Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Succession or States Rights

50 posts in this topic

Posted

it's not a problem unless you consider discrimination a "state's right."

Any state could also say that there is no such thing at marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Any state could also say that there is no such thing at marriage.

i don't understand how this refutes my statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is a major problem with libs. Give the governing power to the states, and be done with it.

Let folks who hate gays move to arkansas, and those who love it move to florida.

That is a major problem with libs (libertarians). States are just as bad or worse than federal, and big states does not = small government. Local government has less accountability (because it's less visible) and is far more likely to be tyrannical. You also take all humanity and life out of the equation by simply saying "move to another state," as if it's as simple as that. That's asking people to break up families and neighbors by idealogical lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I bet they would figure it out really quickly.

Oil and Trade through the river could be a huge boom for them.

if we lived in the 1800s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They could also make a lot of money from bayonnet production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

thankfully THE MARINE CORPS STILL USES BAYONETS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You guys wonder why no one takes you seriously, but a big reason is your only counterargument tends to be "Nuh uh".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So model ourselves like the EU and let Mississippi become our version of Greece? Sounds like a fantastic idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You guys wonder why no one takes you seriously, but a big reason is your only counterargument tends to be "Nuh uh".

I am not saying that these things are going to happen, nor should they. They are thoughts that run through my mind when looking at how bloated our federal government has become.

Yes, I understand that some states would fare better than others. IMO it would start making people more accountable for their success and failures.

Most hate that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't really have any facts or figures to back up my idea but the only reason people would be against it is because they hate accountability.

FACT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Cool. Let it go broke, or, you know figure out how to make it work.

Why would they change if they can remain the same?

You can't just figure out how to make it work. If you have no money you have no money.

Goods cost the same to the people of Mississippi as it does everywhere else. If you have no money you have no money. You can't repair roads or pay teachers a fair wage.

If you have crappy infrastructure and education good luck ever getting anyone to invest in your state. Instead, the people that have the means to leave will leave and those that don't will be stuck and things will just continue to get worse because those that actually do have money will be gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't really have any facts or figures to back up my idea but the only reason people would be against it is because they hate accountability.

FACT

I think that you and I can both agree that Americans as a whole are less accountable for their actions than 10, 20, 100+ years ago.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. I don't have to show graphs and pie charts to make my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites