Author says South should form new nation without gays and Hispanics called ‘Reagan’

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: theantediluvian

The American Taliban is a real thing. It doesn't look to the Koran for its guidance either.

Hmmmm in the show the Newsroom Jeff Daniel's character said the same thing:

Yeah, let's actually go the source: Not some wingnut using a poll as an excuse to extemporize on tried and true Red State Rhetoric, but the actual poll.

It was a Reuters Poll: One in Four Americans

From the article presenting that poll:

The United States hardly seems to be on the verge of fracture, and the small secession movements in a handful of American states today represent a tiny percentage of those polled by Reuters.

So, we're talking about maybe 1% of the country that's actually willing to put up or shut up.

More 'much ado about nothing' from the rabid right wing.

Perhaps we might get a different response if we asked:

"Are you willing to live in what will be, at best, a third-world country after near total financial collapse in your state to advance your fantasies of secession and revolution?"

I just betcha you'd get different answers.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

Did you even read the article?

No, I'm only going off what was said in the OP which was this guy wants to have 3 states to himself and whoever agrees with him and have those states separate from the rest of the USofA.

I admit I'm not exactly taking this topic or what this guy has to say very seriously, if you couldn't tell. That's because I don't really care what opinion this guy has or what his plan really is.

If I missed some important detail, then I'm sorry. I was simply going off of what the OP wrote. But I guess I'll read the entire thing now. Give me a minute to catch up please. Then I'll adjust my opinion on the matter and report back.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
You're assuming that "They" are the majority. So much so, that you are also assuming that everyone else that are not "They" would agree to 3 states giving up themselves.

Exactly who is going to do that?

No one. Because there are not enough people that really believe that.

What would be much better would be for people to stop hating each other, drawing lines, and using labels.

No, I don't know who "they" are. I'm also saying all this in a half joking way. Obviously, people in those states won't all want to give up their homes and move to let this guy and his followers have their own homeland. That's because I'm not suggesting this in total seriousness. I didn't realize I would actually be taken so seriously. Although I do support the idea of letting people have their own space to do what they want if in fact they find it completely impossible to live with everyone else without fighting.

I totally agree that the best option would for people to stop fighting and get along with each other. That would be great. But that doesn't seem to work. Some people, like this guy here, just can't do it. He is unable to compromise at all and insists upon creating a sub class of people who he doesn't like. Either that or he must have his own place away from the rest of us. So I say fine. I'm not going to make him change. So give him his own spot to live out the rest of his miserable lonely life and let him hate whoever he wants with total freedom. But make sure he does it somewhere else so the rest of us who can compromise can live our lives peacefully and happily together.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: guitarplayer

Now you're just reaching to hold onto a disproven ideal. The Supreme Court, like it or not, is the final arbiter of law in the land. If you read the links the caveat that ran throughout is that revolution is acceptable as a last resource. Until all other options are removed from the table, by elimination then one has no grounds to attempt either secession or revolution.

Chief Justice John Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden wrote that "limitations of a power furnish a strong argument in favor of the existence of that
power. . . .11 He concludes:

What would have been the point of the foregoing proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting or limiting the right of secession if under the Constitution the unfettered right of secession did not already exist? Why would Congress have even considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?

Speaking from Georgia, I can tell you that I never heard a single word about secession as a serious modern consideration until the advent of Fox News/Rush/Beck, et. al.

Our population is about 35% Democrat, 35% Republican, 20% right leaning Independents and 10% Left leaners.

I can tell you for a fact, though, that when I was growing up, anyone who seriously said anything about tearing down the United States of America would have gotten his butt handed to him in a bag.

And I graduated from a high-school whose mascot was "The Rebel."

a reply to: guitarplayer

You are citing a pre Civil War case that has to do with the commerce clause as a basis for arguing the legality of secession?

Apples and oranges with a cherry picked quote to fill out the fruit basket.

a reply to: Hefficide

So everything prior to lincoln is not relevant in constitutional laws or principals? Why would they need to bring forth amendments to the constitution declaring that it would take 2/3 of the states to vote and ratify a state leaving the union?

a reply to: beezzer

Ok beez, I read the whole article. What did I miss that I'm supposed to have learned that would change my position about this???

What is it that you feel I am missing here???

This guy thinks America is falling apart. Check. Join the club.

He blames it on a variety of things. Fine. I agree with him on some of those things and not on others.

He wants to divide up the land to create some kind of "Traditional Values" Nation of Christian Traditionalism and Conservative Ideals and have it separate from the US where he can live free from those people he doesn't like. Ok, I think that's a lame idea and I certainly don't want to live there, but if he simply cannot get along with everyone and refuses to try and also believes that fixing the system is impossible but abandoning it the right choice, fine, let him. Once he's gone and those like him maybe the rest of us can finally get our asses in gear and get things back on track for ourselves as well. Him and those like him also can do what they have to do to be happy.

What did I miss??

a reply to: olaru12

I think it would be awesome just to watch the Purification Tribunals. Yes Tribunals. How did you think they would weed out the impure?

Committees of these imbeciles trying to decide the important issues of our time. Who is white? Who is a real man? Who is Hispanic? Who is a Christian...a patriot. LOL

I think that would be very revealing about the character of these stumps. A little Nazi nostalgia. A little which hunt entertainment, and a bunch of angry white faces. Hunger games, but with Nazis. You can't write fiction better than that.