Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

FreedomFromAll said:

Stating that the majority of secessionists are right libertarians and share tea party sentiments is a attack?

Click to expand...

you missed where he posted the link on libertarians....Haymarket and his fellow thinkers think libertarians are crazy.

he killed himself when he had to venture off into that area, and could not longer stay with the subject, he does this when he finds himself on the losing end of the stick.

haymarket said:

Any truth or reality that makes them look bad is called an attack out of a knee jerk response mechanism to protect their supposed good name from being dirtied or sullied with the hard cold light of truth.

Click to expand...

truth and you?...:doh

ernst barkmann said:

truth and you?...:doh

Click to expand...

Cheap shots at me does not change the reality that you were powerless to refute the points made about libertarians supporting secession on threads here.

haymarket said:

Cheap shots at me does not change the reality that you were powerless to refute the points made about libertarians supporting secession on threads here.

Click to expand...

i support the RIGHT to self determination....please correct yourself.

ernst barkmann said:

i support the RIGHT to self determination....please correct yourself.

Click to expand...

Yeah - and the members of NAMBLA support 'loving younger persons'? :roll: You can gussy up the ugliest and most offensive nonsense with three dollar words and euphemisms like you just did with this self determination BS. But lets cut the crap and double talk here EB.

So you DO NOT support secession and never have support secession is that right?

haymarket said:

Yeah - and the members of NAMBLA support 'loving younger persons'? :roll: You can gussy up the ugliest and most offensive nonsense with three dollar words and euphemisms like you just did with this self determination BS. But lets cut the crap and double talk here EB.

So you DO NOT support secession and never have support secession is that right?

Click to expand...

:lamo


first..... was libertarianism

second....... it was the tea party

third!......NOW ITS NAMBLA......:lamo..

i have already in this thread, said i don't support texas seceding from the union, however i support the right to do it.

ernst barkmann said:

i have already in this thread, said i don't support texas seceding from the union, however i support the right to do it.

Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference in practical terms. More fancy double talk for the same thing just like the NAMBLA example.

haymarket said:

A distinction without a difference in practical terms. More fancy double talk for the same thing just like the NAMBLA example.

Click to expand...

NAMBLA:lamo:mrgreen:....boy! you are way off the beaten path.....

ernst barkmann said:

NAMBLA:lamo:mrgreen:....boy! you are way off the beaten path.....

Click to expand...

It fits perfectly with your rape of the English language and trying to give fancy names to simple nonsense. Of course, you intentionally miss that since it makes you look silly trying to pretend you can support some sort of self determination or whatever crap you said without support the result of it which in this case is secession. Just a lot of stupid lipstick on the pig that you are trying to foist off as a beauty queen.

What the Hell does NAMBLA have to do with Texas seceding from the union?

haymarket said:

Any truth or reality that makes them look bad is called an attack out of a knee jerk response mechanism to protect their supposed good name from being dirtied or sullied with the hard cold light of truth.

Click to expand...

I was waiting for the proof of Liberal or Leftist Secessionists. They exist but in the world of secessionists they are as rare as a black Mormon in Salt Lake city.

ernst barkmann said:

well tell me, if that were to happen and people just think things up, why is there no right to food water shelter since people have the power to think them up.

as stated rights are recognized, they are not created by law because law is made by man, if man could create his own rights, then man can control rights.

many of you on this forum, believe rights are created by man, but you seem to always forget that IF you have the power to create you have the power to destroy also.

for the power of rights created to be in the hands of man, would be the most dangerous of thing, for it will lead to our destruction., and those that subscribe to this notion are setting a path for the destruction.

Click to expand...

Right to food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right to water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right to housing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


your fear is a bit over the top since a world where rights somehow exist on their own and one where we make them up both rely on people choosing to enforce those rights and choosing what they consider to be a right

and that people can over power others who disagree

I have not forgotten anything its just this appeal to consequences is rely stupid even if its really scary

Thrilla said:

from the Stoics of late antiquity until now, natural rights have stood rather firm.... a few laymen here and there might not believe in them, but that's based in their own personal political ideology rather than in any philosophical argument.

I'm not confused as to why anyone would question them, but it still boggles my mind why any modern man would outright deny their existence... at the very root of being a free man is our natural rights....they provide the very foundation for our society, our culture, and our governments ( not just in the US).... and for some odd reason, we still run into laymen who will argue against them, as if everything we are and do is bereft of philosophical underpinnings.

I can understand Haymarket making a stink about them... he possesses an irrational fear of anything libertarian( acute liberphobia )... it's a knee jerk reaction of his to deny anything a libertarian might believe in, even if that belief is beneficial to him and to mankind in total.
I haven't pegged why you feel the need to disbelieve them yet... but i'm not surprised either of you fail to provide argumentation beyond " I'm not seeing...."

Click to expand...

since the defense for natural rights on this thread seems to be an appeal to consequences and a mix of appealing to tradition and authority you can understand why im not convinced

what can be seen is very important in this case I can see from the news and accounts of history that people are not always granted are freedoms and that not every one wants them

I can see that a world in which people believe in natural rights only and one where they exist independent of the human mind but do nothing on their own look identical

AJiveMan said:

Well, that would solve America's border problem, wouldn't it. America could pull it's resources like border patrol out, and make Texans or Texicans responsible.
But what would Texas do about federal funding to close their budget gaps? Raise their own tax dollars?

Texas Used Stimulus to Cover 97% of Its Deficit - The Atlantic

Click to expand...

Would imagine that Texas would have its own federal tax rate, since we would no longer be paying federal taxes to Washington under this imagined scenario

haymarket said:

It fits perfectly with your rape of the English language and trying to give fancy names to simple nonsense. Of course, you intentionally miss that since it makes you look silly trying to pretend you can support some sort of self determination or whatever crap you said without support the result of it which in this case is secession. Just a lot of stupid lipstick on the pig that you are trying to foist off as a beauty queen.

Click to expand...

you are really starting to worry me!

Dittohead not! said:

What the Hell does NAMBLA have to do with Texas seceding from the union?

Click to expand...

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post:shock:
So in the world you inhabit, if a man said he was against pedophilia at the very second he was buggering a young boy, you would say he believed what he was saying?

blarg said:

Right to food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right to water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right to housing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


your fear is a bit over the top since a world where rights somehow exist on their own and one where we make them up both rely on people choosing to enforce those rights and choosing what they consider to be a right

and that people can over power others who disagree

I have not forgotten anything its just this appeal to consequences is rely stupid even if its really scary

Click to expand...

you have no right to food water shelter in america, because they are commodities and have to be created by someone.......do you think you have a right to steal property of the people?

you do not understand your rights at all.

ernst barkmann said:

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post:shock:
So in the world you inhabit, if a man said he was against pedophilia at the very second he was buggering a young boy, you would say he believed what he was saying?

Click to expand...

I might. He is a pathetic individual who can't control his impulses, and he knows it. He loathes his own sexuality, and for good reason, but is powerless to control it.

So, he may actually not be a hypocrite. He may actually believe what he is saying.

Now, if Texas decided to secede from the union, and there are plenty of Texans who would support that idea I'm sure, and some who seem to believe that Texas is already an independent nation, then why not let them? Why should the federal government have the right to ... oh, right. The bit of unpleasantness we refer to as the "civil war" did settle that question once and for all. Since might makes right, that means that no state may secede.

Dittohead not! said:

I might. He is a pathetic individual who can't control his impulses, and he knows it. He loathes his own sexuality, and for good reason, but is powerless to control it.

So, he may actually not be a hypocrite. He may actually believe what he is saying.

Now, if Texas decided to secede from the union, and there are plenty of Texans who would support that idea I'm sure, and some who seem to believe that Texas is already an independent nation, then why not let them? Why should the federal government have the right to ... oh, right. The bit of unpleasantness we refer to as the "civil war" did settle that question once and for all. Since might makes right, that means that no state may secede.

Click to expand...

well to make it clear from my prospective.

iam not wanting a secession, but standing up for the RIGHTS of people, and 1 right being the right to self determination.

the USSC has no authority to take away any rights of the people.

and the federal government has no rights at all, only powers which can be taken away, and they have no delegated power per the constitution to preserve the harmony of the union....the founders denied them such a power on may 31st 1787

as far as might makes right.....if stateS were to take the action of secession again, there will be no civil war, there will be outrage, protest, but no war.

ernst barkmann said:

well to make it clear from my prospective.

iam not wanting a secession, but standing up for the RIGHTS of people, and 1 right being the right to self determination.

the USSC has no authority to take away any rights of the people.

and the federal government has no rights at all, only powers which can be taken away, and they have no delegated power per the constitution to preserve the harmony of the union....the founders denied them such a power on may 31st 1787

as far as might makes right.....if stateS were to take the action of secession again, there will be no civil war, there will be outrage, protest, but no war.

Click to expand...

Yes, there would be protest and outrage. There could be military action as well, but the federal government holds all of the power in that regard, so there wouldn't be a civil war again.

That's because might makes right, or at least ensures that there wouldn't be a war when might is so one sided.

But, the fact of the matter is that we did fight a civil war over that very issue, and the result was that the forces against secession won. So, doesn't that settle the matter?

Or was the civil war so long ago that it no longer matters?

Dittohead not! said:

Yes, there would be protest and outrage. There could be military action as well, but the federal government holds all of the power in that regard, so there wouldn't be a civil war again.

That's because might makes right, or at least ensures that there wouldn't be a war when might is so one sided.

But, the fact of the matter is that we did fight a civil war over that very issue, and the result was that the forces against secession won. So, doesn't that settle the matter?

Or was the civil war so long ago that it no longer matters?

Click to expand...

disagree, the states are equal now, there is no longer two different types of economies, as soon as the federal government moves against states, our enemies on the outside will see this and move against america because we have made many enemies over the last 60 years.

so are you saying that the constitutions of the states today have parts of them which are invalid?..because of a war, from 1861 to 1865?

states have come into the union after that war, and part of there constitution was that the people have a right to self determination...and THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AGREED TO THAT when they created u.s. enabling laws for the states when they entered.

the u.s. federal government would be violating ........u.s. federal law.

ernst barkmann said:

disagree, the states are equal now, there is no longer two different types of economies, as soon as the federal government moves against states, our enemies on the outside will see this and move against america because we have made many enemies over the last 60 years.

so are you saying that the constitutions of the states today have parts of them which are invalid?..because of a war, from 1861 to 1865?

states have come into the union after that war, and part of there constitution was that the people have a right to self determination...and THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AGREED TO THAT when they created u.s. enabling laws for the states when they entered.

the u.s. federal government would be violating ........u.s. federal law.

Click to expand...

The US civil war was fought to preserve the union. The southern states seceded over the issue of slavery, and the northern states fought to prevent them from leaving the union.

So, if the states have constitutional clauses regarding their ability to secede, then we do have an interesting conundrum. Can they secede because their constitutions say so? Or, can they not because the civil war settled the issue of secession?

I'd agree that the people have the right of self determination, including the right to leave the union if they so choose, but do they really have that right? I think the issue would have to be tested by one or more states once again attempting to secede.

But, that's not too likely, is it?

Dittohead not! said:

The US civil war was fought to preserve the union. The southern states seceded over the issue of slavery, and the northern states fought to prevent them from leaving the union.

So, if the states have constitutional clauses regarding their ability to secede, then we do have an interesting conundrum. Can they secede because their constitutions say so? Or, can they not because the civil war settled the issue of secession?

I'd agree that the people have the right of self determination, including the right to leave the union if they so choose, but do they really have that right? I think the issue would have to be tested by one or more states once again attempting to secede.

But, that's not too likely, is it?

Click to expand...

some states left for slavery, some like Texas left because northern states and the federal government were violating federal law, constitutional law, harassing southern citizens, stealing southern property, among other things.

i shall give an example of 1 state.....on self detemination

in 1889 the state of N.Dakota entered the union and its constitution was accepted by the u.s. federal government via a u.s. enabling law.

that u.s. enabling law states that the N. Dakota Constitution was in no way repugnant the federal constitution or the principles of the DOI.

so congress by its own vote, voted that the N.Dakota constitution and what it contained in it, was not in violation to constitutional law

part of that state constitution was this:

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people, and they have a right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require.

so the federal government by vote, agreed via law that the people of the state of N. Dakota have a right to alter or reform there government.



all of the states which left the union before the war, did it by state conventions, or referendum of the people, the states governments took no lone actions, but by what the people of the states wanted.

Enabling Act



AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]


SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship


State History Enabling Act[/QUOTE]


Montana constitution:

Section 2. SELF-GOVERNMENT. The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state. They may alter or abolish the constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary.

ernst barkmann said:

some states left for slavery, some like Texas left because northern states and the federal government were violating federal law, constitutional law, harassing southern citizens, stealing southern property, among other things.

i shall give an example of 1 state.....on self detemination

in 1889 the state of N.Dakota entered the union and its constitution was accepted by the u.s. federal government via a u.s. enabling law.

that u.s. enabling law states that the N. Dakota Constitution was in no way repugnant the federal constitution or the principles of the DOI.

so congress by its own vote, voted that the N.Dakota constitution and what it contained in it, was not in violation to constitutional law

part of that state constitution was this:

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people, and they have a right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require.

so the federal government by vote, agreed via law that the people of the state of N. Dakota have a right to alter or reform there government.



all of the states which left the union before the war, did it by state conventions, or referendum of the people, the states governments took no lone actions, but by what the people of the states wanted.

Click to expand...

OK, and now the real and true test would be to have one or more states actually vote to secede from the union once again, then we'll see if the feds once again assert their power to preserve the union.

Not that such a thing is likely any time soon, but it could happen.