States petitioning to secede from union

page: 16
31
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


it just proves you are wrong and you will believe anything that is forked into your face


I take pride that I live in a republic and you can voice your opinion.
Love you brother, never stop expressing yourself.




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!
 

following with your last paragraph, perhaps you should read this ... or ... this ... or maybe you missed the big divide over the "death tax" (inheritance).


I stand by what I wrote. Unless I'm misunderstanding Hendrickson, he seems to think that the inheritance tax will do away with inheritances all together. Which it won't. Soo... (Though to be fair Henrickson never went into whether he was talking more about inheritances or estates, so whatever)

Oh, and the National Review? Really?

Also, now's probably a good time to mention that, you know, actual Socialists (I'm being pedantic, but this blogger fails to understand the true meaning of corporatism as well. Oh well. The commentary's amusing enough, but the quotes are the important part) and Marxists alike have come out in saying that Obama's policies don't resemble their ideologies. They don't even like Obamacare.
edit on 13/11/12 by Sink the Bismarck! because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   


Text
just saw this post.. updated as of Tuesday, 13 November 2012 17:45

Citizens From Over 30 States Submit Secession Petitions to White House

source




States whose citizens are expressing their frustration with the union and an increasingly overreaching and tyrannical federal government include (with signature count):

Louisiana, 28,880; Texas, 77,732; Florida, 22,181; Alabama, 20,549; North Carolina, 19,452; Kentucky, 12,719; Mississippi, 12,731; Indiana, 13,394; North Dakota, 8,812; Montana, 9,838; Colorado, 14,681; Oregon, 10,429; New Jersey, 9,988; New York, 11,326; South Carolina, 15,653; Arkansas, 14,948; Georgia, 21,206; Missouri 12,659; Tennessee, 19,875; Michigan, 13,370; Oklahoma, 11,580; Nevada, 6,371; Arizona, 12,451; Pennsylvania, 8,061; Delaware, 4,876; South Dakota, 2,014; Nebraska, 2,434; Kansas, 3,340; Alaska, 3,424; California, 6,181; Utah, 4,465; West Virginia, 2,257; Wyoming, 4,543.







In a statement made in wake of Governor Perry’s apparent support for secession in 2009, Congressman Ron Paul said that those who consider secession treasonous, “don’t know their history.”

“It’s a very American tradition; it’s very American to talk about secession,” Paul said.

Reminding viewers of the support given by the government of the United States to the secession of former Soviet republics from the Soviet Union, Paul said that America came into being by seceding from Great Britain.

“Secession is a good principle,” the former presidential candidate said.

Apart from outright secession — which is the right of states — there is, of course, an intermediate “rightful remedy” to the federal government’s constant encroachment into the sovereign territory of states: nullification.

This generation is subjected as none before them to the painful injection of government into every fiber of the body politic. On what seems like a daily schedule, the Congress passes and the president signs into law measures ostensibly permitting the manhandling of people at airports, the suspension of the requirements of due process, and the monitoring by the never-blinking eye of a surveillance state into the virtual and actual behavior of anyone believed to one day possibly pose a threat to the security of “the homeland.”



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Go slave state confederacy!



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


and yet....no proof of anything
typical



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by Rezlooper
 



Mark Hendrickson, Contributor
I write about economics, politics, and human-interest stories.

Op/Ed

7/26/2012 @ 3:39PM |34,491 views

See that lil "Op/Ed" ? That means it's an OPINION article, not "proof" of anything....


Yeah, he was just blowin' smoke, huh? Even though he's an economist, he doesn't know what he's talking about. All those executive orders are from fantasy land? You probably think Obama is the most democratic middle of the road president we've ever had.


His profession has nothing to do with it.
My opinion of Obama has nothing to do with it.
You were asked for proof and gave an Op/Ed piece.
That isn't proof, that's an opinion.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 

Do you believe it is possible for a town/county/state/whatever to exist with 'everyone' on welfare and no one paying taxes?
If even one state is receiving more money from the feds than they are paying to it then it means, of necessity, that there must be at least one state giving more to the fed then they are receiving from it. I believe such a state would qualify as self sufficient



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Puck 22
reply to post by Destinyone
 

Do you believe it is possible for a town/county/state/whatever to exist with 'everyone' on welfare and no one paying taxes?
If even one state is receiving more money from the feds than they are paying to it then it means, of necessity, that there must be at least one state giving more to the fed then they are receiving from it. I believe such a state would qualify as self sufficient



I posted an answer to this way back on page six.

Here is the section of that post that dealt with the subject...


Originally posted by happykat39


The states that secede will go broke for lack of government money.



Not really, the federal government takes a ton of money and after wringing all the graft it can out of it passes a half ton, at best, back to the states. And a lot of that money is for pork barrel projects that are not really needed for any other purpose than to get a congressman re elected.

A newly formed government with sound fiscal policies should be able to do just fine and actually be able to lower taxes on it's citizens. The danger here is that the people who would form the new government are still of the tax and spend mentality that has gotten us into trouble already. The politics of the federal government as relates to the states, if carried over to the new government, would be reflected in the new governments relation to the districts in the newly seceded state. It is said that it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks but if a state did secede the politicians of that state would have to learn some very new tricks and in a big hurry or they would soon be right back to where they started before secession.

I, for one, would not be holding my breath waiting for them to learn those new tricks. In fact, the only new tricks I would expect them to learn are ways to screw things up on a state level that had previously been reserved only for the federal government.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Puck 22
reply to post by Destinyone
 

Do you believe it is possible for a town/county/state/whatever to exist with 'everyone' on welfare and no one paying taxes?
If even one state is receiving more money from the feds than they are paying to it then it means, of necessity, that there must be at least one state giving more to the fed then they are receiving from it. I believe such a state would qualify as self sufficient

why would a seceded state need federal funding ?
what they do not pay the Fed, they could contribute to their own state coffers.
their state taxes could support a program equal to their need, rather a surplus that must be abused in order to maintain.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I have a question concerning the idea that secession is treasonous.

Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution. within the definition an act of war is considered. The idea that I'm pondering is the notion that a state seceding would essentially be equal to a usurpitation(sp?) of land. My question is this, is the United States considered US territory?

Ive found this defintion of US territory;

Portions of the United States that are not within the limits of any state and have not been admitted as states..

So, if a US territory cannot be within the stat limits, how can any of the states be considered US territory?

Thanks in advance to any and all that clear this up for me.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoralOrel
I have a question concerning the idea that secession is treasonous.

Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution. within the definition an act of war is considered. The idea that I'm pondering is the notion that a state seceding would essentially be equal to a usurpitation(sp?) of land. My question is this, is the United States considered US territory?

Ive found this defintion of US territory;

Portions of the United States that are not within the limits of any state and have not been admitted as states..

So, if a US territory cannot be within the stat limits, how can any of the states be considered US territory?

Thanks in advance to any and all that clear this up for me.
the same way DC is US territory and not a state.
it is occupied territory within the natural borders of 2 states (maryland/virginia)

other territories include places offshore like Puerto Rico, military bases all over the world and other territory they are currently occupying (ex Panama).

Land in the US is not owned by the Feds, it is leased from the State in which the land resides.
even eminent domain does not grant ownership to the Feds, they get management privileges.

remember, the US govt is supposed to be operating by the will of the people/citizens, hence they OWN, nothing.
they even voluntarily gave up ownership of our currency a long time ago.
(see the Fed Reserve for details)

to answer your last question directly, they are one and the same when speaking of the land mass known as the US of America. however, the US government does not own the territory, they manage it.
(albeit poorly but that's what the agreement known as the Constitution established)

ETA -- and, at this point, with all 50 states actively petitioning to secede and considering the treasonous activities of this area known as DC and its inhabitants, i'm leaning toward the idea of erecting a fence around the "occupied territory" and establishing a passport only type entrance into any state in the union ... as they clearly, never intended to be part of it.
edit on 14-11-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 

You do not understand this is a change of subject?
You are now no longer dealing with the possibility of a state being self-sufficient, conceding that financially it would be better off, but with the potential for state government to rule wisely.
Are you suggesting intelligence/wisdom/common sense/whatever is limited to federal employees?
Sort of like African colonies can not be granted independence because those darkies could never govern themselves? Is this what your suggesting?
I like the idea myself. Let Texas secede followed by Louisiana, Arizona, Oklahoma, etc.
Then let these states form their own new union. The United Red States of North America.
The first thing I imagine that would happen is the blue states would go into a major panic. Sort of like in that hypothetical town from my last post all the taxpayers begin moving out. My God!!!! Who's going to pay for all the welfare checks?
And as the taxpayers remaining in the blue states decrease in number their share of this burden will increase for each individual and if their states don't secede and join the red states I can see them all immigrating out of the blue states.
Imagine two countries here. One filled with hard working people willing to take responsibility for themselves and another whose entire population is on the phone calling their social worker to find out why their check hasn't come yet.
A sad fate for the United States perhaps but if we're going to be honest, one which it deserves and would have no right to complain about.
Imagine, a government that reflects the will of the people. Outrageous



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

Sir, you seem to have misread me. I tried to make it obvious there are states giving more to the Federal Government then they are receiving and therefore the claim that no state could secede and be self sufficient is false.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The subject has indeed gone viral...............

My nieces who are at best described as obtuse actually asked what happens if our state secedes from the union. Normally it'd take celeberty death or some such for them to even ask such a question, Just know this has now made down all the way into the "no news" "no thinking" class, thats important I think.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Puck 22
reply to post by Honor93
 

Sir, you seem to have misread me. I tried to make it obvious there are states giving more to the Federal Government then they are receiving and therefore the claim that no state could secede and be self sufficient is false.

i may have but if what you said above is true, then no, i didn't.
perhaps you misunderstand ?

i agree that the claim ... no state could secede and be self-sufficient is false.
it is your reasoning with which i disagree.

i am from one of those blue states, however, we could quite easily be self-sufficient MINUS the fed interference preventing such success.

that, my friend, is a truth no one wants to accept.
but it doesn't change the fact that's it's the truth.

the people who receive assistance, receive it VIA the state administered programs, not federal ones. the feds manage such programs
... if you can call it that ... but, they do not administer them.

(let's not forget, they get paid as though they do but what really happens is the magic that makes $$ disappear as it travels from one pocket to the next (yours & mine, to the State, to the Fed, through a few depts there, then back to the State and somewhere down the line, to those who actually need it)

that is the bureauocracy we ALL can do without ... red or blue, it doesn't really matter.

ETA -- just for fun, pick a state (one that you think NEEDS the fed).
and from your choice, i will demonstrate ways that they really don't.

try to remember, no fed = no State Dept, no Dept of Education, no IRS, no EPA ... blah, blah, the list goes on and on.
edit on 14-11-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Puck 22
 


Good grief, you read about a dozen things into my post that weren't even there. You don't seem to be able to read and understand much and if you are trying to be a troll you aren't doing that very well either.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I don't get it. Don't you want Louisiana to stay as part of the union? It is so cool there. And the music is out of this world.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepump
Go slave state confederacy!



YANKEE IN THE HOUSE.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



we could quite easily be self-sufficient MINUS the fed interference preventing such success.


I'm not sure why people can't understand this simple maxim. It seems that many are just rebelling against the possibility that others might be getting more freebies than they get, even to the degree that they forget we all could get more of what makes life worth living with less outside interference. Control of others is becoming so engrained in the minds of people that they've jumped on the bandwagon they claim to hate and do all they can to interfere in things that do not personally concern them.

One upsmanship. "If I can't do such and such then he can't do such and such." It has become a vicious cycle.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


sorry, but the racist birthers just can't handle that he is the president
he is no socialist.
what industries has the government taken over since he came into office?
i will tell you
none.
it's just a rant from the the fascist right.


First, he nationalized health care. But here is from the OP ED I posted up earlier in this thread.



1. State control of real property. Team Obama repeatedly has thwarted the development of domestic energy supplies by asserting government ownership and asserting arbitrary regulatory control over massive acreage. 2. Progressive income taxes. Obama has an Ahab-like obsession with raising taxes on “the rich” even though the top 1 percent of earners already pay 39 percent of the total income tax. 3. Abolition of inheritance. Obama favors re-institution of estate taxes. 4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. Team Obama has declared war on offshore tax havens; has sought legal jurisdiction to tax the offshore income of multi-national corporations as well as foreign citizens and banks that have any investments in America (causing Switzerland’s oldest bank to recommend that its clients avoid all American investments); 5. Centralization of the country’s financial system in the hands of the state. Dodd-Frank was a huge step in this direction. 6. State control of means of communication and transportation. Team Obama has attempted to cow conservative media outlets like Fox News into submission through denunciation and has suggested reviving the so-called “fairness doctrine” and imposing heavier licensing fees on station owners. In the area of transportation, Obama insinuated government into the auto industry, has favored the high-speed rail boondoggle, and wishes he could compel us all to convert to “green transportation.” 7. Increase state control over means of production. Through his green energy subsidies, his failed cap-and-trade scheme, now via EPA regulation, Obama has sought state control over the industry on which most other industries depend—energy. 8 Establishment of workers’ armies. Obama has ramped up the number of Americans working for Uncle Sam by securing a large expansion of Americorps and winning passage of his Serve America Act. He also has done everything he could to strengthen labor unions. 9. Control over where people live. Team Obama doesn’t go quite this far, but one of the clear implications of cap-and-trade is that government could start to limit human mobility by controlling how far they can travel by capping energy consumption. In Brian Sussman’s book, “Eco-Tyranny,” you can read an executive order that Obama signed on October 5, 2009 that would “divide the country into sectors where all humans would be herded into urban hubs” while most of the land would be “returned to a natural state upon which humans would only be allowed to tread lightly.” (Marx wanted more equal distribution of the human population between town and country, whereas Obama favors urban concentration, but both want to control where people live.) 10. Free education. Obama has sought a federal government monopoly on student loans for higher education, and in his 2012 State of the Union Address, he called for additional funds for new federal education programs. In closing, I repeat that we should not recklessly call Obama a “Marxist-Leninist.” Although it’s too long and cumbersome a label for a generation addicted to sound bites and simplistic labels, a fair description of Obama and his economic goals is to say that he is “an interventionist, corporatist, statist, Big Government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor.”


Source





top topics
 
31
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join