or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Implications of th Secession of Texas
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Implications of th Secession of Texas - Page 4

post #121 of 146
Do you consider the following statement to be unpatriotic?

"Every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact (casus non faederis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits. Without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors ME 17:387

Or this one?

"That we will, at all times hereafter, consider ourselves as a free and independent state, capable of regulating our internal police, in all and every respect whatsoever -- and that the people on said Grants have the sole and exclusive and inherent right of ruling and governing themselves in such manner and form as in their own wisdom they shall think proper..."

-- Vermont Declaration of Independence, January 15, 1777

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #122 of 146
No. But these certainly are:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Or:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln, (speech in Congress January 1848)

Or:

"Only a despotic and imperial government can coerce seceding states" - William Seward US Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln in 10 April 1861 to Charles Francis Adams, Minister to the Court of St. James (Britain)
post #123 of 146
I wanted to compliment E# on a great thread!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #124 of 146
Those are all glib quotes.

But just like "common law" or rabid 'Constitutionalists' tend to do:

You pick and choose patriotism - now you are part of the general pumping-up of of an idea that has proven itself wrong, the conservative ideology, except now you only have the remains which are the hatred of governmetn, and since the government, (which represents the people of this country) like the majority of the poeple, don't like failed ideas, then you have only the hatred of the government left and you really hate them because they aren;t doing the wrong thing (oops I mean listening to your ideological dead-end) -so, consequently, you become actually unpatriotic, you hold your selfish need for your little tax money above country, above Patria - in fact you are clever at the ways you justify your ideas, ideas that are worse than any 'liberal' calling our war-mongering ways bad, because they won't even acknowledge the truth of what they are.

This 'talking point', e-mail, Fox news driven tack of rallying 'conservatives' is going to have terrible and very ugly repercussions.

Oh eyah . . . ad BTW, the Obama plan is allready starting to work and the stimulus is just started.


-I got a great plan - how about all those who don't want to be Americans can live on their private property and stay off the roads, don't use any of the infrastructure or any other aspect of the goverment

Another thing: Somalia, Sudan, etc . . . think of failed states . . .what are they? lack of structure, lack of goverenment.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #125 of 146
I don't think anyone here is advocating NO government. We are advocating LIMITED government as set forth in our founding documents.

If you believe the economy is recovering because of Obama's policies, I'm afraid you'll have to give Bush some credit, too. His administration passed the first of these horrendous "stimulus bills".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #126 of 146
A poll was bound to happen,
In Texas, 31% Say State Has Right to Secede From U.S., But 75% Opt To Stay

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...75_opt_to_stay
post #127 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

A poll was bound to happen,
In Texas, 31% Say State Has Right to Secede From U.S., But 75% Opt To Stay

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...75_opt_to_stay

A couple pages back, involuntary_serf wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Interestingly, on a related note, I recently read something that suggested that popular support for the American secession from Britain was only about 20% or so. I was shocked that the level was so low.

31% is pretty significant.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #128 of 146
Quote:
However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldnt even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they'd choose.

There is always more when you get past the headlines.
post #129 of 146
Thread Starter 
I don't think that Texas would secede unless things got a lot worse economically, but if it did I don't think that there would be violence (or even a blockade) for the following reasons:

1. The world is different now that it was in 1861. The US Federal government would end up looking like Israel vs the Palestinians in very short order if they tried even 1% of the stuff that got pulled during the civil war.

2. The USSR broke up without much violence, and it was a more repressive regime than the US is.

I have to agree, though, that thoughts of secession are inherently unpatriotic (more or less by definition). However, I am willing to bet that for most of the red states, patriotism means being loyal to the red states. Personally, I am not patriotic at all - the USA just isn't that great.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #130 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I don't think that Texas would secede unless things got a lot worse economically, but if it did I don't think that there would be violence (or even a blockade) for the following reasons:

1. The world is different now that it was in 1861. The US Federal government would end up looking like Israel vs the Palestinians in very short order if they tried even 1% of the stuff that got pulled during the civil war.

2. The USSR broke up without much violence, and it was a more repressive regime than the US is.

I think you make some good points here. However, I'd counter with:

1. Simply because the U.S. has the putting down of a secession in its history, it might likely assume that it just can't, won't or cannot be allowed to happen here. There will be many arguments along those lines, possibly backed by action.

2. The U.S.'s current actions around the world suggest something of a bully, even a tyrant. Someone that thinks they are pretty much in charge and woe to anyone that should suggest otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I have to agree, though, that thoughts of secession are inherently unpatriotic (more or less by definition).

The dictionary says patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". But are the country and the government one and the same? Some would argue not. And what if one loves the country, the nation, the idea of America but is opposed to the government that it running it and the actions it is taking? Where does that fit?

This is the problem. The right has used this for the past several years. Basically saying if you don't support the government and all of its actions you must be unpatriotic. The whole "my country right or wrong" mentality fits this. The left appears to be doing this now that they're in charge. We're starting to hear, from the left, stuff like "if you don't like it then leave!"

This kind of patriotism is simply blind obedience.

I think we should be looking at the actions and the pattern of actions being executed by some entity (e.g., the federal government of the United States) and judge those. And if it comes to a point where the predominant actions of that entity are not supportable on any reasonable moral or ethical grounds, then opposition to it is warranted.
post #131 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

The dictionary says patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". But are the country and the government one and the same? Some would argue not. And what if one loves the country, the nation, the idea of America but is opposed to the government that it running it and the actions it is taking? Where does that fit?

This is the problem. The right has used this for the past several years. Basically saying if you don't support the government and all of its actions you must be unpatriotic. The whole "my country right or wrong" mentality fits this. The left appears to be doing this now that they're in charge. We're starting to hear, from the left, stuff like "if you don't like it then leave!"

This kind of patriotism is simply blind obedience.

I think we should be looking at the actions and the pattern of actions being executed by some entity (e.g., the federal government of the United States) and judge those. And if it comes to a point where the predominant actions of that entity are not supportable on any reasonable moral or ethical grounds, then opposition to it is warranted.

I couldn't agree more. Excellent post.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #132 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I couldn't agree more. Excellent post.

I must agree with that as well. You don't have to support your government to love your country.

However, the way to approach disagreement with your country is through protest and vote, and efforts associated with the function of the vote. Secession does not fit this, rather more closely fitting the idea of "aiding and abetting the enemy", being the party who is seceding from the Union.

In other words, it's okay to fight to change our country (and our government). It is not okay to fight our country (and our government).
post #133 of 146
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Secession does not fit this, rather more closely fitting the idea of "aiding and abetting the enemy", being the party who is seceding from the Union.

How far are you willing to take that argument? Should an individual be allowed to renounce his/her citizenship? How about a bunch of people? Where do you draw the line - when the US loses territory?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #134 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I must agree with that as well. You don't have to support your government to love your country.

However, the way to approach disagreement with your country is through protest and vote, and efforts associated with the function of the vote. Secession does not fit this, rather more closely fitting the idea of "aiding and abetting the enemy", being the party who is seceding from the Union.

In other words, it's okay to fight to change our country (and our government). It is not okay to fight our country (and our government).

Secession is obviously not something to be undertaken on a whim. The founders understood this:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." --The Declaration of Independence

But the Founders also understood that the people have the right--and the duty--to overthrow oppressive government.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." --The Declaration of Independence

Was the British Government of 1776 more oppressive than the United States government of today? I would say yes.

I personally am not calling for Revolution. I am not calling for the overthrow of the government. I am not even calling for secession.

I am, however, affirming that the very principles and ideals upon which our country was founded in the first place inherently support the idea of secession from despotic government:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."--The Declaration of Independence

These truths--boldly stated in our own Declaration of Independence--cannot be altered or superceded by any law enacted by any government.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #135 of 146
If the government was truly despotic, sure, but you got a long row to hoe in believing or promoting the idea that the US government is despotic.

By the way, the Apple Dictionary Thesaurus Antonym definition is democratic.
post #136 of 146
Just watched the coming home of the Captain of the freighter that pirates held hostage.

Watching their greeting from family brought tears to a Canadian's eyes.

Who the fuck would want to secede from a country that responds to something like this.

How could a new trading country like like "Texas" respond to something like highjacking on the high seas.

They couldn't, just like Canada couldn't.
post #137 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

So everyone in here is in agreement? A violent American versus American secession of Texas from the United States union is a "good thing" for you folks? Military versus militia? Red blooded American fighting red blooded American?

I'm not sure what concerns me more. The cavalier attitude you guys have about it? Or that you think it's a good idea?

Who said anything about a violent secession? Just a simple declaration of secession and a peace treaty drawn up with the remaining United States. It worked for Dean Kamen.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #138 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah but he's in the Whitehouse! The Republicans aren't!

Oops! I've said it again!

Sorry but facts are facts!

Why would you assume 'involuntary_serf' is a Republican? I can't say with any authority, but his arguments sound pretty libertarian to me.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #139 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Why would you assume 'involuntary_serf' is a Republican? I can't say with any authority, but his arguments sound pretty libertarian to me.

Which is nutty enough for me.
post #140 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Why would you assume 'involuntary_serf' is a Republican? I can't say with any authority, but his arguments sound pretty libertarian to me.

He would like to assume that because ad-hom reasoning wants to attack who the person is instead of what they present.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #141 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

He would like to assume that because ad-hom reasoning wants to attack who the person is instead of what they present.

So now you're saying that implying someone is a republican or has a similar ideology is an insult?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #142 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So now you're saying that implying someone is a republican or has a similar ideology is an insult?

I'm saying what many have failed to grasp despite being told by numerous sources, addressing what the poster IS or what you think their intent happens to be INSTEAD of addressing their argument or point is an ad-hom.

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

There is no reason to even wonder about his political affiliation. It brings nothing to the argument. It is no different then saying you probably think this because you are black or a woman.

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Source A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Source A
Therefore claim X is false


Something objectionable includes... he's a Republican, he's not a Democrat, we all know he's not really __________, we all know he really is ______________, you lost an election, I don't like your tone, etc, etc.

The only reason to ask or focus on the traits of a person making is argument is to gather or present evidence for claimed ad-homs.

So when you say something is wrong because someone is a Republican or better still when you go to ad hominem circumstantial and say it is wrong because an election was lost, it does not address or refute evidence, but addresses the person.

It may not be the type of personal attack that gets people reported or banned, but it is very bad debate form.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #143 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm saying what many have failed to grasp despite being told by numerous sources, addressing what the poster IS or what you think their intent happens to be INSTEAD of addressing their argument or point is an ad-hom.

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

There is no reason to even wonder about his political affiliation. It brings nothing to the argument. It is no different then saying you probably think this because you are black or a woman.

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Source A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Source A
Therefore claim X is false


Something objectionable includes... he's a Republican, he's not a Democrat, we all know he's not really __________, we all know he really is ______________, you lost an election, I don't like your tone, etc, etc.

The only reason to ask or focus on the traits of a person making is argument is to gather or present evidence for claimed ad-homs.

So when you say something is wrong because someone is a Republican or better still when you go to ad hominem circumstantial and say it is wrong because an election was lost, it does not address or refute evidence, but addresses the person.

It may not be the type of personal attack that gets people reported or banned, but it is very bad debate form.

Bravo. You knocked it out of the park.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #144 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm saying what many have failed to grasp despite being told by numerous sources, addressing what the poster IS or what you think their intent happens to be INSTEAD of addressing their argument or point is an ad-hom.

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

There is no reason to even wonder about his political affiliation. It brings nothing to the argument. It is no different then saying you probably think this because you are black or a woman.

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Source A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Source A
Therefore claim X is false


Something objectionable includes... he's a Republican, he's not a Democrat, we all know he's not really __________, we all know he really is ______________, you lost an election, I don't like your tone, etc, etc.

The only reason to ask or focus on the traits of a person making is argument is to gather or present evidence for claimed ad-homs.

So when you say something is wrong because someone is a Republican or better still when you go to ad hominem circumstantial and say it is wrong because an election was lost, it does not address or refute evidence, but addresses the person.

It may not be the type of personal attack that gets people reported or banned, but it is very bad debate form.

Quote:
It may not be the type of personal attack that gets people reported or banned, but it is very bad debate form

To ask a question?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #145 of 146
Five-thirty eight has an interesting bit noting that while the Fed could intervene in a secession, that Texas was given the right to sub-divide into smaller states when it was admitted into the union.

Snopes

Messing with Texas

This is the sort of stuff that I really enjoy from 538.com

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #146 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Five-thirty eight has an interesting bit noting that while the Fed could intervene in a secession, that Texas was given the right to sub-divide into smaller states when it was admitted into the union.

Snopes

Messing with Texas

This is the sort of stuff that I really enjoy from 538.com

Fuck, TX 66666

Let then secede.

Let them have their five-way.

Who in their right mind gives a shit.

Oh I forgot, The Hammer gives a big old stinking shit-bomb.

2003 Texas redistricting

Guaranteed all R's and a crazy patchwork quilt of new states to boot.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Implications of th Secession of Texas