Posted on 04/16/2009 6:50:11 AM PDT by rrdog
What is the root of the secessionist movement? The driving force at the grass roots level is of course money. Many Americans are rightly disturbed by the transfer of their wealth, and the wealth of their children, to companies that made risky investments, or were poorly managed. This is new territory for the government. The transfer started under George W. Bush with his bank bailout and auto makers bailouts, and the Obama administration has really poured on the spending with additional bailouts and stimulus packages. Citizens of more fiscally conservative states are finding that there money is being redirected from their pockets, and sent to other states.
In years past politicians from both parties have used the guilt factor to increase spending for the "needy". This tempers the backlash from the populace as they realize they are to sacrifice a new boat, or nicer home, for the greater good of society. Today, citizens are being asked to sacrifice their children's education, vacations, and even the home they are in, so that money can be transferred from their wallets to multi-billion dollar corporations.
When we add more government controls and regulations on everything from cigarettes, to fast food and guns, we begin to see the problem. Government is now coming at everyone at some level, over some issue. This piling on is causing those fringe secessionist movements to became mainstream very quickly.
(Excerpt) Read more at u4prez.com ...
Perhaps. But doesn't it make more sense to try the peaceful way first? The one least likely to lead to acrimony and hostility? Shouldn't a settlement agreeable to both sides followed by peaceful separation and friendly relations be the first, best goal for both parties?
Probably not. But if 75% of the people in one large part of Texas didn't want to leave, that could be a problem, which is why you can't just have people declaring that the whole state has left the union.
FWIW, if Texas were to split into 5 states, there's no guarantee that all those states would be Republican. South Texas and West Texas might not be. Not so long ago, East Texas was Democrat country as well.
If Texas decided to withdraw from the union and form a country with some other states, the state would probably have to divide in some way. No way the other states would want to give Texas that much power.
Given how traumatic that would be for Texans, I don't see it happening. But an independent Texas absorbing other states or territories ... that could happen.
That would be a problem I didn't think about. If the secession movement was regional within the state and, for example, the Gulf coast area voted overwhelmingly to stay and the rest of the state voted overwhelmingly to leave then what do you do? Would Texas be willing to split off that section ala West Virginia and allow it to stay? Does Texas drag an unwilling part with it? The whole concept is fraught with peril.
FWIW, if Texas were to split into 5 states, there's no guarantee that all those states would be Republican. South Texas and West Texas might not be. Not so long ago, East Texas was Democrat country as well.
Texas can split into 5 states or 50 and unless Congress approves then it isn't anything but one big lump of a state.
Given how traumatic that would be for Texans, I don't see it happening. But an independent Texas absorbing other states or territories ... that could happen.
I don't see it happening either, with Texas or any other state. All the secessionist who are hell bound to leave the U.S. will have to find another method.
I just want to be free from you, politically speaking. The only peril would be from an invading army led by Federal Bootlicking storm troopers like yourself.
Why not in every way, what with me being such a liar and all.
The only peril would be from an invading army led by Federal Bootlicking storm troopers like yourself.
And no doubt your rebel horde would lose again.
What, Perry isn't good enough for you? Why not see if you can get Crist to join?
don't you get tired of being ridiculed as a DUNCE by most FReepers???? also, LOTS of FReepers just want everyone, who is a member of "The DAMNyankee Coven of Fools, Bigots, Nitwits & HATERS", to LEAVE www.freerepublic.com, forever, with the singular exception of your "dear leader", N-S.
NOBODY is FOOLED, by the way, by your SILLY attempt to avoid admitting that you HAVE no "educational credentials", of note.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
PLEASE remind everyone again that you claim that Hubert Blackerby NEVER says in BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY that 100,ooo to 150,ooo Blacks served in the military forces of the CSA.
laughing AT you, as EVERYONE soon will.
free dixie,sw
Oh I'm looking forward to it. Now let me see, was it 100,000 free blacks or was it 150,000? It's so hard to keep your stories straight.
PLEASE remind everyone again that you claim that Hubert Blackerby NEVER says in BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY that 100,ooo to 150,ooo Blacks served in the military forces of the CSA.
OK. H.C. Blackerby NEVER says in BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY that 100,000 to 150,000 free Blacks served in the military forces of the CSA. Don't forget the 'free' part of your asinine claim.
NO OTHER answer than a simple YES or NO is acceptable.
as you are WELL AWARE slaves COULD NOT serve IN the forces (though many slaves were contracted to the forces by their owners)& were NOT ever counted as military members.
fwiw, NOBODY who has heard your LIES, DECEITS, EVASIONS has ANY doubt who is telling THE TRUTH here. in case you've lost contact with the same reality that everyone else perceives as FACTS.
free dixie,sw
No he does not.
as you are WELL AWARE slaves COULD NOT serve IN the forces (though many slaves were contracted to the forces by their owners)& were NOT ever counted as military members.
So it is your contention that 100,000 to 150,000 free blacks served in confederate forces. And you say that Blackerby will support that? I can hardly wait for the book to arrive and for you to post a page number. If you post the page number then I'll scan it in and display it.
is it because you believe that we FREEPERS are TOO STUPID to KNOW that you are LYING once more (as you have countless times before on any number of WBTS matters)???
when the relevant page is posted on FR, what LIE will you THEN tell???
laughing AT you, LIAR.
free diixe,sw
Why do you continue to lie about what the book says?
when the relevant page is posted on FR, what LIE will you THEN tell???
Post the relevant page and I'll worry about it then. When's the book supposed to arrive?
i hoped that the ILL that i received last week was BIB&G, but it was a novel that no local library had a copy of.
nonetheless, your time until being AGAIN exposed, to EVERYONE on FR, as a KNOWING LIAR, a laughingstock & a FOOL is running out.
inasmuch as you ALWAYS have some WEAK excuse for your evasions/deceits, my guess is that you are "hanging your hat on" the FACT that Blackerby NEVER specifically says that the 100,000 to 150,00 Blacks who served were FREE.- fyi, that will convince NOBODY, who has followed this subject, as i've said, from the first, what Blackerby & i, as well as YOU know. = that slaves are not & NEVER were counted as "members of the forces" (OR after the war, as veterans of that war, either.)
laughing AT you. (btw, do you realize that you just tacitly admitted, in your last post, that you KNOW that what i quoted Blackerby as saying is IN his book???)
free dixie,sw
In your opinion dose the Federal Government have the power within the Constitution to regulate Firearms?
Does the commerce clause ‘trump’ our Bill of Rights?
Would you support a Federal mandate or Bill making anti-gay comments by a Pastor a “Hate Crime”
I'm not talking about arguing on the Internet...
while he may (as BHO does!!) "give lip service to" individual freedom/the BOR, he is basically against LIBERTY for anyone (especially those of us who are southerners!), IF such LIBERTY makes the Federal Leviathan less powerful.
like all too many people from "up there", he is seemingly quite comfortable with the Federal's boot upon his neck.
free dixie,sw
We must hope that a heart wouldn't grow so cruel that driving tanks over children equates to some sort of Federal Justice!
stand ,
I'm done arguing over times of past struggles..We must hold that memory close to our own heart as we fight this Federal beast..again
We must not loose this next war for our Independence or OUR kin will be told of us as treasonous traders
If N-S obliges to take the side of Freedoms enemy...Then let your aim hold true
Sure, but the question I posed to you was whether you would support secession without consent IF the Congress refused to allow it and if the existing federal government was operating outside the bounds of the Constitution.
The problem here, I think, is that you and some other posters in these threads don't understand the nature of modern liberalism. You think today's liberals are descendants of the pro-labor, big spending smoke-filled-room pols of the New Deal era. Or maybe descendants of the William Jennings Bryan style progressives who wanted a lot of government programs to fulfill their Christian zeal. Whatever problems there may have been with those old style liberals, they weren't un-American or hostile to our national heritage.
But that isn't what we're dealing with. Today's liberals are descendants of the Socialists, anarchists, and Reds who came over from Europe and became concentrated in the large Northern cities during the Ellis Island era. They slowly wormed their way into the Democratic Party, and seized majority control of it in the 1960s. Since then they've slowly turned it into an outright totalitarian party, a party determined to refashion America as a one-party leftist state. They can never be satisfied or appeased because they are messianic and are in a permanent state of war against our entire civilization, which they regard as racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist, and so forth.
Now that they have their first ideologically pure ally in the presidency, we can see what we're facing. Just in the past week or so we've seen the Adorno-like Napolitano document essentially defining conservative opinion as terrorism. We've seen the launching of a crusade to "diversify" neighborhoods, complete with radio ads informing the public that they won't be permitted to avoid "diversity" anywhere. We've seen Obama cozying up to Castro, Chavez, Lula, and others. We also saw Obama cover up Christian symbols during his speech at Georgetown. We've seen a media that's getting more partisan by the day, as epitomized by the sneering, hostile coverage of the tea parties.
We're dealing with people who do not believe an alternative to their ideology has a right to exist. Or that anyone on earth has a right to escape their ideology. That's what we're facing. We're now dealing with a political party that has declared war on our nation's heritage and which seeks to turn our nation into a jackboot stomping an American face forever and ever and ever. They believe the entire planet should be under their ideology. Why would they ever allow a chunk of America to voluntarily depart?
I'm quaking in my boots.
inasmuch as you ALWAYS have some WEAK excuse for your evasions/deceits, my guess is that you are "hanging your hat on" the FACT that Blackerby NEVER specifically says that the 100,000 to 150,00 Blacks who served were FREE.- fyi, that will convince NOBODY, who has followed this subject, as i've said, from the first, what Blackerby & i, as well as YOU know. = that slaves are not & NEVER were counted as "members of the forces" (OR after the war, as veterans of that war, either.)
Tap-dancing like crazy I see, not to mention changing your story. But as you yourself has said, everyone knows that only free blacks were allowed to serve. So if Blackerby uses figures like 100,000 to 150,000, or even if he uses figures like 300,000, then by your own claims then each and every one of them has to be free, right? And the fact that such figures are between 5 and 15 times the total number of free black males of military age in the South is meaningless in your world.
laughing AT you. (btw, do you realize that you just tacitly admitted, in your last post, that you KNOW that what i quoted Blackerby as saying is IN his book???)
Post the page number.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.