It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New poll shows 1 in 4 Americans Open to Secession

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I've seen two basic types of replies on this thread:

Those that contain intelligent information, logical thinking, intelligent speculation, problems related to "for" or "against", which are posts that further the mature discussion of this topic.

The second type of replies are the snarky, hate filled, immature ones.

I'd like to thank all those that actually took the time to think about and make intelligent replies to this thread on this subject, even if your view points are opposing. Those of you that did give me hope that once in a while people with differences of opinions and ideas can still talk to each other.




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig
Excellent post! Yes, all those questions need to be considered and I doubt many think of that as well. They are question that at the very least, need to have well thought out ideas if not a plan in place before secession is ever seriously considered. I would imagine though that most would keep the current system intact as much as possible for ease, familiarity, and function, likely doing away with laws hey have issue with. The kickers are infrastructure, trade, and allies.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

I have nothing but hatred for anyone but Libertarians. You people are not my countrymen.



Seriously? So do you screen your potential friends to determine their political views before you can decide if you like that person? If so, seriously get some professional help. People are people.

hatred. SMFH



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I'm all for it at this point, however, the people of that state would have to monitor everything very closely--completely change how it all works, from top to bottom.

All tax money, every last penny, would be followed. The natural resources would have to be controlled by that state, and again, monitored very closely. Kick out central banks. Local only everything. Build factories and make the things that you use. If Wal-Mart and other stores won't stock their shelves with it, then build new stores. 85% of what's on the shelves should be locally made or grown. The state would truly have to become independent in every sense. Otherwise, it would never work.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

I am not for secession. I would much rather see a solution to the problem that is causing these feelings in my country.

The federal government has gone too far both overseas and at home and is no longer even remotely arguable as being legitimately FOR any good for the people directly.

Its BS. No one likes BS. Not even Bulls.

EDIT TO ADD:
We are just like Russia and the rest. There is nothing to set us apart anymore.


edit on 9 19 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: grandmakdw

I suspect that one thing the poll also reveals is that onei n four Americans do not know what the word "secession" means.

Theere is enough resentment of the political stalemate in Washington at the moment, that many are simply making a statement of disgust by claiming to favor secession. Whereas those in the states most vocal about seceding are allowing their regional pride to cloud their judgement. For example, the second largest employment sector in Texas is government, larger even than the energy sector. Can you imagine what Texas would look like if the United States closed all its military bases in Texas and moved NASA north? Now that modern naval craft do not require coal, the United States fleet could easily close its bases in Hawaii, and it could depend entirely on tourism and pineapple farming. Somehow, I don't think either state would welcome that reality.



Star for you. Government largess is an addiction, and returning to real economic activity might make some bad times. Those government jobs should not have been there in the first place and are a side effect of centralized power. However, the people working in government jobs would create more wealth for everyone with jobs in the real economy, and in addition, would cost less in taxes and inflation for everyone.

Inefficient, artificial, and stifling national government is the reason to secede. Fifty different governments will speed up the evolution of government, and indicate to us the best possible government sooner.

In the mean time, multiple governments gives citizens a remedy for bad government. Citizens can move to a better state, if the government becomes abusive or stupid.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   


Are you for secession for your state, why or why not?


Why wouldn't a person be for succession ?

The states joined of free will.

They should be able to decide of their own volition to stay or go.

This is a 'democracy' as some people love to say.

There is nothing saying we have to be a part of the UNION.

After a few hundred years it should be put up to a vote again.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Logarock


No one is really obligated to work with the president at any time. Check and Balance.


Wrong. Everyone in government is obligated to work with one another to express the will of We, the People. Refusal to do so is not "check and balance," it is short sighted political will. If someone in Congress does not like legislation to address a particular issue, it is their duty to offer a counter-proposal. President Obama is not the one in need of a Civics class.



Has the government ever represented the will of the people? Maybe by accident now and then. Not as a rule.

The government represents the government. The founding fathers knew that government has never represented the will of the people, and so our government is supposed to be an impartial and disinterested arbiter of commerce and justice.

Doing the people's will is impossible and highly subject to hijacking.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel
Yes, and that is what scares many people. Could you support a new form of government where your family could be imprisoned or jailed all cause they are say gay or in a same sex marriage?

Or what if the new set of laws are based on more of a theological nature, where it is a church that has the final say, or different religions are no longer accepted or even outlawed? Or even if there is a new form of segregation to separate one group or another?

Even what about those who are on say social security, would they be left out in the cold?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: grandmakdw

I vote to have Washington DC secede from the union!

Show of hands?


You could always invite us Brits and Canadians back to finish burning it to the ground?


They're doing a fine job of that on their own.

As the recent 'vote' to arm Syrian rebels.

The burning is on it's way.
edit on 19-9-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: jimmyx
let the red states go, they're the ones sucking out all the federal tax dollars from the blue states. they are also the ones that complain the loudest about taxes, all the while getting the biggest share. screw them...they're the ones that are still pissed off about losing the civil war...now they can have the chance to bring back slavery, outlaw abortions and women's rights, deport anyone that isn't white or a slave, and form a Christian nation run by the bible.
This is just ignorant. Abraham Lincoln was a conservative.

No it is not, what is ignorant is you not realizing the Republicans and Democrats of that time had platforms that are in reverse to the Party's they are today. In today's terms, Lincoln was a progressive ...
Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?


The Left and RIght NEVER 'switched' sides.

Biggest example of the is Senator Robert Byrd of the Democrats.

And when he died.

The left heralded that guy as a 'hero'.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Best divorce court proceedings ever...

But seriously, your bags are packed and sitting on the lawn. Don't call, don't text.


We should call 'secession' that new fangled term for 'divorce'.

Conscious uncoupling.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Has the government ever represented the will of the people? Maybe by accident now and then. Not as a rule.


That is a very sweeping generalization.


The government represents the government. The founding fathers knew that government has never represented the will of the people, and so our government is supposed to be an impartial and disinterested arbiter of commerce and justice.


Again, that is a remarkably sweeping generalization. The founders certainly feared that the government could abuse its authority, hence the checks and balances. They obviously did not think that government was inherently evil or there would never have been a Constitution to establish one.


Doing the people's will is impossible and highly subject to hijacking.


"Impossible" and "subject to hijacking" are two entirely different things. It is extremely difficult to find a course of action that will please everyone, therefore a broad consensus is probably as close to executing the "will of the people" can come in practice. Subject to hijacking? Indeed. This is why the Constitution provides for things like impeachment and high treason.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock


Well he got a civics class when his parties majority was checked during the last election and looks set to be totally bounced in the next one.


That has to do with politics, not civics.


And where pray tell is it anyone's obligation to answer a proposal with a counter proposal?


It depends upon whether one is trying to solve a problem or is only motivated by self interest, I suppose. If you want to solve a problem, you debate the various possible solutions by putting out various proposals and discussing their merits and drawbacks. On the other hand, if you are profiting from a problem, it is in your best interest to obstruct any attempt to change the situation.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If your state breaks away from the US, your state will have to pay it's share of the national debt back.

I don't ever, EVER see this happening. So, no -- we will not ever see this happening anytime soon.


Unless the debt accumulation was illegal.

A seceding state would need its own monetary system, which is one of the best reasons to secede in the first place.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Has the government ever represented the will of the people? Maybe by accident now and then. Not as a rule.


That is a very sweeping generalization.


The government represents the government. The founding fathers knew that government has never represented the will of the people, and so our government is supposed to be an impartial and disinterested arbiter of commerce and justice.


Again, that is a remarkably sweeping generalization. The founders certainly feared that the government could abuse its authority, hence the checks and balances. They obviously did not think that government was inherently evil or there would never have been a Constitution to establish one.


Doing the people's will is impossible and highly subject to hijacking.


"Impossible" and "subject to hijacking" are two entirely different things. It is extremely difficult to find a course of action that will please everyone, therefore a broad consensus is probably as close to executing the "will of the people" can come in practice. Subject to hijacking? Indeed. This is why the Constitution provides for things like impeachment and high treason.



They are right on the money there.

Government does nothing, but for it's own interests.

And government is made up by politicians.

They have time, and time again put their own jobs, and their own 'legacy's above the interests of the people, or this nation.

What we have is a nation of politicians for,of, themselves.

The only thing they care about on capitol shill is our vote, and our money, and what keeps them there.


edit on 19-9-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: jimmyx
let the red states go, they're the ones sucking out all the federal tax dollars from the blue states. they are also the ones that complain the loudest about taxes, all the while getting the biggest share. screw them...they're the ones that are still pissed off about losing the civil war...now they can have the chance to bring back slavery, outlaw abortions and women's rights, deport anyone that isn't white or a slave, and form a Christian nation run by the bible.
This is just ignorant. Abraham Lincoln was a conservative.

No it is not, what is ignorant is you not realizing the Republicans and Democrats of that time had platforms that are in reverse to the Party's they are today. In today's terms, Lincoln was a progressive ...
Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?


The Left and RIght NEVER 'switched' sides.

Biggest example of the is Senator Robert Byrd of the Democrats.

And when he died.

The left heralded that guy as a 'hero'.


I promised grand I wouldn't drift this thread debating and discussing this specific issue but I have to ask if you read the attached article? The platform switch is well known and studied in every Political Science 101 class.

I will not address this myself further in this thread.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig
Nope, I would not support any of those movements and would move if I was caught in a State that seceded and went that way. Again, these are good question one would need to ask. I would be very heartbroken if one of these sceneries happened in my home state (Montana) as I love that place so and cannot wait to get back.

I think asking these questions of our current system, and the way some things are heading a couple of these questions apply, would such issues really inflame secession movements into full gear?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

No it hasn't.



The American of today, in fact, probably enjoys less personal liberty than any other man of Christendom, and even his political liberty is fast succumbing to the new dogma that certain theories of government are virtuous and lawful, and others abhorrent and felonious. Laws limiting the radius of his free activity multiply year by year: It is now practically impossible for him to exhibit anything describable as genuine individuality, either in action or in thought, without running afoul of some harsh and unintelligible penalty. It would surprise no impartial observer if the motto “In God we trust” were one day expunged from the coins of the republic by the Junkers at Washington, and the far more appropriate word, “verboten,” substituted. Nor would it astound any save the most romantic if, at the same time, the goddess of liberty were taken off the silver dollars to make room for a bas-relief of a policeman in a spiked helmet. Moreover, this gradual (and, of late, rapidly progressive) decay of freedom goes almost without challenge; the American has grown so accustomed to the denial of his constitutional rights and to the minute regulation of his conduct by swarms of spies, letter-openers, informers and agents provocateurs that he no longer makes any serious protest.


en.wikiquote.org...

American politics is no different than any other time in our history.

Right, and Left are the same as they ever were.

They never 'switched' sides:




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: jimmyx
let the red states go, they're the ones sucking out all the federal tax dollars from the blue states. they are also the ones that complain the loudest about taxes, all the while getting the biggest share. screw them...they're the ones that are still pissed off about losing the civil war...now they can have the chance to bring back slavery, outlaw abortions and women's rights, deport anyone that isn't white or a slave, and form a Christian nation run by the bible.
This is just ignorant. Abraham Lincoln was a conservative.

No it is not, what is ignorant is you not realizing the Republicans and Democrats of that time had platforms that are in reverse to the Party's they are today. In today's terms, Lincoln was a progressive ...
Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?



Please don't derail my thread.

Mods call this drifting and will shut down the thread faster than a sneeze.

If you want to snark about Dems vs Reps, please start a new thread and please, please don't derail and shut mine down.


Sorry grand, didn't mean to and was not my intention, was just quickly correcting a misconception and hopefully shutting down any drifting with that correction.

I'm on task, I promise.


Thank you,
much appreciated!!!



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join