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

#191 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,922
  • Reputation: 5,445
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 20-April 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,965
  • Reputation: 716
  • LocationMissouri
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

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)

#196 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • Joined: 20-April 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,965
  • Reputation: 716
  • LocationMissouri
HUDDLER

Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:19 PM

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

I "insinuated" something I said "outright"? Where?

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.

The Marshall court says different.

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)


That's akin to saying "There's no mention of planes in the constitution so we shouldn't use them in defense of the country".


#197 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:21 PM

I "insinuated" something I said "outright"? Where?

The Marshall court says different.

That's akin to saying "There's no mention of planes in the constitution so we shouldn't use them in defense of the country".


You are just bad at the game of brigand and umbrage... or maybe you are simply that dense

#198 Keep Pounding

Keep Pounding

    Smith & Wesson 460

  • Joined: 22-January 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,802
  • Reputation: 580
  • LocationIn your backyard!!!!
HUDDLER

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:06 PM

Anybody that wants to secede should be labeled terrorist and shot on site. That is just my opinion. There is no way those who want to secede from the Union, would do it in a peaceful manner. Ft Sumter ring a bell?

#199 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • Joined: 24-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,488
  • Reputation: 865
  • LocationGitmo
HUDDLER

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:20 PM

Anybody that wants to succeed should be labeled terrorist and shot on site. That is just my opinion. There is no way those who want to succeed from the Union, would do it in a peaceful manner. Ft Sumter ring a bell?


Lol you sound like DHS. Call me a terrorist and pull the trigger.

#200 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:44 AM

Anybody that wants to secede should be labeled terrorist and shot on site. That is just my opinion. There is no way those who want to secede from the Union, would do it in a peaceful manner. Ft Sumter ring a bell?


does blockade ring a bell?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users