U.S. Collapse leading to a new dawn for the Southern States?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 



I've been to Atlanta, Memphis, Miami and various other Southern cities (I've also lived in NY for a year) and you know what, all your Southern Cities are replicas of what's going on in NY. All those SOuthern cities also have guns, deaths, hookers, drugs, criminals, rapes, and all the other disgusting things you find in NY you can find in Southern cities.


This is true except for one thing ~ what goes on just ONE particular street in New York impacts every single individual all those other cities you name (as well as those you didn't name) in negative ways, whereas nothing that happens in Memphis affects anyone outside that city if they don't like it.

Then there's the UN headquarters .... nuff said.




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


So...you want to secede because there are some cities in the North you don't like? Have you ever been to the North? Or do you just believe everything you see on TV?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 



This is true except for one thing ~ what goes on just ONE particular street in New York impacts every single individual all those other cities you name (as well as those you didn't name) in negative ways, whereas nothing that happens in Memphis affects anyone outside that city if they don't like it.

Everything that happens everywhere affects everything else. Right now we got Illinois trying to ban all guns in that state. If that goes through, it will effect everyone everywhere.

Crimes in smaller cities effect the rest of us. It gives us statistics, insights, justice being handed out to the criminals involved, setting a precedence for other cases, being added to law books, national data bases. Everything affects everything



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


Being divisive is using rhetoric such as referring to New York as the "festering pinnacle of the North". You don't think that these words and phrases will put people on the defensive? I'm sure that some here live in New York or any of the cities you mentioned, and you've essentially said that they are uncompassionate, self-obssessed people who would spit on you while your down if given the chance. You don't even know any of them.

No...no divisiveness there



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Im not choosing either side, but when i read post that bash the southern states, one being my native state of Arkansas. I have to laugh. Most people are unaware that Arkansas and some southern states surrounding including (Oklahama, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri) are some. Arkansas is one of the most Natural Gas producing states, Coal producing, Cotton, Soy bean, Cattle, Chickens, ect... WE also have a major navigation river running right through the state, Nuclear energy, Pine Bluff Arsenal world largest production of Bio weapons VX Nerve Gas and Anthrax. And many numerous military installations. Ive actually heard military people say that you could put a fence all the way around Arkansas and it would be just fine without any other state. Who gives a crap about federal help, and how much tax is paid in. If the SHTF I doubt people would be worried about paying taxes and getting federal aid. Im actually living in a very good place, with a ton of fresh lakes, fishing, wild game, and Natural gas coming out of the ground like its a fart.

No hard feelings to anyone, just stating some facts about the South



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 



Everything that happens everywhere affects everything else. Right now we got Illinois trying to ban all guns in that state. If that goes through, it will effect everyone everywhere.


Chicago is already a gun free zone. See how well that works? But I don' t see how disarming civilians in Illinois would affect anyone outside that state unless it was to encourage all the gun toting criminals from other states to decide civilians in Ill would be ideal targets for their pursuits.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by dominicus
 



Everything that happens everywhere affects everything else. Right now we got Illinois trying to ban all guns in that state. If that goes through, it will effect everyone everywhere.


Chicago is already a gun free zone. See how well that works? But I don' t see how disarming civilians in Illinois would affect anyone outside that state unless it was to encourage all the gun toting criminals from other states to decide civilians in Ill would be ideal targets for their pursuits.

I live 5-10 mins outside of Chicago, and hear every night on local news about 1-3 new murders on the city's south or west sides, so I now the gun ban hasn't done anything.

But to ban all guns state wide, will set a precedent to all other states. Supposedly local cops, swat teams, and sheriff's departments in New York and other states are already starting to train for outright gun bans, and illinois will be the first state to start this.

If they pass it here in Illinois, they will come after the guns of other states. So everything still does affect everything else



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by dominicus
 



Everything that happens everywhere affects everything else. Right now we got Illinois trying to ban all guns in that state. If that goes through, it will effect everyone everywhere.


Chicago is already a gun free zone. See how well that works? But I don' t see how disarming civilians in Illinois would affect anyone outside that state unless it was to encourage all the gun toting criminals from other states to decide civilians in Ill would be ideal targets for their pursuits.

I live 5-10 mins outside of Chicago, and hear every night on local news about 1-3 new murders on the city's south or west sides, so I now the gun ban hasn't done anything.

But to ban all guns state wide, will set a precedent to all other states. Supposedly local cops, swat teams, and sheriff's departments in New York and other states are already starting to train for outright gun bans, and illinois will be the first state to start this.

If they pass it here in Illinois, they will come after the guns of other states. So everything still does affect everything else


Sure they're already putting pressure on all the other states to get in on the gun grab and its liable to get really messy real fast. So although gun control wasn't the actual CAUSE of so many, like the OP, signing petitions calling for secession, it may well be the catalyst for whole states actually DOING it.

Personally, if I lived in Illinois or anywhere else and they passed this kind of legislation, I'd be for getting out of Dodge City PDQ ~ well, you know what I mean.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Meanwhile, I think to myself about how much help the Federal government gave the south when Katrina hit, and left masses of people without food, water, or shelter. The Feds sure took their sweet time on that one. Because it wasn't important to them. Because despite New Orleans being a prominent and historic city to the South, the Federal government simply did not care. When Sandy hit, they were on it right away, and they weren't even expecting it. That should show you where their priorities lie.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter42
Meanwhile, I think to myself about how much help the Federal government gave the south when Katrina hit, and left masses of people without food, water, or shelter. The Feds sure took their sweet time on that one. Because it wasn't important to them. Because despite New Orleans being a prominent and historic city to the South, the Federal government simply did not care. When Sandy hit, they were on it right away, and they weren't even expecting it. That should show you where their priorities lie.


How much of their disgusting failure to help New Orleans (or the northeast for that matter) is because they don't care (which is obviously true enough) and how much of it is because the federal government is a bloated clumsy dinosaur stumbling around on competing, conflicting limbs (bureaucracies and agencies) so that nothing ever gets done?

Frinstance, They tell us about their almost magical powers to surveil us all at the same time, but they use facebook for information on "bad guys"? And they shoot children from drones because their intel sucks.

We probably give them more credit than they deserve.



edit on 2-1-2013 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Exactly! We would be better off without them. If we were a country that was smaller, and more tight-knit, and the respective territories followed likewise, we'd be much better off. We'd be able to respond to our own crisis situations more effectively and quicker. Now, I'm not calling for violence, here, and a lot of people have misinterpreted me. I think the states are gonna break apart regardless, once the economy reaches it's boiling point. But this doesn't have to be a bad thing in the long run. Sure, we could make treaties, trade alliances and such with the nations that would form out of what was once the U.S., but without the oppressive federal government to tyrannize us.

In my opinion, the only way to truly have smaller government is to have a smaller country.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


Although I agree with your post to a certain degree, I dont think its about a north vs. south thing. I think its more of a right vs. wrong.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JarheadFidelis
 


I agree, but the brain of the Federal government is in the north, and I see them firmly in the wrong. There are too many atrocities to list here. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Tuskegee experiments, MKULTRA, and so on. All firmly at the feet of the Federal government. Now, the last thing in the world I'm calling for is a war here. Let's all get that straight. I think it'll crumble on it's own.

A wise person once wrote a poem I find relevant to this subject:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 



Exactly! We would be better off without them. If we were a country that was smaller, and more tight-knit, and the respective territories followed likewise, we'd be much better off. We'd be able to respond to our own crisis situations more effectively and quicker. Now, I'm not calling for violence, here, and a lot of people have misinterpreted me. I think the states are gonna break apart regardless, once the economy reaches it's boiling point. But this doesn't have to be a bad thing in the long run. Sure, we could make treaties, trade alliances and such with the nations that would form out of what was once the U.S., but without the oppressive federal government to tyrannize us.

In my opinion, the only way to truly have smaller government is to have a smaller country.


Many of the antifederalists agreed with you (and me too) on the issue of small government and they spoke out about the government's inability to function properly with the immense scope of land it claimed to own. So yeah, this nationhood thing was always a disaster waiting to happen and I agree with you that it will ultimately HAVE to break into smaller territories and yes, that will be a good thing in the long run.

What people are afraid of, though, is the short run and despite all the popular calls for change, that is the thing people fear most ~ especially BIG change. The government has taken full advantage of that fear by making tiny incremental invasions into our lives, one at a time, usually without our even knowing such laws exist until we PERSONALLY happen to run afoul of one of them.

I'm not in favor of any kind of violence either, what would seem more logical is people working together to quietly put the necessary infrastructure in place and build on it until such time that the territory could become fully functional without any input from DC or New York. Not that they won't find out about it and try to derail or even attack the infrastructure to put a stop to it.




edit on 2-1-2013 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


A very level headed opinion you have there. But besides the physical infrastructure being put into place beforehand, we'll need to put in political infrastructure in beforehand. Very few people these days have the moral character and experience of Jefferson Davis, or Robert E. Lee. I don't trust the governor of my state. He's a conman, a large scale scam artist, a man who practices grift as a trade. When I say that we should oust the federal government, I mean entirely, including the people who currently occupy seats in the state that were created by the federal government.
Wiping the slate clean would do us a whole lot of good.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter42
I'm not against the entire people of them. More so the Federal Government. Being passionate about one's beliefs is not being divisive, it's called being entitled to your own opinion.


In all fairness and with respect, your opinions concerning the generalizations of what the North and South of this country are, are at best, wildly off base and inaccurate.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter42
reply to post by frazzle
 


A very level headed opinion you have there. But besides the physical infrastructure being put into place beforehand, we'll need to put in political infrastructure in beforehand. Very few people these days have the moral character and experience of Jefferson Davis, or Robert E. Lee. I don't trust the governor of my state. He's a conman, a large scale scam artist, a man who practices grift as a trade. When I say that we should oust the federal government, I mean entirely, including the people who currently occupy seats in the state that were created by the federal government.
Wiping the slate clean would do us a whole lot of good.


Thanks for the kind words, people who know me well would be more likely to call it hard headed.


I'm thinking about a political infrastructure that wouldn't eventually become corrupt and the idea that it would be possible to find that kind of moral character escapes me altogether. Power corrupts. Many long years ago my dad was on our very small town board and I can still remember him ranting at the dinner table about the willingness of some of the members to take advantage of their position to further their own business interests. This was in podunk back in the 1950s and town/city/county/state governments have all gotten a thousand times worse in every possible way since then. Guess you could say I have serious trust issues on that score.

Its one of those who will watch the watchers deals.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


That's ultimately the problem. Being able to trust your government. Once it gets past a certain size, there's no way in Heaven or Earth to hold it accountable. A smaller government can make it more accountable, but not always.
I miss the days when people had principles that extended beyond the love and lust for money.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 





In my opinion, the only way to truly have smaller government is to have a smaller country.


I wonder how many who agree with this statement, didn't fight for their right to, or, vote for Ron Paul?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I voted for Ron Paul. Couldn't stomach voting for Obama or the other guy. Paul's a smart man. Much more intelligent than I am. I'm just worried about his son trying to ride his coat tails. He doesn't have the brains or character of his father.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join