Secession petitions now filed for all 50 states - Yahoo! News

page: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
It's the economy. People are working harder and harder(those who still have jobs), for less money while the corrupt pocket the peoples money, steal their houses, their savings (401k's) etc,. The only viable answer many people see is to secede because it will only get worse. They say it is time to unplug from the Union and kick out all the foreign banks along with the corrupt politicians who sold us all out. Traitors who have done these things.There is already a low level conflict going on hence all the explosions, wild fires and predator drones flying around, police beating down civilians and shooting pets not to mention all the corrupt legislation being passed to take away the peoples rights. I wouldn't be surprised to see UN boots on the ground "For our own safety". Yeah, things going down hill fast.




posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I do not think that we could "clear the Mall" of a massive with tanks running over people and shooting protesters with bullets because that would turn the people against the government. It would be a breaking point of no return and the start of the new civil war.

What no one wanting to join the New World Order?


new civil war?...join the new world order??? it was a presidential election, and the majority decided that they do not want republicans ruling the U.S....amazing that electing a president that wants to help the middle class and the poor, and wants to raise taxes on the top 1%, is a right-wing call to arms for overthrowing the government.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I have thought about this long and hard, actually even before this thread. I believe such petitions now are nothing more than a ruse set up and founded by the current government to entrap those who sign.

I have more than made my feelings known on ATS when it comes to the government. I claim neither side rep or dem. I do not think any of them have the interests of the average American in mind. I feel they are all out to steal and rape the country while filling their own pockets with corporate moneys. I will not sign said petition though.

For one I do not think leaving the union is the answer. The answer is removing the government we have and replacing them with people that will represent those they are in DC to serve. I am tired of how the government is running. It was failing with Bush; it is failing with Obama, hell it has been failing for decades now. It will fail until we get the corruption out. The only way to get the corruption out is to get passed this two party thing. One side is not better than the other; both are failures and should be removed.

If I thought it would help I would run for office myself. But unlike the career politician lawyers I do not have millions of dollars to run on. I have a meager check that gets my family by from week to week. I work full time and have a family to help run as well.

My stance would be completely moderate, I would work to end stupid laws that make illegal a natural drug yet fully embrace harmful created drugs. I would not care what one group of people do in their own home or who they love. I also do not think my religious beliefs are anyone business. I have my own beliefs and my responsibilities that must concern my own actions before I can be concerned with forcing my beliefs on others. I want this country back to the basics with the Constitution and not in the hands of the corporate millionaires. I do not want to be rich and your money means nothing to me. Your money will not make me change my mind or sidestep my beliefs. If we can work together to make things right fine; if you just want to buy me I have no use for you or your kind.

Anyway end of rant; it is not important anyway as I think American Idol comes on tonight. Also I think that hotel girl is in the news again for being rich and for being famous because she is rich, it most likely has to do with sex or something.


Raist



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
None of this can really happen unless you get half of the military on your side.
You the need to convince more than a few Generals to be on your side.

Otherwise, what are you going to do, drive up to the military base in Louisiana and tell them they have to move?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I totally agree with you except the failing part, I remember the government closing down many times when clinton was in office. I think the republicans want to rape the country and line their pockets.

Right now with the petitions to secede are nothing more than several people that don't agree with obama. I would bet the majority of them are either business owners or people that have investments in businesses. Either way all they are doing is crying and can't man up to the fact that with serious business comes responsibility and one of those responsibilitys that has been forced over to the wasteside from day one, is taking care of the employee.

Employees have always gotten the short end of the stick, from starting out with paying us crappy wages. You do realize that if they actually paid us a decent wage, we would be able to afford our own health insurance and the government wouldn't have to force them to do for us. The problem is greed lines the pocket of every republican. What started out as having an employee to help out and run the business, was quickly learned that you can profit off your business and product but you can also profit off your employees too by paying them crap wages.

So people started to strike by taking advantage of the Unemployment benefits, after all it paid more than a minimum wage job, so employers cut hours so that they woudln't have to pay into that fund anylonger. People were striking, and the employer struck back.

So now they will be forced with health care for full time employees, now they want so much to not have to dip into their profits and would rather seperate from the union to do so. As if money is a valid reason. Not when its greed anyhow.

I knew long before Obama made this decision that the rich were going to get hit with something, you can't get anymore money from the poor, they are broke. They expect you to show up everyday for your shift, and on time, and not call in sick, but they don't want to pay you enough of a wage to where you can afford a car or health insurance or rent, in other words, they want slaves.

Now when I hear the states trying to secede, this is exactly what I think of, they are requesting to take their slaves and have thier own way with them.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


If you think it is just the rep that want to line their pockets you are wrong. All politicians' rep and dem want to line their pockets. All of them are corrupt and the only way to fix our government is to get a new one.

Obama is no different than Bush and Romney is the same either. They are all just a different face on the same coin. If the dem were any different than the rep things would have gotten better when the dem had majority and a dem pres. It goes back to what I said in the post about both sides being just as bad as the other. Neither side has the average joe in mind except to steal from us.

I work for a company that is based in another country. Wages are fair enough for what we do but not competitive with other places similar. Our insurance has gone up every year but one, two out of the last three years we have had wage freezes. In the end I think I take home less than when I started with them. I stay for vacation time and the whole not wanting to start over. My time off with my family is more important than making more and seeing them less. Our country is run on greed. Politicians are all about greed, they hate the common person. The only use they have for someone like me is to steal from me for their own corporate needs.


Raist



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I do not think that we could "clear the Mall" of a massive with tanks running over people and shooting protesters with bullets because that would turn the people against the government. It would be a breaking point of no return and the start of the new civil war.

What no one wanting to join the New World Order?


new civil war?...join the new world order??? it was a presidential election, and the majority decided that they do not want republicans ruling the U.S....amazing that electing a president that wants to help the middle class and the poor, and wants to raise taxes on the top 1%, is a right-wing call to arms for overthrowing the government.


You know, I'm kinda baffled and in shock myself. The reaction to Obama winning among some has been so extreme as to be bordering on insane. This is literally like the recent stories of cops shooting suicidal teens to respond to the threat they'd kill themselves. I mean that is what it comes down to. Obama may destroy the nation, so the thinking seems to go, so heck no the yell is heard, they will destroy it first by goodness! It's just nuts.


There is another irony I can't keep from saying any longer and I don't give a hoot if the right I normally identify with likes it or not. If Romney had won this and Democrats started signing petitions to secede states from the new Romney Administration, the Republican outcry to crush the troublemakers like bugs would be almost deafening. It makes this all the more...surreal?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I do not think that we could "clear the Mall" of a massive with tanks running over people and shooting protesters with bullets because that would turn the people against the government. It would be a breaking point of no return and the start of the new civil war.

What no one wanting to join the New World Order?

No one in the world believed China could murder that whole square full of people, either. No one believed Ceauşescu would do what he did in Romania in '89. His people DID have to literally remove him by physical force and under fire. It was the notable, brutal exception to the relatively peaceful implosion of the Soviet Empire. If you'd have asked me before 2001, I never would have believed my nation would invade 2 others and carry on war time operations in 7 MORE sovereign nations just years later.

There are a great many things I've been witness to with everyone else over the years that many "did not think" could ever happen. Now I'm pointing out, the United States Government has been spending mega billions of dollars on a program/effort every year dating back decades called COG, or Continuity of Government. It's SPECIFICALLY about defeating you, as an protesting American or any OTHER Non-Government source that can challenge that establishment in more than a passing way. Protest is and will be tolerated UNTIL it has any chance of building beyond mere protest.

It'll take FAR FAR more than "people power" to defeat a thing that has specifically planned and spent more time insuring this concept is simply impossible to ever play out than it has trying to solve the issue that now lead to it. Consider that....before confidently stating ANYTHING is beyond the scope of what the Government WILL do to maintain that continuity if pushed hard enough.


We are not China ..... our culture will not stand for what happened in Tinneanman Square



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I do not think that we could "clear the Mall" of a massive with tanks running over people and shooting protesters with bullets because that would turn the people against the government. It would be a breaking point of no return and the start of the new civil war.

What no one wanting to join the New World Order?


new civil war?...join the new world order??? it was a presidential election, and the majority decided that they do not want republicans ruling the U.S....amazing that electing a president that wants to help the middle class and the poor, and wants to raise taxes on the top 1%, is a right-wing call to arms for overthrowing the government.


I think we are way too late and our country has already been overthrown ... we are just talking about taking it back from the two-headed snake....



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I just don't see that, I'm not seeing Obama doing anything that could be lining his pockets.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 

Indeed... I believed that too once upon a time and before I had a rude awakening. I didn't think society would tolerate seeing peaceful protesters beaten down and physically abused by police. Then I saw it happen and it's definitely one of those things that represents a life changing experience. OWS did not start the fight that became a running one as fall turned to winter last year. Occupy didn't first turn protest to violence, by any means. However it may have turned later, how it started is what matters to the topic of provoking Uncle and being fully aware and realistic about responses that might bring.

This happened on October 11th, 2011 at what was known at the time as Site #2, Boston.



That flag many people are carrying in the park that evening is a bit hard to make out in the video. it might even be hard to understand why so many would be carrying it while surrounded by several hundred police in a box. This is the flag a bit clearer.



That wasn't a camp of "Moochers", "losers", "homeless trouble makers" or "misfits". Traditional Occupy folks were concentrated at Site 1, hence the designations, and that is where the bulk of the media was focused at the time. This camp was the Veterans for Peace people and I volunteered with some of them in St Louis. They are the real deal and what they appear to be. Here is another one some might recall better.



That was the night Scott Olsen was shot in the head by a sadistic member of Bay area law enforcement. The Vets for Peace people make a Quaker look down right hawkish. Now it's perfectly fair to point out that Scott Olsen was shot well into the period that Occupy had evolved into something very confrontational. However, early October was NOT by any means at that point and if anyone wonders what could have made a Right leaning rabbit like myself join a thing like that? Watching the Boston raid happen is. This image shows just a bit better how Veterans of this nation were treated for protesting the state of affairs in a public park.



I'd just say the most important thing is not to forget the Governments most driving priority and purpose above everything else and everyone else is it's own survival and well being. Everything else is a distant 2nd place and who sits in Office makes no difference to that.

By the way, many of the cops in the raid that night were later determined to be State Police and mutual aid as I recall. So even thinking your own PD would never do that is something TPTB already thought of and planned for. Out of the area cops don't have the same hangups about people they may know or have direct sympathy with.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





You know, I'm kinda baffled and in shock myself. The reaction to Obama winning among some has been so extreme as to be bordering on insane. This is literally like the recent stories of cops shooting suicidal teens to respond to the threat they'd kill themselves. I mean that is what it comes down to. Obama may destroy the nation, so the thinking seems to go, so heck no the yell is heard, they will destroy it first by goodness! It's just nuts.

There is another irony I can't keep from saying any longer and I don't give a hoot if the right I normally identify with likes it or not. If Romney had won this and Democrats started signing petitions to secede states from the new Romney Administration, the Republican outcry to crush the troublemakers like bugs would be almost deafening. It makes this all the more...surreal?


So you must be pro slavery. I have been a slave all my life, wihtout going into to much detail I have never even had as much as a paid vacation in the 20 plus years I have worked. Republicans would ruin this country and enslave as many people as they could to line their pockets. Thats what this is all about, greed, Republicans are greedy as hell. I just got done looking at a chart that was showing that there isn't a single state where one person can afford a two bedroom apartment at 70 hours or less.

The problem here is that Republicans want to do everything to maximize profit, and even if it means shorting their employees. It's nothing new, its ALWAYS been a problem. Employers expect you to show up on time everyday to your shift and not call in sick. Because your very important, but just not important enough to pay a decent wage to. It's slavery. They don't want you to call in sick, but don't want to help pay for a health plan so that they can be healthy., Again, what they want is a slave. Slaves work for little to nothing, usually just a trade for rent and food, but when they tell you they can't hire you unless you have a car, how were you suppose to pay for that?

Employers are so greedy that years ago when we had fluctuations in our economy, people were taking advantage of the unemployment system as it paid more than a minimum wage job, so employers cut hours so that they wouldn't have to anylonger pay into that fund.

So they don't want to pay good wages, they don't want to pay for unemployment compensation, and they don't want to pay for health benefits. They don't want to pay for dick is what it comes down to. The problem is that there is responisbility with owning a slave, they have to be fed, and they have to have shelter, and they have to have transportation to and from work. They also need a health package so that they aren't sick on the job.

It's long oerdue. Now a few select people are claiming they want to secede from the uniion, OMG cry babies that shouldnt even own a business. They have gotten away with screwing the system for so long that they actually think they are entitled to do so.

So your question at this point might be, well how much is enough? I'll just put it to you this way, when the us governement has to step in because your not paying enough for your employees to buy thier own health insurance, there you have it.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
That's a nice fairy tale...lol

A letter from FDR - a Republican no doubt.




My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Very sincerely yours,

APP Note: Although this letter appears to be signed, "Very sincerely yours, Mr. Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees, 10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.," the letter is from Roosevelt to Steward. The placement of the addressee's name and address at the bottom of the document was an editorial decision in the original "Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt." The American Presidency Project's policy is to reproduce documents in their original form.



www.presidency.ucsb.edu...



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Obama may destroy the nation, so the thinking seems to go, so heck no the yell is heard, they will destroy it first by goodness! It's just nuts.


The country is dead already - has been for some time. The federal government is completely out of control. This will continue under any administration.

The federal government has become a cumbersome burden to the very people it is supposed to serve.

Secession of a few States will not hurt the Union it will make it stronger - if it is true as some here have claimed the red States consume more in federal dollars than they contribute why it would be an issue.

Seems like a win-win to me? The USA gets to dump an underperforming portion of its portfolio and the people of the seceding State get the right to form and adopt a government more to their liking.



Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
There is another irony I can't keep from saying any longer and I don't give a hoot if the right I normally identify with likes it or not. If Romney had won this and Democrats started signing petitions to secede states from the new Romney Administration, the Republican outcry to crush the troublemakers like bugs would be almost deafening. It makes this all the more...surreal?


I am all for secession regardless of which of the two evils are currently in power.

I actually, think that it would have been better for the cause if a republican would have won. At least then the media would be sympathetic to the people rather than groaping around frantically at Obama's manhood like a bad 70's porno. The main stream media is a shill for the left wing - period.

All people have the right to determine their form of governance do they not?

No agreement is perpetual and binding across all time and upon future generations - why would it be so with our membership in the Union. What has the USA to fear from a State that secedes with its mighty Armies?

If it is such a great place to be let the people reaffirm this belief from time to time renewing our memberships. That is freedom of choice and self determination. It would make the agreement more equitable and require the federal government to balance their give and take - right now they are all take and very little give.

Insistence that we remain legally bound by the decisions of our forebears for all time and without any recourse other than revolution is simply tyranny exercised through legislation.

It is understood that free people have the right to self determination and to choose their form of governance to write legislation or laws that state anything otherwise are tyrannical in nature and serve the government and not the people.

The federal government is tyranny and has been since 1860.

It is rule by force of law backed by the barrel of a gun with the illusion of choice offered to the masses every 4 years.






edit on 15/11/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 

Well I've seen your posting and respect your logic and degree of thought put into it. I would then ask this in a different way. Where would you expect this movement to actually end up? Not in a theoretical way, but real world a month, 6 months or a year from now? Do you see the line to secession being one with any actual chance in the world we all live in?

In that line of thinking, I'd put it this way. Which national asset would Washington be willing to cede without fighting for it? California, Arizona, Oregon or Washington? Your talking about the produce supply for a good % of not only the United States but % of the world beyond. California is also the bulk of West Coast Naval facilities and Aerospace. Something they'd let go? How about the Heartland? Colorado, Kansas, Iowa or Missouri? Now we're into the Wheat and breadbasket for the same large % of America being fed in addition to the hog markets of Missouri and some rather..long term..capital investments in places like Manhattan Kansas and Whiteman AFB, or a certain sector of Colorado.

The Gulf Coast and Texas perhaps? Err... That guts a fair % of Washington's take and strategic supply for oil and products based on it as well as revenue from it's producing and refinement in those states. Also the same Naval issues and military concerns as California with more to add on Aerospace in Texas.

When it gets beyond the ideal of it and to nuts and bolts, I can't see a possibility at any level. It's just not workable. Only California and Texas even have independent economic and military capability to stand alone and not become a 3rd world economy in debt 500% to the IMF in short order..

It's kinda silly to look this far into it, but people are really signing their names right on up at the White House itself in a nation ...(this is ATS still isn't it?)... that has a real fixation on calling it's own citizens terrorists.

10 Ridiculous Things That Make You a Terror Suspect

^^ Now that would be funny if the report hadn't actually been generated to Homeland Security on that very topic with that absurd a series of definitions. I live right here in Missouri where that was generated...and kinda wished I hadn't been at the time. I mean this is the same Gov't it's now cool to use real names to say 'Hey, you aren't working, and it's time to break you up!..? I would laugh, but I'm actually watching this happen and it's like a bad movie. We all really expect nothing at all will come of this and the names won't form a brand new list of it's very own for DHS and Justice to keep an eye on?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by incoserv
 


The hipsters in every state decided to make a petition to later blog about. I wouldnt get so excited over this. Just expect more trendy cupcake shops in a neighborhood near you.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Scamzarilla
Americans have the right to overthrow an unjust government right?


So just who decides when it is a unjust government?


Some individual/group decides to start a petition and they visit different wards/cities/towns/counties getting signatures of approval.... if the amount surpasses 65% then a dissolution of government should be at hand, then locally elected representatives of each area should get together and build with the best ideas for the economy, society, peace and cheap clean energy and everything a community needs to flourish, take all these ideas and have.. lets say 'new constitutional doctrine'....almost like the monroe doctrine, except internally lol.... i dunno i think that would be a start...


Originally posted by hellobruce
Remember, the person you voted for not winning does not make it a unjust government!


yea that would be true, but unfortunately i did not vote, they were both incompetent in most peoples eyes, as well as mine....i would have much rather had given Ron Paul my vote given the chance, he seemed like he knew what he was doing and how to get there so technically there was nobody of this scenario you speak of on my behalf...but an unjust government exists because things are going downhill and have been for a while overall, lets face it, a lot of what america has been through is bad decisions and lets face it... things suck right now, im scared to see what the HELLp my son is going to grow up in let alone currently. Hard working americans deserve a happy normal affordable life themselves or with their familys, all people down on their luck deserve a solution with a chance, there should be enough jobs for each person to perform within their abilities, THAT is the American way we were taught it to be, and thats what it should be, and we KNOW the list goes on.... my point is.. even if the government is unjust now, would they be willing to change in some ways to help the nation better itself or would we even have to do something like start that petition....our government is suppose to be at our hands, and thats how we should all act, it GOVERNS our every day life, so we should all be more knowledgeable and in touch with political princibles and teachings and actually be able to have a say in them under rational thought.... i think that would be a process of progress in the making....that might be a good start.....who knows....it might fail haha only fate or god can tell.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scamzarilla
getting signatures of approval.... if the amount surpasses 65% then a dissolution of government should be at hand,


before that you would have to verify everyone who's name appeared on it had actually signed it.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


thumb prints and retinal scans ahaha yeah you are right but who knows, im sure we could figure out something
edit on 16-11-2012 by Scamzarilla because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join