Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Citizens of multiple states create online petitions to secede from the US.


  • Please log in to reply
253 replies to this topic

#181 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,566 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:37 PM

I haven't really weighed in on this one yet but... yeah, they're pretty damned stupid. Like Nanuq said, love it or leave it.

Not happy with the government? Run for office yourself or support your candidate of choice for next time. Get out and tell people about the issues that are important to you.

Start a silly petition to secede just because you don't like the current president? Ignorant.

No doubt our country is severely divided and it really sucks. We need some real leaders to step up and run for office instead of these stupid, useless, bought-and-paid-for morons we have in DC now. These people exist, I've met them... but they don't want any part of the corrupt system, and unfortunately a lot of people with good intentions that do run for office become corrupted in the process. The money flows too freely from the lobbyists and corporations.

#182 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,006 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:41 PM

It was greed that led to it. Greed on the lenders and the lendees.

They got bailed out. They gave incentives to buy homes.

But those welfare queens and their cellphones...


Lets secede!


You are conveniently forgetting that it was the government's intervention in the market to force lending institutions to make more and more mortgages to those who could not afford them that was the start if the entire problem. They changed the lending debt ratios and forced banks to make the loans. Then they want to point their fingers at the banks when they went bad,

The banks were at fault as well, but the gov't bears a huge responsibility in the entire fiasco.

#183 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,328 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:00 PM

Burn the mother fuger down and start over.

#184 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:17 PM

These petitioners have willfully imposed their narrow minded personal beliefs on other Americans for countless generations. Many of these people have no doubt, proudly worn tee shirts that said "America, Love It or Leave It!"

Now that their FOX bubble has been busted, petitioners no longer want to participate in America's great democratic experiment. For them, apparently, America and democracy are only great when they are the winners. What happened to the US being the greatest nation on earth? Not so long ago, petitioners, were quick to say others weren't "Real Americans", "Time to take back America", now these same individuals want to break the country apart?

Seems to me, petitioners are "Sunshine Patriots", yellow bellied and spineless. Their first instinct is to cut and run, when thing don't go their way. They are nothing more than cowards and represent the worst aspects of America, not the best. Petitioners are little more than modern day Benedict Arnolds. Hopefully, history will remember them and their act of treason just as fondly.

Petitioners, do "Real Americans" everywhere a big favor and heed your tee shirt's advice...

America, Love it, or Leave it!


America was created to be a republic, not a democracy. There is a very good reason for that. What we have now is a socialist democratic electorate. If the imposition is upon anyone, it is on those persons that would have the Constitution actually upheld rather than ignored as it has been for over a century

#185 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:19 PM

Unconstitutional to the branch that was put in place to decide what is & isn't constitutional, or unconstitutional to a bunch of people who... what... just happened to start signing petitions when their guy lost the election?


The Constitution is not a long document and it isn't hard to comprehend. Case law is long outside the bounds of what was originally set forth to be the supposed law for government over the American citizenry.

#186 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:25 PM

I haven't really weighed in on this one yet but... yeah, they're pretty damned stupid. Like Nanuq said, love it or leave it.

Not happy with the government? Run for office yourself or support your candidate of choice for next time. Get out and tell people about the issues that are important to you.

Start a silly petition to secede just because you don't like the current president? Ignorant.

No doubt our country is severely divided and it really sucks. We need some real leaders to step up and run for office instead of these stupid, useless, bought-and-paid-for morons we have in DC now. These people exist, I've met them... but they don't want any part of the corrupt system, and unfortunately a lot of people with good intentions that do run for office become corrupted in the process. The money flows too freely from the lobbyists and corporations.


For myself, I believe we are nearing a threshold that is well over a century coming. Near as I can tell, there is no reason to even mention the Constitution anymore as it is continually deemed irrelevant at every turn. The premise was founded on the principle of living freely with the function of government serving as the protection of its citizens rights and little more. That is long gone, and for those of us that care to see it for what it is, the system is irreparably broken. Perhaps there will be another republic that will endeavour to do what our forefathers did and put their faith in a man's ability to actually live free. Until that time, there is nowhere to go. We can only read the history of days long gone when the notion of liberty was not only understood, but sought.

#187 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,386 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:19 PM

lol the guy who started the Alabama petition did it because the city government shut down his topless carwash.

http://blog.al.com/l..._says_work.html

#188 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:34 PM

The Constitution is not a long document and it isn't hard to comprehend. Case law is long outside the bounds of what was originally set forth to be the supposed law for government over the American citizenry.


So unconstitutional to a bunch of people who just happened to start signing petitions when their guy lost the election.

The constitution is a living, breathing document.The interpretation of it in 1789 may or may not apply in 2012. I know people like you hate hearing that, but I couldn't possibly give any less of a fug. You need to keep hearing it until it sinks in.

Also, it's laughable you hold up "what was originally set forth" to a person who, if born in that era, would have been property for 75 years after it was written. Doubly funny that you would sneer at case law when if not for case law, it would be quite possible that there would be a significant portion of the country where my marriage would be illegal.

This talk of seceding isn't some noble quest to honor the constitution, it's a temper tantrum thrown by those who didn't get their way.

#189 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:10 AM

America was created to be a republic, not a democracy.


Really? That's the first time I've heard that one. :cool: The USA is not a true republic or true democracy but thanks for trying to enlighten me.

There is a very good reason for that. What we have now is a socialist democratic electorate. If the imposition is upon anyone, it is on those persons that would have the Constitution actually upheld rather than ignored as it has been for over a century


You are right; things have just gone to hell in a hand basket these last hundred years.

What with those child labor laws increasing the cost of production. Allowing those emotional women with their crazy ideas to vote like they were actually men! Eliminating the Jim Crow laws so those darkies can vote without being intimidated or strung up. That socialist Medicare keepin' old codgers around long past their productive years and that damn FDR commie Social Security keepin' 'em out of poverty to boot. It's all unconstitutional, I tell ya!!!!

Don't even get me started on OSHA, trying to legislate safety in the work place, driving up manufacturing costs just to prevent a few workers from dismemberment and death! Not like there aren't plenty of unemployed people out there to replace the casulties. How about that freakin' socialist EPA, forcing us to drink clean water and breathe fresh air? If that stuff is so important to ya, why don't you move to Canada already? The Feds should just stay in Washington DC where they belong. Let the states take care of their own business. Go states rights! Speaking of business, why don’t they just let the private sector sort it all out? They are always more efficent than government, amiright?

Man, you have really opened my eyes twylyght! Our flawless founding fathers must be rolling in their graves right now!

Tell ya what, we need to get back to the true intent of the Constitution, one gentrified white land owner/one vote! No doubt, Romney would have won for sure then! Man, we could've gotten back to the serious business of business. Reliving the golden age of our fore fathers from a century ago! A time when no one ever dared to question the white man's exclusive franchise on running this great country!

Yep, those were the days!

Hey, when you get back to that perfect time in the earlier 20th century, please inform President Wilson and congress that they don't know what they're talking about either. On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to seek a Declaration of War against Germany in order that the world “be made safe for democracy.” Four days later, Congress voted to declare war. What a bunch of dummies! If they had only voted to make the world safe for republics, everything would have worked out so much better. :abe:

#190 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,935 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:49 AM

More secession!

Posted Image

#191 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,006 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:32 AM

lol the guy who started the Alabama petition did it because the city government shut down his topless carwash.

http://blog.al.com/l..._says_work.html


Actually, that is the best reason I heard from any of them.

We need more Topless Carwashes in this country.

#192 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:38 AM

So unconstitutional to a bunch of people who just happened to start signing petitions when their guy lost the election.

The constitution is a living, breathing document.The interpretation of it in 1789 may or may not apply in 2012. I know people like you hate hearing that, but I couldn't possibly give any less of a fug. You need to keep hearing it until it sinks in.

Also, it's laughable you hold up "what was originally set forth" to a person who, if born in that era, would have been property for 75 years after it was written. Doubly funny that you would sneer at case law when if not for case law, it would be quite possible that there would be a significant portion of the country where my marriage would be illegal.

This talk of seceding isn't some noble quest to honor the constitution, it's a temper tantrum thrown by those who didn't get their way.


Again, you assume I'm a republican when that is far from the case.

Saying that the Constitution is a living document in the way that you say it is wrong. It is a living document in that it can be amended. Nothing more. To insinuate anything else is simply to assert your own values where they don't exist otherwise. This is what has become of precedent as we know it today. If it has anything to do with the Constitution, it is only by chance.

Were the Constitution actually upheld, it would have NOTHING to do with marriage at all. It would only be held to the standards of consensual contracts of living together and nothing more. No licenses needed to get married. No restrictions on whome you can marry. The document was designed with an inherent distrust of centralized governmental power given its many rules on what the federal government CANNOT do rather than what it CAN do.

Yet another failed attempt to paint me as something that I am not.

#193 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:57 AM

Really? That's the first time I've heard that one. :cool: The USA is not a true republic or true democracy but thanks for trying to enlighten me.



You are right; things have just gone to hell in a hand basket these last hundred years.

What with those child labor laws increasing the cost of production. Allowing those emotional women with their crazy ideas to vote like they were actually men! Eliminating the Jim Crow laws so those darkies can vote without being intimidated or strung up. That socialist Medicare keepin' old codgers around long past their productive years and that damn FDR commie Social Security keepin' 'em out of poverty to boot. It's all unconstitutional, I tell ya!!!!

Don't even get me started on OSHA, trying to legislate safety in the work place, driving up manufacturing costs just to prevent a few workers from dismemberment and death! Not like there aren't plenty of unemployed people out there to replace the casulties. How about that freakin' socialist EPA, forcing us to drink clean water and breathe fresh air? If that stuff is so important to ya, why don't you move to Canada already? The Feds should just stay in Washington DC where they belong. Let the states take care of their own business. Go states rights! Speaking of business, why don’t they just let the private sector sort it all out? They are always more efficent than government, amiright?

Man, you have really opened my eyes twylyght! Our flawless founding fathers must be rolling in their graves right now!

Tell ya what, we need to get back to the true intent of the Constitution, one gentrified white land owner/one vote! No doubt, Romney would have won for sure then! Man, we could've gotten back to the serious business of business. Reliving the golden age of our fore fathers from a century ago! A time when no one ever dared to question the white man's exclusive franchise on running this great country!

Yep, those were the days!

Hey, when you get back to that perfect time in the earlier 20th century, please inform President Wilson and congress that they don't know what they're talking about either. On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to seek a Declaration of War against Germany in order that the world “be made safe for democracy.” Four days later, Congress voted to declare war. What a bunch of dummies! If they had only voted to make the world safe for republics, everything would have worked out so much better. :abe:


http://wiki.answers....and_a_democracy

Jim Crow laws were instituted in spite of the Constitution, not to enforce it.

Second Bill of Rights bears a lot more commonality with the pillars of Communism rather than a democratic Republic.

The EPA largely defeats the purpose for which it was supposedly designed

The Commerce clause was designed to resolve interstate disputes and regulate interstate trade, not make it mandatory

If you would like to start comparing government to the private sector, why don't you start with market investment vs social security investment, the fed vs the gold standard, British health care being hailed as the model while most living with it have to invest in supplemental health care if they want anything worth a damn, Canadian health care sponging off the US necessarily to make their system viable, corruption of farming subsidies, IRS with a track record of criminalizing single mothers as they've been targeted for monies from failed marriages, Dewey's continually failed public education system when compared to their private counterparts (see Chicago's teachers making enough to send their own kids to private schools), elected federal politicians never sending kids to public schools, federal politicians not electing to live off the same medical care as what they are about to mandate, federal politicians not electing to abide by any of the rules that they mandate for that matter, governmental cronyism at the bidding of the private sector benefactors to squeeze out small business counterparts, government's reliance on private sector's goods for military munitions, goods, and services.... you want more?... cause it's nearly endless.

And Woodrow Wilson is hardly the argument for a support of a Constitutional government. The ballpark that would be in would be far closer to socialism than a representative republic. Still think it's a democracy? Do a search for the word in the Constitution. Then do a quick search for "republic". Specifically, check Article IV Section 4 and let me know what you find.

#194 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:06 AM

Again, you assume I'm a republican when that is far from the case.

Actually, you are assuming I'm assuming you're a Republican.

Saying that the Constitution is a living document in the way that you say it is wrong. It is a living document in that it can be amended. Nothing more. To insinuate anything else is simply to assert your own values where they don't exist otherwise. This is what has become of precedent as we know it today. If it has anything to do with the Constitution, it is only by chance.

You can repeat that all you want, it's still wrong. Going all the way back to Marshall.

Were the Constitution actually upheld, it would have NOTHING to do with marriage at all. It would only be held to the standards of consensual contracts of living together and nothing more. No licenses needed to get married. No restrictions on whome you can marry. The document was designed with an inherent distrust of centralized governmental power given its many rules on what the federal government CANNOT do rather than what it CAN do.

No. The constitution WAS upheld, & it stopped certain STATES from putting restrictions on my marriage.

Yet another failed attempt to paint me as something that I am not.

How so?

#195 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:44 AM

Actually, you are assuming I'm assuming you're a Republican.

You can repeat that all you want, it's still wrong. Going all the way back to Marshall.

No. The constitution WAS upheld, & it stopped certain STATES from putting restrictions on my marriage.

How so?


You're the one that insinuated that I started this because "my guy lost". No assumptions there... you said it outright.

You can repeat what you wish all you want. The Constitution is pretty plainly written. You'll find next to nothing in that document suggesting what you are asserting. The Federalist Papers were pretty thorough in their discussions on the matter as well.

There is NO mention of marriage in the Constitution. Following that document means that the federal government has no basis for making any ruling on the institution of marriage until there is an amendment saying otherwise (which would be contrary to its original underpinnings). It can aid in rulings regarding domestic contract disputes but nothing more. It simply is not allowed (not that it's stopped all kinds of impropriety)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.