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.

 

Would it be best if the states left the Union?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I have become so anti-government after all the crap they've pulled over the past 8 years that i SUPPORT a PEACEFUL secession of American states from the Union, into independence or smaller unions with other states/even Canadian provinces (as if the US falls, Canada will too).

Chuck Norris, no kidding, is running for President of Texas!

I even made a map of a possible division.

decadeology.wetpaint.com...




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


No, I don't think so. Together we stand, divided we fall!

In this day and age, it is possible for families to be spread out in several states. I know I don't want to have to get a passport to go visit my children the next state over, which could be only 10 miles away!

Instead of doing what you suggest, we need to get people in congress, or the senate to work for the people of their state along side member from other states.

Honestly, I think there are too many cooks in the kitchen that don't represent their constituents.

It's up to the voters!



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Every state should succeed from the union and form a new one.


It would be neat to see a new non-tyrannical form of government. I want people to still have civil rights but still.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
In my opinion - secession of American States from the Union would put our second foot in the grave dug by the NAU and/or NWO.

It’s exactly what the PTB want.

A STRONG UNIFIED PATRIOTIC NATION CANNOT AND WILL NOT BEND to One World Order.

Many *Little Nations* wouldn’t stand a chance.

Excuse the caps but sometimes to get heard ya gotta yell...

peace



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Mmm, me thinks you could be wrong about that. I think it would be much harder for the NWO to put the NAU in place if they had to deal with over 50 different states and treat them all as their own seperate "countries".

I believe it would be in their favor to keep the USA all in one piece, that way the transition is seemless and instant.

I think it would most likely do the citizens of the US some good if some states were to leave. State governments know the needs of their people better than most Senators do. They spend their time in Washington arguing over petty spending bills and wars, while people in dozens of states are starving and being thrown out of their homes.

Texas is definetly equipped to run itself so why not? Hell even I would vote for Chuck if he ran and I was American. If Arnold can do it, I'm sure Chuck would not have a problem
.

For Canada, not so much. It wouln't be very smart for us to suceed, reasons being as that I don't think any one Province could work effectively without aid from other provinces and the types of relationships they've already developped.

I know here in NB, this place would fall completely in the crapper if we no longer had the support of Ottawa sending us cash flow, we've lost so much of our workforce to the West that it's already starting to deteriorate.

But I digress....

The fact is, the NAU want us all scared and huddled in a corner together so it's quick and dirty.

~Keeper



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by silo13
 


Mmm, me thinks you could be wrong about that. I think it would be much harder for the NWO to put the NAU in place if they had to deal with over 50 different states and treat them all as their own seperate "countries".

I believe it would be in their favor to keep the USA all in one piece, that way the transition is seemless and instant.

I think it would most likely do the citizens of the US some good if some states were to leave. State governments know the needs of their people better than most Senators do. They spend their time in Washington arguing over petty spending bills and wars, while people in dozens of states are starving and being thrown out of their homes.

Texas is definetly equipped to run itself so why not? Hell even I would vote for Chuck if he ran and I was American. If Arnold can do it, I'm sure Chuck would not have a problem
.

For Canada, not so much. It wouln't be very smart for us to suceed, reasons being as that I don't think any one Province could work effectively without aid from other provinces and the types of relationships they've already developped.

I know here in NB, this place would fall completely in the crapper if we no longer had the support of Ottawa sending us cash flow, we've lost so much of our workforce to the West that it's already starting to deteriorate.

But I digress....

The fact is, the NAU want us all scared and huddled in a corner together so it's quick and dirty.

~Keeper





I'm not "anti-American", as much as I think my people can be stupid sometimes. America is about the people, not about the federal government.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

I think it would most likely do the citizens of the US some good if some states were to leave. State governments know the needs of their people better than most Senators do. They spend their time in Washington arguing over petty spending bills and wars, while people in dozens of states are starving and being thrown out of their homes.




Are you talking about our senators and congress critters that don't even know the content of the bills they are voting on?? I think they only argue to get more "earmarks" for their district.

That's some real effective "representation" we've got there.....



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ubergrasshopper
 


Yup that's exactly what I am reffering too. All these people are worried about are their little pet projects that only help the companies involved.


Ohh and Darko, I didn't call you Un-American??? And no you're people aren't all that stupid (save a few) as they are gullible.

~Keeper



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by ubergrasshopper
 


Yup that's exactly what I am reffering too. All these people are worried about are their little pet projects that only help the companies involved.


Ohh and Darko, I didn't call you Un-American??? And no you're people aren't all that stupid (save a few) as they are gullible.

~Keeper



Thank you



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
succession of states will not solve the issue, it will just create smaller divisions within those states and in time succession will be the excuse in those counties of those states. There will always be division and disagreement but thats what we have elections for.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


I don't think it would be good for the states to seceed. Very few of them could survive on their own, even if they made a union with the states around them. And there's the aspect of families which someone mentioned earlier.

Out of curiosity, why did you make Florida it's own entity? Being from Florida, I think that it would just kinda be absorbed by someone because there are so many people from the north living down there--espeically south Florida.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


I don't think it would be good for the states to seceed. Very few of them could survive on their own, even if they made a union with the states around them. And there's the aspect of families which someone mentioned earlier.

Out of curiosity, why did you make Florida it's own entity? Being from Florida, I think that it would just kinda be absorbed by someone because there are so many people from the north living down there--espeically south Florida.


It wouldn't join Dixie/the Confederacy because it is no longer Southern enough.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
heres my question. if the states were to become their own countries than what happens o the weapons? Like California. we have Coronado and miramar. Should all of the west coast SEAL teams teams 1,3,5,7,9 be the property of california. We have Camp pendleton and a good amount of the Marine Corp. here. would a significant part of the US marine Corp. become the Califonria Marine Corps. We have Edwards AFB along with other signifigant ones. we probably have a few stealth bombers and F-22's. do the become part of the California AF. Long Beach is the largest harbor and the most important one for the US for the pacific ocean. Would we be able to tax the crap out of our neighboring countries for the permission to ship stuff through our state. WOuld we take over Nevada, because it's there and an easy target to acquire any tech from Groom/Tonapah. . . And vegas. Would california have to fight with other states like say Arizona who might want parts of the colorado river for themselves so that large parts of california will be without water. Would Utah challenge california or align against us because we transgressed against Nevada. Would sacramento really be the capitol of the Country of California? really? that place should get the award for the most arbitrary location for a capitol ever.

Even bigger still. what about the fact that all these military people will be from all of the various states, who's side will they be loyal too. camp pendleton and the Marines there. or to Utah and his family there. will that soldier go AWOL. Simple conscientiously object and sit on their thumbs. serve the marines loyal to california.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
People not part of the Union would not be able to participate in the governments army, that would pose a problem.

I am assuming any soldiers who were born in a state that suceeded, would simply return to that state and join their own "state" army in order to protect themselves.

The fed government would most likely just contract those as they do with Black Water and the such to get things done.

~Keeper



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
h but what about all the f-22's B2's. what about all the naval vessels. who gets to keep the Carriers? the Submarines. all the states paid for them. all the ones with a suitable harbor all have equal claim to them. So who gets them.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BASSPLYR
 


Who cares?

The less of those things we have the world the better. Besides the states didn't pay for them, the US DOD budget paid for them. Now I understand that is taxpayer money, but it's not a civilian project therefore would belong to it's original owner.

This isn't a divorce where they split 50/50.

~Keeper



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join