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.

 

Tennessee Republican Floats Secession Threat

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
So I want to see more secession threats from our state politicians. It'd be even nicer from federal politicians, telling their own corrupt orgy to go shove off, but I have a feel most of them like working in DC too much to complain.

California and Texas. Now there would be two good states to spearhead another go at mass secession. I think the West is the new South in terms of being independent and sovereignty-craving. Though the Old South still holds a strong and separate cultural identity, and contains plenty of pissed off and rebellious people, it's also grown up into the same industrialized and "corporatized" corrupt political orgy that has plagued the North since almost the beginning. Largely populated urban areas are heavily policed, nevermind the locations of large federal military installations.


We have to realize it's only a relatively few people at the top that are trying to keep hold of the reigns over all these states, and keep bribing them and paying them off to keep their hands tied when it comes to actually trying to do something wholesome and efficient, as opposed to corrupt and expensive. We have many more people on the state level than they do on the federal level, and we can begin to sway those state officials by stepping up on the local level and making big waves in peoples' minds, with rallies or conferences or whatever can draw attention and promote the campaign for sovereignty. It wouldn't take much more than simply a cooperative and simultaneous effort to shove all of them off and send them back to wherever they originally came from, and for the individual states to collectively return to their own sovereignty and a loose trade confederation.




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

Again, Ag subsidies really don't play a part in the reasons why red states receive more Fed. welfare than Blue states.

From the Tax Foundation:

"Research Areas
Federal Taxes Paid vs. Spending Received by State

States send federal taxes to Washington and receive federal spending in return. However, some states benefit more from federal taxing and spending policies than others. Some "beneficiary" states receive a positive return from Uncle Sam, making other states "donors" who pick up the tab. The most important factor determining whether a state is a net beneficiary is per capita income. States with wealthier residents pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the progressive structure of the income tax. Other factors include whether states have powerful Members of Congress, the number of federal employees present in a state, and the number of residents receiving Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements."

www.taxfoundation.org...

Nothing about Ag subsidies to Corporations.



As previously noted, many times, you are engaging in a material logical fallacy, specifically a converse fallacy.

N=Q does not follow that Q does not = Y

I regret I can only address arguments based in Logic and Reason. It is not possible to dispute a logical fallacy.

Apparently they do not teach introductory logic in land grant colleges so I am happy to provide this primer to you. This is your argument:

---
(1) The Smithsonian is a respected source.

(2) The Smithsonian says:

Bats are mammals belonging to the order Chiroptera, a name of Greek origin meaning "hand-wing," which accurately describes the animal's most unusual anatomical feature.

www.si.edu...

(3) Therefore, the Earth does not revolve around the sun.
---

I have asked you 4 times to provide a source that affirms your conclusion and you are only able to provide sources that neither agree, disagree - or even address - mine. I strongly doubt I will ever hear a source that supports your conclusion. You've indicated previously your gut feeling is good enough for you and it should be good enough for us, too.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Projection is your forte, I see, Ko-Dan.

Even a cursory look at a Federal Budget outlay reveals expenditures on Agriculture are smaller than the other social entitlements, across the Union.

vis.berkeley.edu...


But, as usual , per your hypocrisy, you want others to provide sources while you provide none for your baseless assertions.

I provided multiple links to the actual analyses by the Tax Foundation. They never mentioned Ag subsidies. But they mentioned other factors. Especially income levels.

The breakdown of Fed expenditures in TN was already posted, and showed less was spent on Ag subsidies than social welfare. The Federal Budget spends less on Agriculture than social entitlements.

You are the exact type of person who would advocate secession while at the same time holding out your hand to greedily take your share of federal welfare.

Some type of psychological deficit - denial of reality.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
Projection is your forte, I see, Ko-Dan.

Even a cursory look at a Federal Budget outlay reveals expenditures on Agriculture are smaller than the other social entitlements, across the Union.


This is, yet another, logical fallacy. It is a statistic that exists in a vacuum.

I asked you five times for a stat that proves your argument and you keep flood-posting stats of every variety and stripe except the one I asked for, the one that would prove your ridiculous assertion. Why is that?


But, as usual , per your hypocrisy, you want others to provide sources


I provided sources many dozens of messages ago. You continue to dodge and deny, periodically throwing your hands up in the air and loudly declaring "it's just true, OK!?"

I asked you five times for a stat that proves your argument and you keep flood-posting stats of every variety and stripe except the one I asked for, the one that would prove your ridiculous assertion. Why is that?



I provided multiple links to the actual analyses by the Tax Foundation. They never mentioned Ag subsidies. But they mentioned other factors. Especially income levels.


I asked you five times for a stat that proves your argument and you keep flood-posting stats of every variety and stripe except the one I asked for, the one that would prove your ridiculous assertion. Why is that?


The breakdown of Fed expenditures in TN was already posted, and showed less was spent on Ag subsidies than social welfare. The Federal Budget spends less on Agriculture than social entitlements.


I asked you five times for a stat that proves your argument and you keep flood-posting stats of every variety and stripe except the one I asked for, the one that would prove your ridiculous assertion. Why is that?


You are the exact type of person who would advocate secession while at the same time holding out your hand to greedily take your share of federal welfare.


(1) In a further collapse of your argument, the very first post I made in this thread was a statement of the fact that Tennessee could never really achieve secession because it would be economically non-viable as a landlocked state.

(2) I'm not a recipient of federal "welfare." (note "welfare" does not equal "federal spending" ... "welfare" = non-equitable spending) Believe it or not, not everyone is on the dole like you. However, when that's the company you keep it's hard to imagine there are others not like you and your community so I understand your paradigm error.


[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
What is really interesting is your defense of hypocrisy.

You can think up every excuse for them taking Federal handouts while at the same time talking about secession.

You came up with the absurd idea that the "red states" get more Fed spending than "Blue states" because of Ag subsidies.

Then you backtrack and say "well, states actually don't get money, the big Ag corporations do." As if that makes a difference. Quibbling over minutiae seems to be your forte. In fact, deflection away from the topic you disagree with because you simply cannot defend your position.

I have posted several references that categorically state the reasons why the red states get more "welfare", and not one said anything about Ag subsidies.

You fail to provide one shred of evidence to back up your claims, and attempt to put the burden of proof on me, even though I have alrready provided you with such.

So, your only recourse is to say "that doesn't matter".

Fine...have the last word, but you look a bit pitiful defending wannabe secessionist welfare queens.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
What is really interesting is your defense of hypocrisy.

You can think up every excuse for them taking Federal handouts while at the same time talking about secession.



'k

So in other words, you don't have a source to support your slightly ridiculous statement?

(that was your fifth response to my inquiry that contained a lot of hyperbole and name-calling but no actual source or reference, for anyone keeping score)


Then you backtrack and say "well, states actually don't get money, the big Ag corporations do."


Incorrect. I said that no less than 11 times. I bolded each of the last 4 times for your benefit and for the benefit of anyone keeping score. I'd hardly call repeating myself 11 times in 10 different comments "backtracking."

Thanks!

Have a good day and I hope you get better soon.

Warmest,
KdA

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by __rich__
 


All this arguing about agriculture funding is superfluous. What's granted by the feds is probably by majority wasted pork-barrel type expenditures anyway in reality.

I have no doubt that Tennessee could survive on its own, and I also don't doubt that people would bring them supplies in support from other states, even if it's outlawed. People living up in their portion of the Appalachians already live vrtiually independent from everyone else, and they haven't minded it so far, so why should they want to join everyone else now?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by __rich__
 


All this arguing about agriculture funding is superfluous. What's granted by the feds is probably by majority wasted pork-barrel type expenditures anyway in reality.

I have no doubt that Tennessee could survive on its own, and I also don't doubt that people would bring them supplies in support from other states, even if it's outlawed. People living up in their portion of the Appalachians already live vrtiually independent from everyone else, and they haven't minded it so far, so why should they want to join everyone else now?


Agreed. But my point was/is that they very people who support "surviving on their own" most often times hold out their hands for the most Federal Pork.

Which means...back to another earlier comment that it's all just talk.

However, talk about secession from the Union doesn't strike me as Patriotic. We're all in this together, and running away from a problem doesn't seem likie a good way to fix it.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
However, talk about secession from the Union doesn't strike me as Patriotic.


I love my country but the fed isn't my country. I'm not patriotic for this federal government, you're absolutely right. I have nothing but filth to say of the whole institution today.


We're all in this together, and running away from a problem doesn't seem likie a good way to fix it.


Speak for yourself. The federal government IS the biggest part of the problem. You think it's working alright, well you keep it then. Bug off of the rest of us.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I think that any state that wants to secede from the union should do so and should NEVER be allowed to return. They should be declared an Enemy state and no commerce should be done with any state that has left the union.

Any and all federal buildings or military bases should be razed to the ground in a state that wants to secede, all federal roads will have to be severed, and the power grid connecting that state with the union destroyed.

Then the Union can put up checkpoints at the borders to those states and have shoot to kill orders for anyone trying to enter the United States from that state.

Sounds about fair to me.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I think that any state that wants to secede from the union should do so and should NEVER be allowed to return. They should be declared an Enemy state and no commerce should be done with any state that has left the union.


Please, for the sake of humanity, never run for a political office.



Any and all federal buildings or military bases should be razed to the ground in a state that wants to secede, all federal roads will have to be severed, and the power grid connecting that state with the union destroyed.


One better, let`s ban you from having anything to do with humanity.



Then the Union can put up checkpoints at the borders to those states and have shoot to kill orders for anyone trying to enter the United States from that state.


One step forward for war mongers, six steps back for human kind.



Sounds about fair to me.


Yep, let`s give the death sentence to anyone who you don`t like. You sound like a winner all right.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I think that any state that wants to secede from the union should do so and should NEVER be allowed to return. They should be declared an Enemy state and no commerce should be done with any state that has left the union.

Any and all federal buildings or military bases should be razed to the ground in a state that wants to secede, all federal roads will have to be severed, and the power grid connecting that state with the union destroyed.

Then the Union can put up checkpoints at the borders to those states and have shoot to kill orders for anyone trying to enter the United States from that state.

Sounds about fair to me.


That sounds like a great solution to me! Electricity wouldn't be much of a problem for Tennessee though. The T.V.A power production rests mainly in the Tennessee river valley.
As far as the union putting up check points,with shoot to kill orders...not to worried about that either....the Feds have done such a good job on the international borders,moving across into any of our seven border states would be a cake walk.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulofBlack
I do wish that like Europe, the states were all their own separate entities.


If you actually lived in Europe, namely the UK you would be eating those words.

The USA is slowly walking the path of socialism, started by Bush Jnr, and being completed by Barrack Obama!



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
the healthcare issue is a symptom of the larger disease destroying this country

what you people have forgotten is the federal government has become what it was never intended to become_ the end all be all of everything

the continual rampant corruption and abuse of power in this country needs to stop

the people gave a limited power to the federal government not to be their gods

and since the people gave it to them that they take it back and if that means succession so be it

the national deficit and continual thrash thrown throats where the american voice counts for nothing

are you just gonna sit there and take it with no end in site?

i can see why there is succession talk

ultimately in the end all this is is venting it wont happen americans have become too much like wussies with a p




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join