dteowner
Shoegazer
I beg to differ, old man. Iz too damn cold up there to attract too many refugees, and God help any of them that end up near Montreal, particularly if they don't have an "eau" or "ois" in their name somewhere.
Gov Perry apparently wasn't kidding concerning Texas Secession
- Thread starter blatantninja
- Start date
vanedor
Keeper of the Watch
Like if we were frequently organizing anti-anglo pogrom around here *roll his eyes*. Actually we love our nice southern neighbour. Especially when they purchase our wood, electricity, and spend money in our restaurants paying provincial taxes for our free healthcare 
You are welcome anytime!
Just too bad you brought us shit such as McDonald and KFC, if you werent fatter than us, I would think it's an evil scheme to make us all fat or something.
You are welcome anytime!
Just too bad you brought us shit such as McDonald and KFC, if you werent fatter than us, I would think it's an evil scheme to make us all fat or something.
Misery loves company...
This only prove that you're arrogant. If you truly were the most reasonable man alive you wouldn't say so with such unchallenged certanity.
So, you're saying you're not a fanatic for the sole reason no one agrees with you? Let's quote dictionary.com for a definition of fanatic:
fa⋅nat⋅ic
a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.
I'd say your uncompromizing views on politics would make you at least fanatic. I mean, you've more or less stated that pepole who don't agree with you don't do so because they're brainwashed.
I acually agree, apart from the bolded areas.
The problem is that this would create a lot of mental unhealth amongst youths, which will reflect on those youths when they become adults, resulting in a lot of unhealthy adults. It would decrease the well being of the population, and therefore is a policy we really shouldn't implement.
A man shouldn't really have any influence on the woman's decision because it's not he who has to go through the pregnancy (or the abortion). He should be able to state his oppinion, but that's it. On the other hand, I don't feel that men who don't want to support their children should be forced to do so: they should have the same option as the mother there. Do they want to raise a child or not? If not, they shouldn't have to.
But on the other hand, I think the man disappearing leaving the mother on her own is a far more common problem than men being forced to pay child support.
If having drugs illegal have better consequences than having them legal then making them illegal is right. I believe so is the case, at least when it comes to the slow suicide that is heroin, methamphetamine and the likes.
But that alcohol and tobacco is the only thing that should be legal is pure hypocricy, at least when everything else is illegal because they're dangerous/harmful.
Ah, that explains a lot. It seems you're suffering from what JemY suffered from when I first came here, IE you've been brainwashed into beliving a bunch of stuff that's clearly not true, and when you examine it you find out that it's all wrong to the point where you think the whole idea you've been raised to believe seems inherently wrong to you. Your political view is simply (well, more or less anyway) a counter reaction to your upbringing.
We have a similiar (if much worse) person on another forum. She used to be a Catholic but is now an Atheist. She spends most of her time trying to convince everyone that Catholics are pepole who spends most of their time torturing kittens (figurativly speaking). As soon as someone sais something based on christianity she takes it as a personal insult. I feel sad for her, mostly. In her hatred for Christians/Catholics she's slowly turning into the very thing she hates. Unregistered is doing a lot better than that, you've just got a few wacky ideas about politics...
That's real open minded of you...
To my suprize I found this really clear-sighted. Have a cookie! (<=And I meant that in a non-condecentind way.)
Übereil
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
So you'd say a fiscal/foreign policy conservative who's not a social con might as well register for the Democratic party? Just curious.
I agree with you that the left pretty much runs the media table - out of curiosity, who would you consider the right's answer to the far, far left people? I consider Ann Coulter, Rush, Hannity, or (sometimes) O'Reilly equivalent to Garofolo, Olbermann, or Michael Moore. And if you're arguing that you want to 'restore balance', how does throwing in a lefty fix the problem of the situation already being too-far skewed to the left?
I'm in complete agreement with you, there.
Well, you were arguing for lower taxes and stopping social programs so all the lazy people can starve to death. That's a pretty conservative argument. Just because no one else agrees with you doesn't mean you can't be a fanatic, by the way, it just means you're not a popular one.
I mostly agree with you (although I do believe the government can put restrictions on private contracts if it's in the best interests of society - and I think restricting gay marriage fails to meet that standard).
I'm mostly pro-life in that I think a fetus has a right to live after a certain point of viability. I agee with Ubereil in the sense that the "kill them until they're 18" thing would create...well, problems. Other then the fact it'd be murder. Eat your vegetables or you get a knife in the chest, I guess?
However, I completely agree about the "man abortion" thing. IMO the Feminist movement is not about equal rights - they want the right to have or not have a kid, because it's "their choice", but it's the man's "fault" and thus should have to pay for the woman's "choice". I've also heard about cases where the man has proven that the woman had an affair and the child is not biologically his, but has still had to pay child support. Rediculous. Fix that and make women register for selective service if feminists really want equal rights.
Agreed. I think all that drug illegalization does is throw a bunch of otherwise harmless people in jail and turn them into actual criminals when they are released. It also costs a lot of people and puts a hell of a lot of money into the pockets of drug cartles and other really, really bad people. Making alcohol illegal created organized crime in the states, after all.
I agree with you on country music, but you are actually both anti-intellectual and...I don't know, anti-salt of the earth at the same time? What group of people do you like and identify with? Is there some like-minded demographic you're cool with?
I come from a pretty agricultural-dominant area of California, and I also was confused as to why people who weren't connected to agri-businesses would wear that sort of thing. I think your argument fails though in that there's no part of the country that was largely run, founded, and operated by dishwashers for a significant length of time. Cowboy/country/western culture, on the other hand, had a pretty significant influence on the development of various areas of the world. Now, when I lived in urban new jersey and I saw people dressed that way, I wanted to spit in their face, so I somewhat get where you are coming from.
I don't know, I think if you took San Francisco and plopped it into the middle of the EU no one would be able to tell the difference. Once again, confused by the anti-intellectual but also anti-not-intellectual things you are saying (unless I am missing the point entirely).
I wouldn't want to, but if there was some sort of civil war and I was drafted I guess I would do it. I don't imagine I'd enjoy shooting someone very much, but I also highly doubt our soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan enjoy having to shoot someone, either.
I don't think attempted secession is "no reason", especially if it begins the way you laid out - seizing of federal buildings, equipment, etc. This wouldn't be just a rogue governor refusing to implement some government decision. It'd be something else entirely. Once again, I'm not itching to go carpet bomb Dallas or Houston, especially since I have a lot of political agreements with people from those regions and then I'd be stuck with the far-left nutjobs of California and New York running the country for a very long time.
I've not been shot at, no. Most I've experienced is being held up at knife and gun point. Didn't enjoy that at all, and I imagine I would enjoy it less if it was a prolonged experience with bullets flying towards me and I'm expected to run at the people doing it, not away from it. Only a few of my friends who have come back from Iraq or Afghanistan have wanted to talk about it, and while they ... were proud of the mission/objective (promote democracy, save Iraqis, whatever) ... it was obviously an experience that changed them for the worse.
These arguments are not really sufficient:
1. The question, if a state has the right to seceede is a question of international law. So a decision in a matter USA vs. "the wanabee seceeding state" cannot be decided by a court of one of the two parties (in this case the USA), because it may obviously be biased.
2. The outcome of a war cannot set a legal precedent. A war is usually won by the side with the stronger army or the stronger economy, not necessarily by the party, which is legally right. So the result cannot prove any legal claim.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,794
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Wrong. Civil Wars are usually settled by the parties involved within the nation-state. There is no recognized international legal right to adjudicate questions of secession. International groups only get involved if there's some sort of egregious human rights violation (and usually not even then) or if it spills over into other parts of the world. And even if that were the case, the US would never allow the UN to rule on any part of its domestic decision making.
Texas v. White clearly decided that states are not free to secede from the union: "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." So unless there is a wide-spread revolution throughout the country or there is another Constitutional Convention convened by the states and we all decide to go our separate ways, secession is illegal.
And the law is usually decided by the victor. Most of the laws used to execute the Nazis at Nuremburg were decided by the victors - most of these things weren't even crimes according to international law (well, what little existed back then) until after the fact (and no allied soldiers were tried for similar crimes.
This may be true, but it doesn't prove your point:
If no internationally accepted law for this question exists, why should the law of one of the two parties involved be objectively right? If the other side had won the civil war, there would have been a court in their federation, which would have decided after the fact that the secession was legal.
Absolutely correct, and this proves my point.
Edit: The point is: In a situation like this the stronger party decides about right or wrong, it is no legal question. By the way I am very happy with the result in the case of the civil war, because it ended slavery. But still all legal justifications are only made after the fact.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,794
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Because one side is the sovereign state with the power and authority to rule on legal matters and the other isn't. What you're arguing basically means any law is invalid because it probably favors the State over some other party. If I say I don't have to pay taxes and the government says I do, why is their law objectively right? If my whole town decides we can execute the mayor for incompetence, why would the state or feds be correct to come arrest us for trying? Your argument would hold some merit if whenever a case came before the Supreme Court the outcome always came out in favor of the US government - which isn't true (Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, etc).
And yes, if the South had won the civil war, the government of *the south* would have ruled their secession to be legal. I'm sure the North would still have ruled it illegal but it wouldn't have had too much ability to enforce that decision if it had lost the war.
No, it doesn't prove that secession is an international law matter (because it's not), it proves that legal precedent can be set by the side that wins a war/conflict. So it proves the opposite of your point. I'm arguing law, not moral justification for an action (which Texas also doesn't have). Rule of law and legalities are maintained with force.
No, I only say that law made after the fact is no law. As far as I know there was no law or ruling in the US BEFORE the civil war stating that secession was illegal.
If you try to say "Might makes right" then you prove my point again.
Again: I don't want to argue for the right of secession or against your position in this regard. I only say that using legal arguments will not prove anything.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,794
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
There couldn't be - no state had tried to secede before the Civil War. The Supreme Court doesn't deal in hypothetical situations. A case has to be brought before the Supreme Court before they will hear it and make a ruling. With the logic you are using, we wouldn't have Miranda rights, desegregated schools, or anything else the Supreme Court has done. So, once this case was brought up, the Supreme Court held that Texas had always been part of the US, even when it was in open rebellion, because it is impossible and illegal for a state to secede. Once again, the Supreme Court doesn't hear cases about hypothetical situations. Someone has to bring a case before the court or challenge a law - it's why no President has ever openly challenged the War Powers Act, in fear that the Supreme Court could actually rule it Constitutional.
Fair enough.
vanedor
Keeper of the Watch
I'm with bkrueger on that one, a state, province, region or whatever wanting to secede, it's a political problem that has to be solved by political means. A civil war is one of these political means but in my opinion, it's usually best be avoided.
Using tribunals, especially national ones is pretty pointless.
Using tribunals, especially national ones is pretty pointless.
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
I've already said that I'm in favor of any secessionists anywhere, as long as it can be managed without killing or unduly inconveniencing anyone.
(In fact, in my perfect world, any administrative division from municipality up with borders with two or more states should be able to decide which one they want to belong to, should said state accept them.)
(In fact, in my perfect world, any administrative division from municipality up with borders with two or more states should be able to decide which one they want to belong to, should said state accept them.)
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
magerette
Hedgewitch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Some in Texas have suggested they explore their other option, which is stay in the Union but turn Texas into 5 separate states. That would make things interesting for everybody. Quintuple the amount of government for the same population in one feel swoop. It would be a great experiment of small government vs big government, also; that is would each quintuplet provide the same or better level of services, etc?
I'm inclined to think they'd best just tough it out.
I'm inclined to think they'd best just tough it out.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
I'm sure the Republicans would dance in the streets in joy if that ever happened. What's that, 8 new Senators for the Republican Party?! Huzzah!
magerette
Hedgewitch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Eight rock-ribbed republicans, unless they get a lone democrat from the Austin area.
I wasn't thinking of myself, though. I just think it would suck largely to remove the 'it's always bigger in Texas' meme from our collective culture. Also--what a mess the transition would be--uggghh--and five times the bureaucrats. Still, maybe Oklahoma could join the federated states of Texas or something, which would be a vast improvement for our highway and education system.
I wasn't thinking of myself, though. I just think it would suck largely to remove the 'it's always bigger in Texas' meme from our collective culture. Also--what a mess the transition would be--uggghh--and five times the bureaucrats. Still, maybe Oklahoma could join the federated states of Texas or something, which would be a vast improvement for our highway and education system.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
dteowner
Shoegazer
I don't know. There's enough immigrants (legal and otherwise) in South Texas to sway the balance. There'd probably be some gerrymandering to keep the numbers safely to the right.
Unrestigered
Banned
- Joined
- February 16, 2009
- Messages
- 352
Okay, Dr. now-it-all, you nailed it! People that state to know the truth of any matter up for opinion are brainwashed, people who are willing to reason and see their opinion is never right (as it is an opinion) are not. I’ll admit to being a fanatic if you will meet me half way and admit you are very dimwitted. Deal? Fair is fair.
Video games create a lot of mental “unhealth” amongst youth, which will reflect on those youths when they become adults, resulting in a lot of unhappy adults. So does competition, discipline, lack of hugs, being told “no,” and everything else. Depending on your mindset children will always have crap thrown at them that is evil/wrong/bad for society no matter what. But your fanatical sense of certainty in this is amazing seeing how dimwitted you are. Usually the dimwitted are smart enough to not be certain about anything, due to being wrong so often.
Maybe we should restrict certain books that don’t have the better consequences of other books, maybe making them illegal would be right. Maybe we should restrict speech that doesn’t have the better consequences of other nicer types of speech. Maybe we should restrict opinions in lieu of opinions that have better consequences.
What is right? What is a better consequence? You are talking opinion with some sort of moral authority and correctness.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." --Daniel Webster
"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty." -- Former Lord Chief Justice Halisham
"Too many people are only willing to defend rights that are personally important to them. It's selfish ignorance, and it's exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people. Freedom does not mean freedom just for the things *I* think I should be able to do. Freedom is for all of us. If people will not speak up for other's people's rights, there will come a day when they will lose their own." - Tony Lawrence
"Once governments are given the authority to restrict the liberty of some sane adults for what it considers their physical or moral welfare, there is no principled stopping point in terms of what governments will have the authority to prohibit. The consequence will be that virtually anything which anyone holds of most value may become prohibited to them on grounds of its being judged immoral or dangerous to them. There are practically no forms of activity in which sane adults like to engage that others are not able to find reasons to condemn as morally or physically bad for those who engage in them. This ranges from drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco, to eating certain types of food, to not taking exercise, to taking too much, engaging in dangerous sports, practising certain religions, not practising any religion, reading books on science, etc. Unless government draws the line at only prohibiting conduct that harms others against their will, no member of society can be secure in being able to do or have anything they most want and value." --David Conway
The only thing I suffer from is the tendency to try and reason with insufferable bastards far too often. What I have is called a constant narrative, an overarching philosophy, which is the freedom for others to do that in which I disagree with. What everyone else has is a hodgepodge amalgamated opinion filled with hypocrisy and contradictions which boils down to, “People should do what I believe to be correct, because my opinion makes sense and is right.” Its childish ignorance, and dangerous.
It a bigoted statement, never intended to be open minded. I don’t want them to be forced to dress like an adult.
No, I was talking about John McCain.
What you agree with is irrelevant. I would see Hannity and Olbermann as counterparts, but not the others in any way shape or form. I see that Olbermann has a lot more elbow room on the vitriol he can use or participate in, unlike Hannity. Neither of them is an extremist loon. O’Reilly is right of center. O’Reilly is only extreme in wanting ratings, not political views. After he got a rating boost after his Obama interview he really bent over backwards to be centrist, sometimes left of center, to maintain the ratings boost. His political views are what will not alienate his base while also expanding it, just like a politician. Michael Moore is a narcissist and a blatant liar. He purposefully lies, twists events into known lies, etc, for selfishness and greed. Garofalo makes her living as a comedian and actor. Coulter is not that extreme, that’s why the famous character assassinations that only come from the left have not been fully successful with her. Find a link to anything Ann coulter, Rush, Hannity, or O’Reilly has said that is comparable to the video I linked to. You can’t. Look at the big fodder people have on Rush. Even if we take it out of context as it was used and explore what was said its no big deal. “I hope Obama fails.” Would anyone even have raised an eyebrow if someone on the left said that about Bush? No. It makes absolute sense that either side wants the other to fail, because they believe their side is right and that kind of steals the wind from the sails if the other side succeeds. The equivalent on the right for a Garofolo is Pat Robinson and people of his ilk. Nuts vs. Nuts. Not people that can reason vs. People that can reason.
No, and stop claiming to know my reasons. I wouldn’t say a word if taxes stayed the same and all the money went to programs hell-bent on forcing the people dependent on the State to work. I wouldn’t care if all the money that goes to making sure lazy people don’t have to work was spent on a million factories in which the people were forced to go to and build something that was destroyed by the night shift and then rebuilt again them the next day. It’s fairness. If I have to work for a living I want everyone to. The same reason I hate pirates. If I pay for it I want everyone to pay. I don’t want my money going to some fat lazy bastard factory who watches Judge Whatever all day, while I’m at work wishing I was at home eating McDonalds and watching Judge Whatever all day. And a million other reasons I’ll talk about in my cult post that I’ll get to if I I don’t have to keep replying to nonsensical yackity-smackity.
Well, again what you think should have nothing to do with it. Can adults enter into contracts? Yes. Would the contracts cause any direct physical harm to anyone? No. No restriction. And who is to say what is and isn’t in the best interest of society? Freedom is not in the best interest of society. Go to communist China and see how nice a government that makes policy for the best interest of society can be (and it is nice, truly). It’s not bad if you like order and black and white. Read this article: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/jackie-chans-china-comments-prompt-backlash-ap
Let me repost a quote I used above:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." --Daniel Webster
What happened to the best interest of society? How does everyone’s wishy-washyness not cause their brains to explode?
I’m pro-intellectual, that’s why I don’t like college kids and professors. Every professor I had but a couple spoon fed their propaganda down their student’s throats, and the students lined up and asked for more like a bunch of f**king lemmings. I actually had an English professor that pretty much exclusively talked about how much he hated Bush. It was good learning let me tell you. If that’s intellectualism then yes, I’m anti-it. And neither college professors nor most students work or have real jobs. I work for a living, and like people who do as well. And teachers are always whining while they have like a 6 hour work day and weeks off all over the place and are paid ridiculous salaries for the silly thing they call work. Don’t forget the summers off. Daycare center staff have jobs that are infinitely harder without weeks and summers off and are paid shit, and you don’t hear them whining. Bank tellers and call center operators have much more difficult jobs and are paid far less than teachers and don’t have like 8 months vacation and don’t whine nonstop. I would love to have a job where I could just go around smacking the bitch out of whiny ass teachers all day, and then I’d fire them and make them get a real job and laugh at the fear I saw in their eyes.
Why are you so filled with hate and rage?
What, the EU isn’t filled with hillbillies? And what does this have to do with anything?
I’m sure Texas will let the US open an embassy there. Stop whining. To the victor goes the spoils.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 352
A question:
All on itself, not counting any of the context surrounding it.
Does anyone/everyone here believe it is wrong for some people to want and get independence ?
All on itself, not counting any of the context surrounding it.
Does anyone/everyone here believe it is wrong for some people to want and get independence ?
Actually you're both wrong; there is a farily large body of international law dealing with state formation and sucession which would pretty clearly hold Teaxs has no right to do so.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 668