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.

 

Author says South should form new nation without gays and Hispanics called ‘Reagan’

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Hey wait a darn minute !!

The Raw Story claims otherwise !!





posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
I think it's a great idea. I say we let them do it.

I'm willing to lose a few states just to get rid of these morons. We can just move all the black, brown and Gay people out of there, wall it off and let them have their "Great White Homophobic Theocratic Paradise".

It's a small sacrifice to get rid of them once and for all in my opinion.


Well your masterpiece post is one for the books.

Glad we now know your true thinking at least !!

Horrible.

My God.




posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: beezzer

Hey wait a darn minute !!

The Raw Story claims otherwise !!





Well, you can believe the Raw Story, or you can believe the actual article that the Raw Story wrote about.

I dunno.




posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
I think it's worth a try. Texas has wanted to secede for years.



"Reagan".....got a nice ring to it!!

And the Capital city could be called......???





Its got to be Nancy. No nancy-boys in Nancy.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: guitarplayer

Even Conservative legal experts disagree with your assessment.



Abraham Lincoln in 1847 on the floor of the United States House of Representatives:

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.

Thomas Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

I would rather look to the founders than some johnny come latly conservative.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
i read that Reagan had Alzheimers and didn't even remember being anyone of significance.

do you think this new place might be at risk of the same fate?

probably, but what does OP care...he's just following a script.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well your masterpiece post is one for the books.

Glad we now know your true thinking at least !!

Horrible.

My God.





What's so horrible about it??? I'm saying give them what they want. They want a few states for themselves, fine with me. Then the rest of us can live in peace for once.

So now I'm a horrible person for giving them what they want and also a horrible person for opposing them in the past??? You just can't ever be happy can you???



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well your masterpiece post is one for the books.

Glad we now know your true thinking at least !!

Horrible.

My God.





What's so horrible about it??? I'm saying give them what they want. They want a few states for themselves, fine with me. Then the rest of us can live in peace for once.

So now I'm a horrible person for giving them what they want and also a horrible person for opposing them in the past??? You just can't ever be happy can you???


No. Giving someone what they want doesn't make you "horrible"

Giving everyone that lives in an area the same label or classifying them as all the same, or ASSUMING that they all think and feel the same way on the other hand.....

Well let us just say it makes you extremely biased.

Not everyone that lives in an area will be the same, think the same, have the same beliefs or values.

They don't.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

I didn't say everyone in that area thinks the same. Just the opposite, I said we'll move out anyone who doesn't want to be included. I have no idea who else wants to join with this guy, but whoever does want to join his cult, fine. Let him and his gaggle of goof balls have a couple states for themselves, get everyone else outta there and we can all live normal lives without them.

I'm not grouping anyone in with him at all.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer

Decided in Texas v. White.

And to quote Madison:


I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.


The Constitution nullified the Articles of Confederation.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

His article was based on a Gallup poll that showed 80+ million Americans liked the idea of secession.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

If it makes you feel better we'll even give anyone who has to move out of one of those 3 states first pick to live anywhere they choose within the other 47 states. Beach Front, lush mountain side, whatever they want to help them deal with the frustration of having to move. Is that better??

I guess I could have explained myself a little better in that first post but damn. Did you honestly think I would generalize 3 whole states worth of people into the same classification as this one guy??? That would be quite a stretch, even for a Pinko, Commie, Progressive, Leftist, Demonic, Marxist, Anti-Christ, Liberal, Sub-Human, UnAmerican, Lying Shill as some often label me.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Ok. Well, I don't know if 80+ million Americans can fit comfortably in just those 3 states or not, but again, if that is what they really want and they'll leave the rest of us alone if they can have it, then let them.

Just get anyone else who doesn't like the idea out of there first and let them have their little paradise to live in whatever backward crazy way they want. I'm sure it will be wonderful for them and for the rest of us once they are gone.

I'm sorry if I sound offensive, but I'm being serious. If they hate the rest of us so much and won't or can't live with us in peace, fine, I don't want them to live like that any more than they do. Let them build themselves a place of their own where they can be happy. Then we can continue without all the fighting all the time. It's a win win for everyone.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer

Yeah, I'm the ignorant one here. What a silly thing to say.

You claim that a state could have chosen not to join: true, but all the ones we have joined and created the US by ratifying the Constitution. Irrelevant.

The states were and are subject to the US Government: it's called the Supremacy Clause, US Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2.

The 10th Amendment was written to allow states to pass laws that were individual to them, or that were not in the purview of the Federal Government, or were not covered specifically in the Constitution.

Feel free to quote where I said anything resembling: "secession started with the south." If not, feel free to apologize.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
So, letting workers have retirements, saving the planet and not allowing theocracy are evil?

I hate these Nazis, they really do need to have their own stupid country and stop trying to make everyone else pray, work for slave wages, give up their benefits, retirement, etc. Not to mention I am so sick of the "traditional" war on sex.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.”

So you cite the supreme court the same court that said people were property? The same court that has said it is ok to kill unborn children up until they are in the third trimester. The same court that has said that ACA is a tax? You still need to go back and study history especially the supreme court and all the crap they have ruled on. If we had a right to declare independence from a evil and suppressive government namely England why would you stop and say that states that are sovereign cannot succeed from an oppressive national government?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Oh boy, that got a good chuckle out of me.

Would a new nation called Hinkley then attempt to destroy Reagan?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Did you even read the article?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: eriktheawful

If it makes you feel better we'll even give anyone who has to move out of one of those 3 states first pick to live anywhere they choose within the other 47 states. Beach Front, lush mountain side, whatever they want to help them deal with the frustration of having to move. Is that better??

I guess I could have explained myself a little better in that first post but damn. Did you honestly think I would generalize 3 whole states worth of people into the same classification as this one guy??? That would be quite a stretch, even for a Pinko, Commie, Progressive, Leftist, Demonic, Marxist, Anti-Christ, Liberal, Sub-Human, UnAmerican, Lying Shill as some often label me.


You're still doing it.

You're assuming that "They" are the majority. So much so, that you are also assuming that everyone else that are not "They" would agree to 3 states giving up themselves.

Exactly who is going to do that?

No one. Because there are not enough people that really believe that.

What would be much better would be for people to stop hating each other, drawing lines, and using labels.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer

Now you're just reaching to hold onto a disproven ideal. The Supreme Court, like it or not, is the final arbiter of law in the land. If you read the links the caveat that ran throughout is that revolution is acceptable as a last resource. Until all other options are removed from the table, by elimination then one has no grounds to attempt either secession or revolution.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join