77 replies to this topic

[twylyght]

No one goes to jail for objecting to paying taxes on whatever grounds they present. You are free to object to paying them, as long as you pay them. They go to jail because they don't pay taxes, and that is against the law, has nothing to do with seccession.

way to dodge the intent of the response in favor of verbal gymnastics. you stated that no one would bother secessionists if they simply went about their way. i gave an example of otherwise. care to duck again or take a real swipe at it?

[mmmbeans]

f*cking hippies.

[Panthro]

I love the whiny babies republicans. We can't fix the 'merica we destroyed under Bush 2 and now we want out...can we keep all this infrastructure?

[twylyght]

i love the assertion that i am/was pro-bush. you love to label what you refuse to understand as a catch-all enemy. especially to try and divert from the proposed topic at hand when you are clearly on the losing end of a logical exercise.

btw - just where do you think the federal government got all of its resources to build said infrastructure?

[Panthro]

You keep changing the topic to suit your discussion.

How can it be peaceful if people do not want to secede?

Well, uh, it's a majority.

So 51-49&?

No, um, like, at least 80%.

So what happens to those 20%?

Ugh, they can stay under the new flag or leave....all peaceful btw.

This makes no sense. You are just making up weird scenarios and complain when anyone points out the fallacy in your topic.

librul!

[twylyght]

you asked a reasonable question hinting at the threshold necessary for peaceful secession to be viable. i responded. you cried.

care to answer the prior response or would you like to try and change the discussion again yourself?

[NanceUSMC]

If I understand the OP correctly, the question can be simplified to one distinct meaning:

How many military individuals here would be willing to fire on peacefully protesting civilians wishing to secede, in order to preserve the Union?

[Davidson Deac II]

way to dodge the intent of the response in favor of verbal gymnastics. you stated that no one would bother secessionists if they simply went about their way. i gave an example of otherwise. care to duck again or take a real swipe at it?

And no one will bother them if they go about their business and don't break the law.

If the break the law, then they will be arrested. No military personnel will open fire on them, they will simply go to jail.

[twylyght]

If I understand the OP correctly, the question can be simplified to one distinct meaning:

How many military individuals here would be willing to fire on peacefully protesting civilians wishing to secede, in order to preserve the Union?

very succint. my thanks sir. i could even expand that to willingness to fire on other military personnel seeking to ensure a peaceful secession if we want to look down that rabbit hole

[Panthro]

zero i would hope. It is their right to peacefully protest and freedom of speech protects them.

[twylyght]

And no one will bother them if they go about their business and don't break the law.

If the break the law, then they will be arrested. No military personnel will open fire on them, they will simply go to jail.

and if the "law" they break is unconstitutional, they are wrongly imprisoned. hence another reason for the idea of secession... hence the very reason that secession conditions were included with the signing of the constitution

[thatlookseasy]

explain to me where my own hypothetical is wrong

Well, to start with most Americans are so unconcerned with the government that they dont vote, so I have a hard time believing that 80% of a state could agree on anything, much less something as big as secession.

Simply saying, "but what if people were completely different than they are" doesnt make it an argument.

I suppose you cant technically be "wrong" about a hypothetical, but if you're going to make a completely implausible hypothetical at least make it on an interesting subject. A better one would be- "If Hurricane Sandy was actually a disease and instead of raining on people it turned them into zombies, should the rest of the country try to take back the North Eastern US or just quarantine the area and nuke it. And if so does that count as seceding"

[twylyght]

Well, to start with most Americans are so unconcerned with the government that they dont vote, so I have a hard time believing that 80% of a state could agree on anything, much less something as big as secession.

Simply saying, "but what if people were completely different than they are" doesnt make it an argument.

I suppose you cant technically be "wrong" about a hypothetical, but if you're going to make a completely implausible hypothetical at least make it on an interesting subject. A better one would be- "If Hurricane Sandy was actually a disease and instead of raining on people it turned them into zombies, should the rest of the country try to take back the North Eastern US or just quarantine the area and nuke it. And if so does that count as seceding"

i guess you're right. it's so implausible that it's never happened before.... or ever will again

[NanceUSMC]

zero i would hope. It is their right to peacefully protest and freedom of speech protects them.

Now let's add slightly to that...

Let's say there are enough of those peaceful protesters that the desire of the state to secede was actually the majority opinion, and secession was actually plausible...

What level of force is then acceptable to ensure the continuity of the Union? Or, if that's the majority, should the US just let them go?

[Davidson Deac II]

and if the "law" they break is unconstitutional, they are wrongly imprisoned. hence another reason for the idea of secession... hence the very reason that secession conditions were included with the signing of the constitution

If they were unconstitutional, then seccession might be the right move, although it would not be peaceful under any circumstances.

The basic flaw in it though is that the vast majority of people don't understand the constitution well enough to determine if something is or is not constutional. Take taxes for example. As Justice Roberts said, congress has the right to require individuals to pay taxes. There is no serious legal opposition to that right. Yet we still see some individuals contest the government's right to collect taxes.