Scotland Was Allowed To Vote On Secession. Why Can't The American States?

[Discombobulated]

I sure that makes perfect sense to a small petulant child.

Translation: you don't want your rule applied to stuff you don't want it applied to. You fully realize your claims are totally irrational, so you hurl ad hominems at anyone who points that out.

Your claim that in principle all things are of the same magnitude, scale and importance is childish.

What difference does the magnitude make? Rules are rules. Either you follow them all the time, or you don't. You know full well you've hoisted yourself on your own petard. You aren't fooling anyone.

Which rule is that? Where do you see that rule in the Constitution? Is it in a rule book on fair play somewhere? Or do you just make up your own rules as you go along?

It's the rule you just enunciated that whatever isn't expressly permitted by the Constitution is prohibited.

Here's your next history lesson........not that it will do you much good.

Race Slavery Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

 

[bripat9643]

Translation: you don't want your rule applied to stuff you don't want it applied to. You fully realize your claims are totally irrational, so you hurl ad hominems at anyone who points that out.

Your claim that in principle all things are of the same magnitude, scale and importance is childish.

What difference does the magnitude make? Rules are rules. Either you follow them all the time, or you don't. You know full well you've hoisted yourself on your own petard. You aren't fooling anyone.

Which rule is that? Where do you see that rule in the Constitution? Is it in a rule book on fair play somewhere? Or do you just make up your own rules as you go along?

It's the rule you just enunciated that whatever isn't expressly permitted by the Constitution is prohibited.

Here's your next history lesson........not that it will do you much good.

Race Slavery Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

I think everyone knows about the existence of slavery prior to the end of the Civil War. Did you know that Lincoln promised to sign a Amendment enshrining slavery into the Constitution if it would prevent the Southern states from seceding? DId you know 4 union states practiced slavery all through the Civil War?

Apparently you're the one who needs the history lessons. Lincoln didn't invade the Southern states to end slavery.

 

[bripat9643]

I have a suggestion for all the people who favor the idea of secession. If you fantasize about rebelling against the diabolical oppression of the federal government and starting your own little nation or kingdom or empire or whatever..... just do this: Move to another country, start a secession movement there and see if people like the idea.

I'd rather secede here so I can shoot your ass when you decide to invade.

Sorry but you don't have my permission to dismember my country.

When did you become the owner? You don't own me or anyone else in this country.

I became the owner right about the time dummies like you thought it would be a good idea to break this nation apart.

Strange: I'm not aware of any title that lists you as the owner of the United States.

 

[bripat9643]

The reason for the Civil War was economics. Conflicts were arising across the country over the slavery issue. The south wanted to continue with free labor after paying an initial price for a human being and further keep any children the slave had as free laborers in-perpetuity. The south didn't believe that non-whites had the same rights as whites.
While there are those who would like for their states to secede, their reason is most likely for the same reason the southern states originally wanted to secede and that is evil.

I got news for you, nimrod, Northerners didn't believe non-whites had the same rights as whites either. In fact, Lincoln himself didn't believe they had the same rights.

No matter what the reason the Southern states wanted to secede, the bottom line is that Lincoln is the one who invaded the South. The South didn't invaded the North. Lincoln wanted war, and that's what he got.

Your history is all screwed up, it was the Confederacy who initiated hostilities with no legal justification of any kind.

Duh . . . wrong. Lincoln sent a force to resupply Ft Sumter. That was an invasion of NC sovereign territory. Only bootlicking morons swallow the Lincoln propaganda that the Confederacy started the war.

You don't know any history at all do you. You really are a very stupid little man.

So far, you're the one who has made all the dumb statements about history, like your idiotic claim that the Constitution spells out rules for secession.

 

[Discombobulated]

Your claim that in principle all things are of the same magnitude, scale and importance is childish.

What difference does the magnitude make? Rules are rules. Either you follow them all the time, or you don't. You know full well you've hoisted yourself on your own petard. You aren't fooling anyone.

Which rule is that? Where do you see that rule in the Constitution? Is it in a rule book on fair play somewhere? Or do you just make up your own rules as you go along?

It's the rule you just enunciated that whatever isn't expressly permitted by the Constitution is prohibited.

Here's your next history lesson........not that it will do you much good.

Race Slavery Civil War Video C-SPAN.org

I think everyone knows about the existence of slavery prior to the end of the Civil War. Did you know that Lincoln promised to sign a Amendment enshrining slavery into the Constitution if it would prevent the Southern states from seceding? DId you know 4 union states practiced slavery all through the Civil War?

Apparently you're the one who needs the history lessons. Lincoln didn't invade the Southern states to end slavery.

I'm well aware of that. In fact I'm well aware of any and all Civil War history. Unlike you. And I'll bet you even believe you have a point make with this post.

 

[Discombobulated]

The reason for the Civil War was economics. Conflicts were arising across the country over the slavery issue. The south wanted to continue with free labor after paying an initial price for a human being and further keep any children the slave had as free laborers in-perpetuity. The south didn't believe that non-whites had the same rights as whites.
While there are those who would like for their states to secede, their reason is most likely for the same reason the southern states originally wanted to secede and that is evil.

I got news for you, nimrod, Northerners didn't believe non-whites had the same rights as whites either. In fact, Lincoln himself didn't believe they had the same rights.

No matter what the reason the Southern states wanted to secede, the bottom line is that Lincoln is the one who invaded the South. The South didn't invaded the North. Lincoln wanted war, and that's what he got.

Your history is all screwed up, it was the Confederacy who initiated hostilities with no legal justification of any kind.

Duh . . . wrong. Lincoln sent a force to resupply Ft Sumter. That was an invasion of NC sovereign territory. Only bootlicking morons swallow the Lincoln propaganda that the Confederacy started the war.

You don't know any history at all do you. You really are a very stupid little man.

So far, you're the one who has made all the dumb statements about history, like your idiotic claim that the Constitution spells out rules for secession.

I never claimed any such thing, that's all you.

 

[bripat9643]

So anything that isn't specifically allowed is prohibited? Apparently gay marriage is also prohibited, right?

I can't imagine how an issue like gay marriage even begins to compare with the foundation of a confederation of states as a republic.

Make up your mind. Either it has to be explicitly permitted or it doesn't. You want to pick and choose.

I sure that makes perfect sense to a small petulant child.

Translation: you don't want your rule applied to stuff you don't want it applied to. You fully realize your claims are totally irrational, so you hurl ad hominems at anyone who points that out.

Didn't see this pissing match. It's not a matter of comparing issues or the importance of them. It is whether they have been addressed. Secession rules are clear and have been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Gay marriage has not...which is derp...why the request thay make a ruling on it has been brought forth.

There are no secession rules printed anywhere. The Supreme Court that ruled on the issue was populated by a gang of Lincoln appointed hacks. What of the chances that they handed down an objective disinterested ruling? They are about the same as the chance of Harry Reid telling the truth, I imagine.

 

[Discombobulated]

I have a suggestion for all the people who favor the idea of secession. If you fantasize about rebelling against the diabolical oppression of the federal government and starting your own little nation or kingdom or empire or whatever..... just do this: Move to another country, start a secession movement there and see if people like the idea.

I'd rather secede here so I can shoot your ass when you decide to invade.

Sorry but you don't have my permission to dismember my country.

When did you become the owner? You don't own me or anyone else in this country.

I became the owner right about the time dummies like you thought it would be a good idea to break this nation apart.

Strange: I'm not aware of any title that lists you as the owner of the United States.

The temporary residents of where ever you come from will never have my permission to dismember my country.

 

[Discombobulated]

I can't imagine how an issue like gay marriage even begins to compare with the foundation of a confederation of states as a republic.

Make up your mind. Either it has to be explicitly permitted or it doesn't. You want to pick and choose.

I sure that makes perfect sense to a small petulant child.

Translation: you don't want your rule applied to stuff you don't want it applied to. You fully realize your claims are totally irrational, so you hurl ad hominems at anyone who points that out.

Didn't see this pissing match. It's not a matter of comparing issues or the importance of them. It is whether they have been addressed. Secession rules are clear and have been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Gay marriage has not...which is derp...why the request thay make a ruling on it has been brought forth.

There are no secession rules printed anywhere. The Supreme Court that ruled on the issue was populated by a gang of Lincoln appointed hacks. What of the chances that they handed down an objective disinterested ruling? They are about the same as the chance of Harry Reid telling the truth, I imagine.

\
If there are no rules then there would have to be legal agreements made between the two parties. Armed rebellion is simply treason.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'd rather secede here so I can shoot your ass when you decide to invade.

How cute, you think you'd get that chance.

If there was a war against the Feds and if the Feds were even half as evil as you all think they are, most of the folks pushing for secession would be dead within the first month from Predator drone strikes. Those that didn't end up wiped out in the initial drone waves would starve to death or die off from lack of medication in the resulting blockades and embargo.

Modern civil wars against centralized governments are completely gruesome affairs. I know there are a lot of internet tough guys that think they'll go all Rambo should a civil war break out. I assure you, that won't happen. Even the most heavily armed civilians don't last long when the police decide to clamp down. The gulf between level of armaments between citizens and police is all but insurmountable even with the second amendment. The gulf between police and military is even steeper.

That's why negotiation is the only real option for secession. Anyone thinking they'll fight their way free is going to have a very short and disappointing life once they take up arms.

 

[MaxGrit]

I'd rather secede here so I can shoot your ass when you decide to invade.

How cute, you think you'd get that chance.

If there was a war against the Feds and if the Feds were even half as evil as you all think they are, most of the folks pushing for secession would be dead within the first month from Predator drone strikes. Those that didn't end up wiped out in the initial drone waves would starve to death or die off from lack of medication in the resulting blockades and embargo.

Modern civil wars against centralized governments are completely gruesome affairs. I know there are a lot of internet tough guys that think they'll go all Rambo should a civil war break out. I assure you, that won't happen. Even the most heavily armed civilians don't last long when the police decide to clamp down. The gulf between level of armaments between citizens and police is all but insurmountable even with the second amendment. The gulf between police and military is even steeper.

That's why negotiation is the only real option for secession. Anyone thinking they'll fight their way free is going to have a very short and disappointing life once they take up arms.

Who won the war in Vietnam?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Who won the war in Vietnam?

Ancient history compared to what the US military is capable of now, especially once the kid gloves are off. Go over and take a look at the hellhole Syria has turned into. Or, if you want to keep looking at Vietnam take a look at the sheer number of casualties the Vietnamese took.

A fair number of folks here think that Obama is some bloodthirsty dictator who would happily spill the blood of patriots to hold together the Union. Let's say that's true. None of the secession movements or militias would last the month up against what the Feds have available.

 

[MaxGrit]

Who won the war in Vietnam?

Ancient history compared to what the US military is capable of now, especially once the kid gloves are off. Go over and take a look at the hellhole Syria has turned into. Or, if you want to keep looking at Vietnam take a look at the sheer number of casualties the Vietnamese took.

A fair number of folks here think that Obama is some bloodthirsty dictator who would happily spill the blood of patriots to hold together the Union. Let's say that's true. None of the secession movements or militias would last the month up against what the Feds have available.

Yep, all it takes to win are some nukes to the major cities, assuming the military didn't split.

 

[bripat9643]

Who won the war in Vietnam?

Ancient history compared to what the US military is capable of now, especially once the kid gloves are off. Go over and take a look at the hellhole Syria has turned into. Or, if you want to keep looking at Vietnam take a look at the sheer number of casualties the Vietnamese took.

A fair number of folks here think that Obama is some bloodthirsty dictator who would happily spill the blood of patriots to hold together the Union. Let's say that's true. None of the secession movements or militias would last the month up against what the Feds have available.

Yep, all it takes to win are some nukes to the major cities, assuming the military didn't split.

You actually believe an American president would nuke an American city?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
\
If there are no rules then there would have to be legal agreements made between the two parties. Armed rebellion is simply treason.

It was self defense not armed rebellion. The south just wanted to be left alone but Honest Abe said no and sent in the troops.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Who won the war in Vietnam?

America did, obviously. We invaded and bombed hell out of their country while they never did anything to us.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

There are no secession rules printed anywhere. .

To the founding fathers there was no need for any such rules. They all believed in states rights and took the right to secede as a given. That's what the revolutionary war was fought over.

 

[bripat9643]

Make up your mind. Either it has to be explicitly permitted or it doesn't. You want to pick and choose.

I sure that makes perfect sense to a small petulant child.

Translation: you don't want your rule applied to stuff you don't want it applied to. You fully realize your claims are totally irrational, so you hurl ad hominems at anyone who points that out.

Didn't see this pissing match. It's not a matter of comparing issues or the importance of them. It is whether they have been addressed. Secession rules are clear and have been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Gay marriage has not...which is derp...why the request thay make a ruling on it has been brought forth.

There are no secession rules printed anywhere. The Supreme Court that ruled on the issue was populated by a gang of Lincoln appointed hacks. What of the chances that they handed down an objective disinterested ruling? They are about the same as the chance of Harry Reid telling the truth, I imagine.

\
If there are no rules then there would have to be legal agreements made between the two parties. Armed rebellion is simply treason.

In other words the Southern states would have to get Lincoln to "agree" to let them secede - something he had no intention of doing.

Go fuck yourself.

You don't make a "legal agreement" with someone who's holding a gun to your head.

 

[Old Rocks]

Who won the war in Vietnam?

Ancient history compared to what the US military is capable of now, especially once the kid gloves are off. Go over and take a look at the hellhole Syria has turned into. Or, if you want to keep looking at Vietnam take a look at the sheer number of casualties the Vietnamese took.

A fair number of folks here think that Obama is some bloodthirsty dictator who would happily spill the blood of patriots to hold together the Union. Let's say that's true. None of the secession movements or militias would last the month up against what the Feds have available.

Yep, all it takes to win are some nukes to the major cities, assuming the military didn't split.

Hey dumb fuck, you think other Americans are going to stand by and watch a bunch of fruitloops destroy the nation for their insane ideologies? Hell no, the military and police would have plenty of help in eridicating you idiots.

 

[bripat9643]

Who won the war in Vietnam?

Ancient history compared to what the US military is capable of now, especially once the kid gloves are off. Go over and take a look at the hellhole Syria has turned into. Or, if you want to keep looking at Vietnam take a look at the sheer number of casualties the Vietnamese took.

A fair number of folks here think that Obama is some bloodthirsty dictator who would happily spill the blood of patriots to hold together the Union. Let's say that's true. None of the secession movements or militias would last the month up against what the Feds have available.

Apparently you believe the forces of the seceding states would line up their men and charge into the machine guns like Picket's charge at Gettysburg. Today there is something called "asymmetrical warfare." It a very simple matter to make sure the politicians and judges who oppose secession have very short terms in office. Today someone can easily and cheaply make a remotely piloted bomb by strapping a couple of sticks of dynamite onto a radio controlled airplane. Just fly that over some hypocrite politician's limo and BLAMO! - scratch one vote against secession.

How long do you think that would go on before the vote was in favor of allowing secession?