why not break up the US into 10 smaller countries?

[Wyatt earp]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

 

[Redfish]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

he is a liberal, liberals are never right about anything

 

[NYcarbineer]

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

So what, when part of a country secedes, it ignores the rules of the old country. Do you know anything about american history?

Yes. I know who won the Civil War. Do you?

 

[Wyatt earp]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

he is a liberal, liberals are never right about anything

Yea I know it is the same as liberals saying "hahaha obama care is the law of the land get used to it " laws change.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

 

[Redfish]

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

So what, when part of a country secedes, it ignores the rules of the old country. Do you know anything about american history?

Yes. I know who won the Civil War. Do you?

The country won and the country lost. The civil war accomplished nothing but the deaths of thousands of americans. There are no winners and losers in civil wars, everyone loses.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

So what, when part of a country secedes, it ignores the rules of the old country. Do you know anything about american history?

Yes. I know who won the Civil War. Do you?

I know who annexed Crimea, do you?

 

[Redfish]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

The British considered the declaration of independence an illegal act. Do you know anything?

Of course secession would be considered illegal, but so what?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

The British considered the declaration of independence an illegal act. Do you know anything?

Of course secession would be considered illegal, but so what?

Go argue with your many rightwing USMB pals who insist that secession is legal then.

 

[Redfish]

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

The British considered the declaration of independence an illegal act. Do you know anything?

Of course secession would be considered illegal, but so what?

Go argue with your many rightwing USMB pals who insist that secession is legal then.

It doesn't matter if its legal or not, thats the point, idiot.

In fact, the constitutions of several states provide for secession from the USA, so it would be legal in those states.

Now, since you claim it would be illegal based on federal statutes, please cite the statute making secession illegal.

 

[Wyatt earp]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

The British considered the declaration of independence an illegal act. Do you know anything?

Of course secession would be considered illegal, but so what?

it's not a he, she is a girl, I do appreciate her following the rules of law and the constitution, but again nothing stopping a few states getting more military might and leaving. It happened all the time in history.

 

[Carla_Danger]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Yes I have. Their schools are shitty, and they leech off the Government. It's the poorest, and the fattest (R) state in the nation. However, we did get some good movies as a result, like Mississippi Burning for example.

 

[Wyatt earp]

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

The British considered the declaration of independence an illegal act. Do you know anything?

Of course secession would be considered illegal, but so what?

Go argue with your many rightwing USMB pals who insist that secession is legal then.

IT DON'T MATTER IF IT WAS LEGAL OR NOT

God damn girl the UN is crap, no Fucking jurdisic system in the world is going to have any power to stop a bunch of states from going there own way if they gained more military power.

The legal crap is over.

 

[Redfish]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Yes I have. Their schools are shitty, and they leech off the Government. It's the poorest, and the fattest (R) state in the nation. However, we did get some good movies as a result, like Mississippi Burning for example.

that movie had as much truth in it as Harry Potter movies. But please stay in whatever libtardian high tax state you live in and enjoy your life in a frozen ghetto.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Will the South rise again? I mean out of poverty. lol

 

[Redfish]

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

The British considered the declaration of independence an illegal act. Do you know anything?

Of course secession would be considered illegal, but so what?

Go argue with your many rightwing USMB pals who insist that secession is legal then.

IT DON'T MATTER IF IT WAS LEGAL OR NOT

God damn girl the UN is crap, no Fucking jurdisic system in the world is going to have any power to stop a bunch of states from going there own way if they gained more military power.

The legal crap is over.

so carbon is a female? might explain some of her posts. probably a bull dyke.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

The British considered the declaration of independence an illegal act. Do you know anything?

Of course secession would be considered illegal, but so what?

Go argue with your many rightwing USMB pals who insist that secession is legal then.

It doesn't matter if its legal or not, thats the point, idiot.

In fact, the constitutions of several states provide for secession from the USA, so it would be legal in those states.

Now, since you claim it would be illegal based on federal statutes, please cite the statute making secession illegal.

Secession is illegal because the states do not have the right ignore federal laws, any more than you do.

For starters, states are the residence of millions of US citizens. Their rights, protections, and responsibilities as US citizens cannot be arbitrarily erased by a state government.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Yes I have. Their schools are shitty, and they leech off the Government. It's the poorest, and the fattest (R) state in the nation. However, we did get some good movies as a result, like Mississippi Burning for example.

that movie had as much truth in it as Harry Potter movies. But please stay in whatever libtardian high tax state you live in and enjoy your life in a frozen ghetto.

Were those 3 Civil Rights workers spotted with Elvis?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Will the South rise again? I mean out of poverty. lol

you don't travel much do you? Send me a private IM and I will send you personally a plane ticket to Greenville South Carolina.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

each one would STILL have far more power (given a few nukes) than 95% of the rest of the world's countries. What is it that you don't like about the idea, hmm? maybe the split up would mean that you can't sit around on your arse, living off of other people? Maybe you could not feel "tough" while "your" troops go oppress other countries in your name? What makes you afraid of this outcome, hmm? Nobody attacks Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, dozens of other rich, small countries, even tho they AInT got nukes. A VERy few nukes suffice to guarantee that Isreal will never be attacked by any large group of people, in any organized fashion, and Isreal doesn't have nuke missiles, nor missile subs. The 8-10 smaller frags of the US could have a nuke missile sub EACH, and have a treaty to defend each other, too. there's nothing to be afraid of, except your own personal weakness and incompetence.

divorce is expensive.