Tennessee Republican Floats Secession Threat, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times


reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 04:06 PM by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
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.


reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 04:14 PM by Ko-Dan Armada
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.


reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 04:29 PM 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.

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.



reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 04:53 PM by Ko-Dan Armada
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]


reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 07:08 PM 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?


reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 07:18 PM by __rich__
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.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 17 days ago with 81 member flags
People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 3 days ago with 70 member flags
Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 13 days ago with 26 member flags
President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage
  Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags
Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 6 days ago with 24 member flags
Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags