Where do you stand on State succession?

[Dutch]

If Texas seceded, then a lot of the South would probably go with them. Ironically wanting to maintain slavery was one of the big reasons the South seceded the first time, and this time it would be to escape slavery...

If Texas secedes, the U.S will be better off.

And bonus, you'd be rid of me too because I'd move there

And you'd be scrambling back over the boarder within a month.

 

[kaz]

If Texas secedes, the U.S will be better off.

And bonus, you'd be rid of me too because I'd move there

And you'd be scrambling back over the boarder within a month.

Why would I do that?

 

[Nosmo King]

North Korea and Cuba come to mind.

Sorry. Check your dictionary. Those are Authoritarian states. I'm thinking more like Norway and Sweden..

Your belief that "socialist" and "authoritarian" are mutually exclusive is hilarious. Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries, BTW.

[Unless you either really don't know what socialism is or your thought process is clouded by Right Wing propaganda, conflating Communist authoritarianism and socialism is a foolish argument.

We conflate nothing. We aren't suffering from the leftwing delusion that socialism is a euphemism meaning "earthly paradise."

I pity the ignorant. You don't know enough about political terminology to form a cogent argument. Adios!

 

[Dutch]

North Korea and Cuba come to mind.

Sorry. Check your dictionary. Those are Authoritarian states. I'm thinking more like Norway and Sweden..

Your belief that "socialist" and "authoritarian" are mutually exclusive is hilarious. Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries, BTW.

[Unless you either really don't know what socialism is or your thought process is clouded by Right Wing propaganda, conflating Communist authoritarianism and socialism is a foolish argument.

We conflate nothing. We aren't suffering from the leftwing delusion that socialism is a euphemism meaning "earthly paradise."

Then you would be fine if we adopted the same healthcare practices as Sweden and Norway?

 

[Nosmo King]

Sorry. Check your dictionary. Those are Authoritarian states. I'm thinking more like Norway and Sweden..

Your belief that "socialist" and "authoritarian" are mutually exclusive is hilarious. Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries, BTW.

[Unless you either really don't know what socialism is or your thought process is clouded by Right Wing propaganda, conflating Communist authoritarianism and socialism is a foolish argument.

We conflate nothing. We aren't suffering from the leftwing delusion that socialism is a euphemism meaning "earthly paradise."

Then you would be fine if we adopted the same healthcare practices as Sweden and Norway?

Not the same exact methods, but similar. I believe there are parts of the template used in Scandinavia that would work. I'm open to new ideas and suggestions as the old way of insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and whenever a claim is made was nothing but the World's most elaborate Ponzi scheme.

 

[Edgetho]

North Korea and Cuba come to mind.

Sorry. Check your dictionary. Those are Authoritarian states. I'm thinking more like Norway and Sweden..

Your belief that "socialist" and "authoritarian" are mutually exclusive is hilarious. Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries, BTW.

[Unless you either really don't know what socialism is or your thought process is clouded by Right Wing propaganda, conflating Communist authoritarianism and socialism is a foolish argument.

We conflate nothing. We aren't suffering from the leftwing delusion that socialism is a euphemism meaning "earthly paradise."

socialism comes in dozens of flavors. Some of them quite benign.

marxism is not. marxists should be shot on sight. There should be a bounty on them. An open season. Maybe even a contest to see who can bag the most in a single day.

Our dimocrap scumbag pals seem to think (because they're REALLY, REALLY STUPID), that marxism and socialism are one and the same. Mostly because all they know about socialism is marxism.

But, like I said..... They're really stupid.

 

[Nosmo King]

Sorry. Check your dictionary. Those are Authoritarian states. I'm thinking more like Norway and Sweden..

Your belief that "socialist" and "authoritarian" are mutually exclusive is hilarious. Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries, BTW.

[Unless you either really don't know what socialism is or your thought process is clouded by Right Wing propaganda, conflating Communist authoritarianism and socialism is a foolish argument.

We conflate nothing. We aren't suffering from the leftwing delusion that socialism is a euphemism meaning "earthly paradise."

socialism comes in dozens of flavors. Some of them quite benign.

marxism is not. marxists should be shot on sight. There should be a bounty on them. An open season. Maybe even a contest to see who can bag the most in a single day.

Our dimocrap scumbag pals seem to think (because they're REALLY, REALLY STUPID), that marxism and socialism are one and the same. Mostly because all they know about socialism is marxism.

But, like I said..... They're really stupid.

Be prepared to be refuted by britpat! Or are you saying britpat is really REALLY stupid? My money is on the latter.

 

[Knightfall]

I'm surprised to see the poll two to one for the right of seccession. Who knew?

There was no option that really spoke to my view. I believe it is a state's right, but I am not eager for it. I think it would be dangerous to have the United States broken into two or more smaller countries for a multitude of reasons that are not worth pursuing in this discussion, but if given a straight up decision of staying as is or leaving for a system more closely resembling the government of the Constitution, I'd leave.

As for why I think seccession is the right of any State, there are two reasons. First, I find the idea that the Founding Fathers who had to fight a war to gain their own independence would have created a system wherein you would be locked into it and have no right to peacefully leave absolutely laughable. The idea that people must continue to be in bonds to a government which goes against their own principles and no longer represents their interests goes against the very foundation principle that the government gets it authority from the consent of the governed. I could go on with this train of thought for awhile explaining exactly how it is inconsistent with every principle of the Founding Fathers, but why belabor this self-evident point?

Second, the only alternative to the right of secession is to grant the Federal government a right which was never given to it in the Constitution. Since the Federal government has only certain specified areas of authority, anything not spelled out in the Constitution as the power of the Federal Government is something that the Federal Government is not allowed to do. I don't see any provision in the Constitution that says a state cannot peacefully leave the Union, so it should be allowed.

And what funding or contracts would these defense and aerospace companies rely on for their proffits? The US government spends more on defense than all other countries combined. Do you actually think they would deal with you idiots that left? I would think they would also nudge our alloes not to deal with you either.

No, of course not. No company wants to make money by selling things, they would of course share your bitterness and refuse to deal with us and pass on the business because of resentment. Obviously no country the size of Texas, much of the south as well as possibly Arizona, Oklahoma in the world can afford a military.

You sir, are a tool

And what equipment would this "new army" have? What currency are you going to use to pay for this equpment? What reserves do you have to back up that currency? I guess companies will just go on your word as a "Southern Gentleman".

Dutch, you speak of this as if it has never before been done that a nation has begun and formed its own currency. It happens quite frequently, actually, though that is not to say that it is an easy task.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In this country now you have to secede to succeed! And that's a non answer, the question is what do you support. As if I don't know the answer of a big government "conservative." But I do like the formality.

1. A state can't legally, or constitutionally if you prefer, secede. For starters, the Supremacy Clause prevents it.

That argument has been shot down 1000 times.

2. U.S. citizens have a right to the protections of the federal government that cannot be taken away from them by state law, including any act of secession.

Only so long as it remains part of the union.

I'm a resident of New York State, but I'm a citizen of the United States. No state government has the right to revoke my U.S. citizenship,

and everything that comes with that.

 

[kaz]

There was no option that really spoke to my view. I believe it is a state's right, but I am not eager for it. I think it would be dangerous to have the United States broken into two or more smaller countries for a multitude of reasons that are not worth pursuing in this discussion, but if given a straight up decision of staying as is or leaving for a system more closely resembling the government of the Constitution, I'd leave.

So it sounds other than the last bit that the third choice is pretty accurate for you. It's impossible to capture every possible view precisely, you sort of have to view it as a bucket.

 

[Dutch]

I'm surprised to see the poll two to one for the right of succession. Who knew?

There was no option that really spoke to my view. I believe it is a state's right, but I am not eager for it. I think it would be dangerous to have the United States broken into two or more smaller countries for a multitude of reasons that are not worth pursuing in this discussion, but if given a straight up decision of staying as is or leaving for a system more closely resembling the government of the Constitution, I'd leave.

As for why I think succession is the right of any State, there are two reasons. First, I find the idea that the Founding Fathers who had to fight a war to gain their own independence would have created a system wherein you would be locked into it and have no right to peacefully leave absolutely laughable. The idea that people must continue to be in bonds to a government which goes against their own principles and no longer represents their interests goes against the very foundation principle that the government gets it authority from the consent of the governed. I could go on with this train of thought for awhile explaining exactly how it is inconsistent with every principle of the Founding Fathers, but why belabor this self-evident point?

Second, the only alternative to the right of succession is to grant the Federal government a right which was never given to them in the Constitution. Since the Federal government has only certain specified areas of authority, anything not spelled out in the Constitution as the power of the Federal Government is something that the federal government is not allowed to do. I don't see any provision in the Constitution that says a state cannot peacefully leave the Union, so it should be allowed.

No, of course not. No company wants to make money by selling things, they would of course share your bitterness and refuse to deal with us and pass on the business because of resentment. Obviously no country the size of Texas, much of the south as well as possibly Arizona, Oklahoma in the world can afford a military.

You sir, are a tool

And what equipment would this "new army" have? What currency are you going to use to pay for this equpment? What reserves do you have to back up that currency? I guess companies will just go on your word as a "Southern Gentleman".

Dutch, you speak of this as if it has never before been done that a nation has begun and formed its own currency. It happens quite frequently, actually, though that is not to say that it is an easy task.

It's a hell of alot harder in the global economy if the 21st century the the 18th century.

 

[kaz]

Where do you stand on State succession?

Who doesn't want success??

Or do you mean like the way Tennessee evolved out of North Carolina? That kind of succession?

Kazin It, you are a strange strange person.

Oh sorry, didn't mean to assume you're a person...

So when you read that, it actually sounds good to you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a state seceded, the US government would not recognize it. The fed could simply declare the state to be in rebellion, and,

For starters, the US government could abolish every federal government job in that state,

cancel every government contract going to businesses in that state, close every federal building and installation,

including all military bases in that state,

and then suspend all federal government payments to residents of that state,

not the least of which would be Social Security and Medicare.

 

[kaz]

I'm surprised to see the poll two to one for the right of succession. Who knew?

There was no option that really spoke to my view. I believe it is a state's right, but I am not eager for it. I think it would be dangerous to have the United States broken into two or more smaller countries for a multitude of reasons that are not worth pursuing in this discussion, but if given a straight up decision of staying as is or leaving for a system more closely resembling the government of the Constitution, I'd leave.

As for why I think succession is the right of any State, there are two reasons. First, I find the idea that the Founding Fathers who had to fight a war to gain their own independence would have created a system wherein you would be locked into it and have no right to peacefully leave absolutely laughable. The idea that people must continue to be in bonds to a government which goes against their own principles and no longer represents their interests goes against the very foundation principle that the government gets it authority from the consent of the governed. I could go on with this train of thought for awhile explaining exactly how it is inconsistent with every principle of the Founding Fathers, but why belabor this self-evident point?

Second, the only alternative to the right of succession is to grant the Federal government a right which was never given to them in the Constitution. Since the Federal government has only certain specified areas of authority, anything not spelled out in the Constitution as the power of the Federal Government is something that the federal government is not allowed to do. I don't see any provision in the Constitution that says a state cannot peacefully leave the Union, so it should be allowed.

And what equipment would this "new army" have? What currency are you going to use to pay for this equpment? What reserves do you have to back up that currency? I guess companies will just go on your word as a "Southern Gentleman".

Dutch, you speak of this as if it has never before been done that a nation has begun and formed its own currency. It happens quite frequently, actually, though that is not to say that it is an easy task.

It's a hell of alot harder in the global economy if the 21st century the the 18th century.

If Texas and a few States went with us, then we would be one of the largest economies in the world. We would soon pass the Workers paradise we left behind.

Despite the bitterness that many leftists are expressing, the Countries would also be close economically and militarily and in other ways as well. We would just be a lot richer than you.

 

[Edgetho]

Your belief that "socialist" and "authoritarian" are mutually exclusive is hilarious. Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries, BTW.



We conflate nothing. We aren't suffering from the leftwing delusion that socialism is a euphemism meaning "earthly paradise."

socialism comes in dozens of flavors. Some of them quite benign.

marxism is not. marxists should be shot on sight. There should be a bounty on them. An open season. Maybe even a contest to see who can bag the most in a single day.

Our dimocrap scumbag pals seem to think (because they're REALLY, REALLY STUPID), that marxism and socialism are one and the same. Mostly because all they know about socialism is marxism.

But, like I said..... They're really stupid.

Be prepared to be refuted by britpat! Or are you saying britpat is really REALLY stupid? My money is on the latter.

Here, read this. It's sort of a primer for idiots, like you, with a 3rd grade education.

Be advised, the article uses big words.......

On further thought, get your mommy to read it to you; she should be home from work any minute....

Types of socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you think you're ready for the Big Leagues (in ten or twenty years) try this one:

But I doubt you'll ever be ready for that one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From the link above, which redefines socialism inaccurately to further less than noble aims.

Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character.

Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." https://www.google.com/#q=socialism+definition

If that had been tried in a government, history, economic, etc, class in college, the argument would have failed on definition of terms.

Words have meanings, and you, edgetho, don't get to change the meanings.

 

[Nosmo King]

socialism comes in dozens of flavors. Some of them quite benign.

marxism is not. marxists should be shot on sight. There should be a bounty on them. An open season. Maybe even a contest to see who can bag the most in a single day.

Our dimocrap scumbag pals seem to think (because they're REALLY, REALLY STUPID), that marxism and socialism are one and the same. Mostly because all they know about socialism is marxism.

But, like I said..... They're really stupid.

Be prepared to be refuted by britpat! Or are you saying britpat is really REALLY stupid? My money is on the latter.

Here, read this. It's sort of a primer for idiots, like you, with a 3rd grade education.

Be advised, the article uses big words.......

On further thought, get your mommy to read it to you; she should be home from work any minute....

Types of socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you think you're ready for the Big Leagues (in ten or twenty years) try this one:

But I doubt you'll ever be ready for that one.

There must be lots and lots of bright shiny objects around you. Did you read the posts to which you have so ineptly responded? It's your comrade britpat who is claiming a conflation of Marxism, socialism and authoritarianism, not I. In fact I posted that making such ham handed assumptions is a fool's game.

Now, stop. Read. Understand and if you try to get snarky with me again, know this: I'm smarter, older, wiser and more clever than you will ever be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the Thinking Public do not let the likes of far right reactionaries redefine traditional and historical terms.

Ever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Be prepared to be refuted by britpat! Or are you saying britpat is really REALLY stupid? My money is on the latter.

Here, read this. It's sort of a primer for idiots, like you, with a 3rd grade education.

Be advised, the article uses big words.......

On further thought, get your mommy to read it to you; she should be home from work any minute....

Types of socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you think you're ready for the Big Leagues (in ten or twenty years) try this one:

But I doubt you'll ever be ready for that one.

There must be lots and lots of bright shiny objects around you. Did you read the posts to which you have so ineptly responded? It's your comrade britpat who is claiming a conflation of Marxism, socialism and authoritarianism, not I. In fact I posted that making such ham handed assumptions is a fool's game.

Now, stop. Read. Understand and if you try to get snarky with me again, know this: I'm smarter, older, wiser and more clever than you will ever be.

Just so.

 

[kaz]

From the link above, which redefines socialism inaccurately to further less than noble aims.

Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character.

Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." https://www.google.com/#q=socialism+definition

If that had been tried in a government, history, economic, etc, class in college, the argument would have failed on definition of terms.

Words have meanings, and you, edgetho, don't get to change the meanings.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Marxism, crony capitalism, fascism and other forms of government dominated economic decisions are all just variations of socialism.

Capitalism is economic freedom where producers, consumers and employees make their own choices and drive economic efficiency.

Socialism makes the people who run government rich. Capitalism makes the people who make good choices rich. The difference is simple.