to another concept of political philosophy: Might makes right.

So, point really proved is, if you are bad enough to kick the other guy's ass, then it doesn't matter what the "right way is" period. Some bullies on here are proud of that fact. I don't think it's anything to be proud of.

But, the point for the future is, if the other side doesn't have the stones to keep the country together no matter what the cost, then the seceding side wins. If the seceding side can kick the ass of the non-seceding side, then the seceding side wins. If they can't then the other side wins. Simple as that. The court will always back the result. Again see White v. Texas.

No seceeding states are going to be able to defeat the US military, they'll be crushed.

If that's what you want, go for it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

THAT issue of secession was settled.

Really it was a question of "legal" secession under the Constitution. The concept was that conventions, not legislatures voted for the Constitution (accepting the social contract), so only conventions elected for the purpose could remove a state from the union (repudiation of the social contract). Philosophically, the southern states were correct.

However, they were then introduced to another concept of political philosophy: Might makes right.

So, point really proved is, if you are bad enough to kick the other guy's ass, then it doesn't matter what the "right way is" period. Some bullies on here are proud of that fact. I don't think it's anything to be proud of.

But, the point for the future is, if the other side doesn't have the stones to keep the country together no matter what the cost, then the seceding side wins. If the seceding side can kick the ass of the non-seceding side, then the seceding side wins. If they can't then the other side wins. Simple as that. The court will always back the result. Again see White v. Texas.

No seceeding states are going to be able to defeat the US military, they'll be crushed.

If that's what you want, go for it.

I was just providing analysis. I didn't state a position. I don't think secession would happen today. I can't see clear lines like there were in the 1860s. It would be pointless for a hadgepodge to secede. If you had something contiguous, maybe. AL, MS, LA, TX & OK maybe? Would northeastern liberals support the body count of an aggressive war against peaceful secessionists? Hmmm. Would the military fire on them? what about the ones from those states? would they stay in the US military or go with their state?

But, I can't see it happening. I think if anything would happen it would be country wide anarchy or revolt. Hotter in some areas than others, but all over.

 

[Spoonman]

THAT issue of secession was settled.

Really it was a question of "legal" secession under the Constitution. The concept was that conventions, not legislatures voted for the Constitution (accepting the social contract), so only conventions elected for the purpose could remove a state from the union (repudiation of the social contract). Philosophically, the southern states were correct.

However, they were then introduced to another concept of political philosophy: Might makes right.

So, point really proved is, if you are bad enough to kick the other guy's ass, then it doesn't matter what the "right way is" period. Some bullies on here are proud of that fact. I don't think it's anything to be proud of.

But, the point for the future is, if the other side doesn't have the stones to keep the country together no matter what the cost, then the seceding side wins. If the seceding side can kick the ass of the non-seceding side, then the seceding side wins. If they can't then the other side wins. Simple as that. The court will always back the result. Again see White v. Texas.

No seceeding states are going to be able to defeat the US military, they'll be crushed.

If that's what you want, go for it.

So you are admitting Obama would be ordering US troops to fire on American citizens

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Really it was a question of "legal" secession under the Constitution. The concept was that conventions, not legislatures voted for the Constitution (accepting the social contract), so only conventions elected for the purpose could remove a state from the union (repudiation of the social contract). Philosophically, the southern states were correct.

However, they were then introduced to another concept of political philosophy: Might makes right.

So, point really proved is, if you are bad enough to kick the other guy's ass, then it doesn't matter what the "right way is" period. Some bullies on here are proud of that fact. I don't think it's anything to be proud of.

But, the point for the future is, if the other side doesn't have the stones to keep the country together no matter what the cost, then the seceding side wins. If the seceding side can kick the ass of the non-seceding side, then the seceding side wins. If they can't then the other side wins. Simple as that. The court will always back the result. Again see White v. Texas.

No seceeding states are going to be able to defeat the US military, they'll be crushed.

If that's what you want, go for it.

So you are admitting Obama would be ordering US troops to fire on American citizens

If they seceeded, they would not be American citizens.

 

[Spoonman]

No seceeding states are going to be able to defeat the US military, they'll be crushed.

If that's what you want, go for it.

So you are admitting Obama would be ordering US troops to fire on American citizens

If they seceeded, they would not be American citizens.

so he would be starting a war with a soveriegn nation then. I got it

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Really it was a question of "legal" secession under the Constitution. The concept was that conventions, not legislatures voted for the Constitution (accepting the social contract), so only conventions elected for the purpose could remove a state from the union (repudiation of the social contract). Philosophically, the southern states were correct.

However, they were then introduced to another concept of political philosophy: Might makes right.

So, point really proved is, if you are bad enough to kick the other guy's ass, then it doesn't matter what the "right way is" period. Some bullies on here are proud of that fact. I don't think it's anything to be proud of.

But, the point for the future is, if the other side doesn't have the stones to keep the country together no matter what the cost, then the seceding side wins. If the seceding side can kick the ass of the non-seceding side, then the seceding side wins. If they can't then the other side wins. Simple as that. The court will always back the result. Again see White v. Texas.

No seceeding states are going to be able to defeat the US military, they'll be crushed.

If that's what you want, go for it.

I was just providing analysis. I didn't state a position. I don't think secession would happen today. I can't see clear lines like there were in the 1860s. It would be pointless for a hadgepodge to secede. If you had something contiguous, maybe. AL, MS, LA, TX & OK maybe? Would northeastern liberals support the body count of an aggressive war against peaceful secessionists? Hmmm. Would the military fire on them? what about the ones from those states? would they stay in the US military or go with their state?

But, I can't see it happening. I think if anything would happen it would be country wide anarchy or revolt. Hotter in some areas than others, but all over.

True, I don't see it happening either. The vast majority of the American citizens are too fat and happy to actually support an armed rebelion.

Some like talking about it though...well, fantasizing is a better word.

Out of curiosity, why the support for Scottish indepenedence?

 

[ArmyCowboy]

So you are admitting Obama would be ordering US troops to fire on American citizens

If they seceeded, they would not be American citizens.

so he would be starting a war with a soveriegn nation then. I got it

He would be bringing rebelling states back into the union, same as Lincoln did.

And before you ask, I personally would have no problem following orders and firing on rebels and traitors

 

[BlindBoo]

Really it was a question of "legal" secession under the Constitution. The concept was that conventions, not legislatures voted for the Constitution (accepting the social contract), so only conventions elected for the purpose could remove a state from the union (repudiation of the social contract). Philosophically, the southern states were correct.

However, they were then introduced to another concept of political philosophy: Might makes right.

So, point really proved is, if you are bad enough to kick the other guy's ass, then it doesn't matter what the "right way is" period. Some bullies on here are proud of that fact. I don't think it's anything to be proud of.

But, the point for the future is, if the other side doesn't have the stones to keep the country together no matter what the cost, then the seceding side wins. If the seceding side can kick the ass of the non-seceding side, then the seceding side wins. If they can't then the other side wins. Simple as that. The court will always back the result. Again see White v. Texas.

No seceeding states are going to be able to defeat the US military, they'll be crushed.

If that's what you want, go for it.

So you are admitting Obama would be ordering US troops to fire on American citizens

Any President would.

 

[konradv]

It's a moot point, since there's no majority in any one state that would vote to secede. It's all a pipe dream that's only been given the life it has by the internet.

 

[EriktheRed]

Seriously, seccession and civil war fantasies are republican porn.

Guess articles like this just give them a reason and an opportunity to fanasize.

except for the fact that the only ones to ever actually attempt to secede have been the democrats. go figure

Y'know, I had this idea you were one of the cons on here smart enough not to go the Democratic-Party-of-today-is-the-same-as-the-Democratic-Party-of-the-Civil-War-era route.

Oh well....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If they seceeded, they would not be American citizens.

so he would be starting a war with a soveriegn nation then. I got it

He would be bringing rebelling states back into the union, same as Lincoln did.

And before you ask, I personally would have no problem following orders and firing on rebels and traitors

Yeah....I wouldnt mind shooting some OWS scum myself. Fucken commies.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Cause and movement conservatives like to talk big shit about standing up to tyranny, their 2nd amendment solutions, seccession etc. But that's all it is, talk and fantasy.

After they're done talking, they go home, eat dinner and watch NCIS with their fat wives, fantasizing about being tough and killing bad guys.

Have to disagree with you on that one.

People like JB and his minions on this board actually want an excuse to murder (in cold blood) anyone who disagrees with their rw dogma. "Civil war" is just a code for that goal.

I see a lot of talk about "code words" from people on the left. In reality though, either I'm highly untrusted by my brethren on the right, or we don't have all these code words. However, I have seen a lot of "code words" used by those on the left. So maybe all this talk is just transference.

You're not seriously trying to claim that only the left uses jargon as code, and only the right says exactly what they mean, are you?

No real lawyer would touch that one....

 

[Avatar4321]

Some of you here have your hearts too full of violence.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

JB Williams -- Is Obama Pushing for a Civil War?

No, but the redneck evangelical rightwing nut jobs are.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Some of you here have your hearts too full of violence.

They do indeed. And for the most part they are armchair warriors who have no idea what they are talking about. If chest-thumping was a terminal illness, these twits would be dead by now.

 

[Avatar4321]

Some of you here have your hearts too full of violence.

They do indeed. And for the most part they are armchair warriors who have no idea what they are talking about. If chest-thumping was a terminal illness, these twits would be dead by now.

Im not convinced you aren't included in my original statement. Especially with the hostility you have in your language.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Some of you here have your hearts too full of violence.

They do indeed. And for the most part they are armchair warriors who have no idea what they are talking about. If chest-thumping was a terminal illness, these twits would be dead by now.

Yeah.....and if brains were dynamite you couldnt blow your nose.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here's another person who is interested in inciting a civil war as well....................

Stand and Fight | The Daily Caller

 

[HomeInspect]

JB Williams -- Is Obama Pushing for a Civil War?

Paranoid much?

I'd much rather be paranoid than naive and complacent. Being prepared even when something doesn't happen, keeps you from asking "how did that happen?"

 

[ArmyCowboy]

so he would be starting a war with a soveriegn nation then. I got it

He would be bringing rebelling states back into the union, same as Lincoln did.

And before you ask, I personally would have no problem following orders and firing on rebels and traitors

Yeah....I wouldnt mind shooting some OWS scum myself. Fucken commies.

Do you have the stones to actually put on a uniform or do you jut like to talk tough behind a computer?