• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you oppose secession for ANY reason?

Could secession ever be appropriate?

  • Total voters
    83
This is a ridiculous question because the rational answer must always
be yes, secession could possibly be appropriate, considering such extreme
hypothetical cases as if a national government were to attempt to single
out the population of a geographic area for enslavement (real slavery, as
in human beings reduced to property liable to be sold and bought, and
subject to unrestrained abuse by owners).

However, I decided to treat the question as if it considered only conditions
extending from what now actually exist to what might be remotely likely in
the foreseeable future.

In that light my answer was NO, secession is never acceptable.

I do not own a gun, and have lived a personal life of complete non-violence:
I have never harmed a hair on anyone’s head.

That will change if a true secession movement gets under way. I will buy a gun,
I will learn how to use it, and I will kill for the Union, for the unity of this, my beloved country,
the greatest place there is or has ever been. I cannot think of anyone who could
more deserve to die than any motherf u c k e r who tries to break it up.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Perhaps you believe that violent confrontation is in the future because that is what you preach? Is Timothy McVeigh your hero? If I knew you personally I would call the white coats for you ot report you to the authorities as a potential domestic terrorist. But since I dont personally know you Ill just assume that you are a troll.
Click to expand...

No, I preach personal responsibility and the freedom for everyone to live by their own choices without taking from the earnings of others. I.E. The end of socialism and it's bastard children. Besides the obvious violence possible, I also mentioned a peaceful means of avoiding the violence, that is let the different people migrate to where the people share their beliefs and then separate the two sides by secession.

No need for the white coats, just because I believe in something to the point of being willing to die or even kill to have/keep it does not make me crazy. (Otherwise we would have to lockup all the military). You may not like what I present, but to avoid it and preserve the possibility of a peaceful solution, you have to accept that such things do exist. Each individual should have a line that cannot be crossed without taking action, what ever actions are available. Otherwise, you stand for nothing and are just part of an unthinking herd. As to being a potential domestic terrorist, I only offer moral support to those that feel their individual line has been crossed, I make no specific threat and only express my support for a side. (And if it is interpreted as a threat of terrorism, I guess the FBI will be at my door within a few days, they monitor electronic media) Keep in mind that one mans terrorist is another mans patriot. If the term was in popular use during the American Revolution, the British would of labeled the rebels then as terrorist also.

Timothy McVeigh as a hero? Now who is being loony? That guy was a total moron and it was surprising he could tie his own shoes, much less build a bomb. Any idiot that would strike at a building such as he did shouldn't be allowed out without supervision because they are too stupid. Frankly, as stupid as he appears to have been, I am really surprised he wasn't some form of liberal.
 
USViking said:
This is a ridiculous question because the rational answer must always
be yes, secession could possibly be appropriate, considering such extreme
hypothetical cases as if a national government were to attempt to single
out the population of a geographic area for enslavement (real slavery, as
in human beings reduced to property liable to be sold and bought, and
subject to unrestrained abuse by owners).

However, I decided to treat the question as if it considered only conditions
extending from what now actually exist to what might be remotely likely in
the foreseeable future.

In that light my answer was NO, secession is never acceptable.

I do not own a gun, and have lived a personal life of complete non-violence:
I have never harmed a hair on anyone’s head.

That will change if a true secession movement gets under way. I will buy a gun,
I will learn how to use it, and I will kill for the Union, for the unity of this, my beloved country,
the greatest place there is or has ever been. I cannot think of anyone who could
more deserve to die than any motherf u c k e r who tries to break it up.
Click to expand...

Sure, blame those responding to the actions of others and standing up for themselves, not the idiots who took the first action that caused the response.
 
DVSentinel said:
Sure, blame those responding to the actions of others and standing up for themselves, not the idiots who took the first action that caused the response.
Click to expand...
What I am doing is blaming those who respond to lost elections by trying to break up the country.

Anyone who could fail to see something so obvious has nothing of intellectual value to offer here.
That means you.
 
USViking said:
What I am doing is blaming those who respond to lost elections by trying to break up the country.

Anyone who could fail to see something so obvious has nothing of intellectual value to offer here.
That means you.
Click to expand...

???? Break up the country because of a lost election? The subject of secession, at least in Texas has been around a lot longer than the last election. While Gov. Perry's comments after Premier Obama's first election did bring the subject a greater amount of attention, it is by no means new. There has been a secessionist movement in Texas pretty much since the day that Texas joined the Union and in many other states since at least the Civil War. The last election only added more fuel to the fire, it didn't start that fire.
 
DVSentinel said:
???? Break up the country because of a lost election? The subject of secession, at least in Texas has been around a lot longer than the last election. While Gov. Perry's comments after Premier Obama's first election did bring the subject a greater amount of attention, it is by no means new. There has been a secessionist movement in Texas pretty much since the day that Texas joined the Union and in many other states since at least the Civil War. The last election only added more fuel to the fire, it didn't start that fire.
Click to expand...
Every state probably has a secessionist movement going way back,
and I don't mean to escuse them from the list of people who deserve
a slug between the eyes.

However, it has taken the recent lost election or two to make them
really start screeching about it.
 
USViking said:
Every state probably has a secessionist movement going way back,
and I don't mean to escuse them from the list of people who deserve
a slug between the eyes.

However, it has taken the recent lost election or two to make them
really start screeching about it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know. No one I would truly support or even that closely resembles my beliefs has ever won an election. However, if two sides are so diametrically opposed, why not allow a secession that separates the two sides before violence becomes inevitable?
 
The federal government is no longer acting in the best interests of the states, or the people for that matter. The ACA is proof of that, less than half the population supported it, and yet there it is. There are infringements on personal rights such as warrantless wire tapping, reading e-mails and such. The federal government is acting outside the boundaries of the Constitution. In my opinion the country has grown too large to be sustainable and needs to be divided in to perhaps 5 regions. saying that it would be too difficult ligistically is not going to cut it. Some divorces are extremely complicated but they happen anyway, and sometimes without the consent of one party. Right now some states are asking nicely. If SCOTUS decides they won't allow it the states may leave anyway. Would any of you who are against the idea be OK with federal troops invading a state that wished to leave?

If Texas goes, there are a handful of states that would go with them. It would certainly not be easy, but when the burden of the federal government becomes too much for people to allow it to own their children (debt is slavery after all, and future generations did nothing to bring it on themselves) at some point it will happen. This country has already survived longer than it theoretically should have and basic rights are being eroded incrementally. At some point enough is enough.

And for those who suggested it was racially motivated I suggest you pull your head out of your butt and take an honest look around. Racism is not nearly as prevelant as it is made out to be anymore. The only reason it is still as active as it is is because of groups like the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who are fully invested in it.
 
DVSentinel said:
No, I preach personal responsibility and the freedom for everyone to live by their own choices without taking from the earnings of others. I.E. The end of socialism and it's bastard children. Besides the obvious violence possible, I also mentioned a peaceful means of avoiding the violence, that is let the different people migrate to where the people share their beliefs and then separate the two sides by secession.

No need for the white coats, just because I believe in something to the point of being willing to die or even kill to have/keep it does not make me crazy. (Otherwise we would have to lockup all the military). You may not like what I present, but to avoid it and preserve the possibility of a peaceful solution, you have to accept that such things do exist. Each individual should have a line that cannot be crossed without taking action, what ever actions are available. Otherwise, you stand for nothing and are just part of an unthinking herd. As to being a potential domestic terrorist, I only offer moral support to those that feel their individual line has been crossed, I make no specific threat and only express my support for a side. (And if it is interpreted as a threat of terrorism, I guess the FBI will be at my door within a few days, they monitor electronic media) Keep in mind that one mans terrorist is another mans patriot. If the term was in popular use during the American Revolution, the British would of labeled the rebels then as terrorist also.

Timothy McVeigh as a hero? Now who is being loony? That guy was a total moron and it was surprising he could tie his own shoes, much less build a bomb. Any idiot that would strike at a building such as he did shouldn't be allowed out without supervision because they are too stupid. Frankly, as stupid as he appears to have been, I am really surprised he wasn't some form of liberal.
Click to expand...

Timothy McVeigh rationalized the death of innocents for his cause. Which sounds like the same rational that you were using here: "The death of 10-20 million liberals and other socialist ilk is preferable to the costs of what liberalism will do and has been doing to the over 300 million in this country."

Now I am really against Communism and Socialism but I do not go around suggesting that killing 10-20 million humans is a good idea. Whats worse though is that you were not talking about Communists or Socialists you specifically said Liberals. You also are going on about segregating out the country between political ideologies. Will you be loading up Liberals in stock cars to do that? Perhaps put them in concentration camps too?


Yea I get what you stand for and most Americans get what you stand for. You are not preaching anything new, not anything that the KKK or that the Confederate States didnt already say.
You are right though Timothy McVeigh was a moron. Secession is specifically what the Militias preach about while they train with weapons to kill other Americans. In fact the secession movement is rooted in those same Militias types where McVeigh came from. Really you are not telling us anything that McVeigh didnt already tell us. Google this: 'Timothy McVeigh Secession'

Lock arms with your hero!
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Timothy McVeigh rationalized the death of innocents for his cause. Which sounds like the same rational that you were using here: "The death of 10-20 million liberals and other socialist ilk is preferable to the costs of what liberalism will do and has been doing to the over 300 million in this country."

Now I am really against Communism and Socialism but I do not go around suggesting that killing 10-20 million humans is a good idea. Whats worse though is that you were not talking about Communists or Socialists you specifically said Liberals. You also are going on about segregating out the country between political ideologies. Will you be loading up Liberals in stock cars to do that? Perhaps put them in concentration camps too?


Yea I get what you stand for and most Americans get what you stand for. You are not preaching anything new, not anything that the KKK or that the Confederate States didnt already say.
You are right though Timothy McVeigh was a moron. Secession is specifically what the Militias preach about while they train with weapons to kill other Americans. In fact the secession movement is rooted in those same Militias types where McVeigh came from. Really you are not telling us anything that McVeigh didnt already tell us. Google this: 'Timothy McVeigh Secession'

Lock arms with your hero!
Click to expand...

I never said anything about killing innocents or human beings, I said socialist and their bastardized sub-forms of Liberalism, progressivism and communism. Has nothing to do with human beings. As to innocents, I am very much against killing innocents. Children are innocents, people who have ever voted for, supported or rallied for a Liberal candidate or cause, or socialist or progressive causes are not "innocents", they are the root cause of the problem.

The potential for bombing of a federal building to help further your cause is too low and the potential for collateral damage too high for such places to be acceptable targets. If he had targeted the Headquarters of PETA, Sierra Club, The Rainbow Coalition or even the NAACP, then the potential for legitimate targets (liberals) rises dramatically while the potential for Collateral damage falls tremendously. These organizations, unlike federal building, do not use children and daycares to shield themselves.
 
DVSentinel said:
I wouldn't know. No one I would truly support or even that closely resembles my beliefs has ever won an election.
Click to expand...
Good!



DVSentinel said:
However, if two sides are so diametrically opposed, why not allow a secession that separates the two sides before violence becomes inevitable?
Click to expand...
Because in the case of the United States the 21st century no good rotten secessionist bastards
deserve to die as much as their 19th century no good rotten bastard brethren did.

You would do well to take note of the life and life work of the greatest Texan of all, Sam Houston.
If only they had listened to him in 1860.
 
DVSentinel said:
I never said anything about killing innocents or human beings, I said socialist and their bastardized sub-forms of Liberalism, progressivism and communism. Has nothing to do with human beings. As to innocents, I am very much against killing innocents. Children are innocents, people who have ever voted for, supported or rallied for a Liberal candidate or cause, or socialist or progressive causes are not "innocents", they are the root cause of the problem.

The potential for bombing of a federal building to help further your cause is too low and the potential for collateral damage too high for such places to be acceptable targets. If he had targeted the Headquarters of PETA, Sierra Club, The Rainbow Coalition or even the NAACP, then the potential for legitimate targets (liberals) rises dramatically while the potential for Collateral damage falls tremendously. These organizations, unlike federal building, do not use children and daycares to shield themselves.
Click to expand...

Well even McVeigh realized after the fact that a better tactic would have been sniper fire.

Before I was being a bit sarcastic about calling authorities about your possibly being a US domestic terrorist but now you seem to be showing everyone that I was in the correct ball field.

Bombing any building in the US no matter who it is, is domestic terrorism. You just said that it would be ok to commit murder as long as no kids were killed. In fact you actually said if had targeted only Liberals that you would have been happy.

You are not making a good argument for yourself, you do realize that dont you? I mean I implied some things about you, some bad things and you just confirmed them. Is there anything else that you would like to confess about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom