Tally Marx Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1297694851' post='2212269'] You also skipped Alan Keyes. [/quote] ^^I vote for him.
Semper Catholic Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Get ready for 4 more years of Barry
Socrates Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Let the election year nastiness officially commence! (a year early)
Socrates Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='BG45' timestamp='1297655069' post='2212148'] None of the above. [/quote] [quote name='rachael' timestamp='1297690484' post='2212258'] nada [/quote] [size="5"][b]DEFEND CHANGE!![/b][/size]
thessalonian Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) Hey, where are the two options from my socialist republic of minnesota. Backman and Palenty? Edited February 16, 2011 by thessalonian
Seven77 Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1297898450' post='2213103'] Randall Terry? [/quote] um no.
BG45 Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297807971' post='2212687'] Are you talking about the League of the South? According to Mr. DiLorenzo, that was actually an outright lie on the part of whichever Congressman said it. An example of that shoddy journalism you hate. He apparently did a lecture for them once thirteen years ago. This is according to him. (Also, wasn't that an ad hominem or something along those lines?) [/quote] I didn't feel it was, but if it was then it was no more an ad hominem than most posts on Debate Table, I was stating my personal opinion on Representative Paul's taste in witnesses and how it influences my opinion of him as a politician. Although my views on the League of the South are [url="http://dixienet.org/rights/faq.shtml"]informed by its website.[/url] [quote]Q: Does the LS advocate armed revolution or overthrow of the current US government? A: No. We are not revolutionaries; therefore, we do not seek the overthrow of the US government. Rather, we seek, by peaceful and well-established legal and constitutional means, to separate ourselves from it. Recourse to the right of separation, or secession, is the very antithesis of armed revolution. Without it, men are not free. The right of secession is never more necessary than when it is denied. [/quote] Secession, even peaceful secession results in the effective dissolution and destruction of the duly elected government of the United States. [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1297809887' post='2212706'] Yes. Like Thomas Jefferson himself, who affirmed the right of secession, and who was a key player in a Confederation himself, if you will recall. In other words, you're opposed to anyone who believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights testifying before Congress. Amendments IX and X are key. I think you need to watch a video with Thomas Woods, an ideological compatriot of Tom DiLorenzo. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc[/media] ~Sternhauser [/quote] Stern, I think you would be the first to agree with me that an individual is not beholden to agree with politicians. My own home state should not legally exist, and the Supreme Court said as much in a later court ruling as it seceded from another state, even though said other state had seceded from the Union. I disagree with a number of things Jefferson held dear, including that liberty must be continually renewed by the blood of Patriots and Tyrants. I laughed at the video, it was pretty funny for the zombie host; especially invoking Godwin's Law. Though we've seen the states utilize their "duty bound to resist" idea of Madison and Jefferson a lot recently. As for not supporting the ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution, I do. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I do not.
Nihil Obstat Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='BG45' timestamp='1297983823' post='2213417'] Secession, even peaceful secession results in the effective dissolution and destruction of the duly elected government of the United States. [/quote] How, and for what reason?
Sternhauser Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='BG45' timestamp='1297983823' post='2213417'] Secession, even peaceful secession results in the effective dissolution and destruction of the duly elected government of the United States. [/quote] And an execution, even a just execution, results in the separation of a body-soul composite. Sometimes that act is justified. But I'd particularly like to hear your response to Nihil's question. It would be fruitful. You ought to examine the meaning of "duly." "Necessary" and "appropriate" are two key components of that word. The United State is neither necessary nor appropriate. A "union" maintained at gunpoint isn't much of a union. It is very much like a physically abusive marriage where the wife only stays because the husband says, "If you leave me, I'll find you and kill you!" Besides a possible indissoluble spiritual union of matrimony (a bond not present in any State), that's not a relationship based on union. That's a union based on violence. That kind of "union" is always unacceptable, no matter what form it takes. [quote]Stern, I think you would be the first to agree with me that an individual is not beholden to agree with politicians. My own home state should not legally exist, and the Supreme Court said as much in a later court ruling as it seceded from another state, even though said other state had seceded from the Union. I disagree with a number of things Jefferson held dear, including that liberty must be continually renewed by the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.[/quote] I have no problem with any of that. I may completely disagree with some parts of what you've said, but I have no problem with you believing it. How you act on those beliefs, on the other hand, may cause some issues. [quote]As for not supporting the ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution, I do. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I do not.[/quote] Then the mini-States have the "right" to secede. Bottom line. ~Sternhauser Edited February 18, 2011 by Sternhauser
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 18, 2011 Author Posted February 18, 2011 i often hear even the most arden successionists say that counties do not have the right to secede. there's arguments that the union, when made, was made 'indivisible' given the way the founding documents were written, as if a contract. more like a contract, less like a marriage. what makes a state so special that a county can't secede? is it cause the state existed, and then created the county? in some sense, that's what happened. these are all mere legalities, bottomline. but if the union was made indivisible, it's not much different than a state v county. or a state v. township for that matter. down to each person? township autonomy? each person? basically anarchy?
Pontifite 7 of 10 Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) What about Sam T Eagle? [img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110117133055/muppet/images/thumb/0/07/Sam_Eagle.JPG/250px-Sam_Eagle.JPG[/img] I refuse to vote until he is added to the poll. Edited February 18, 2011 by Pontifite 7 of 10
StMichael Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 None from that list. Retreads, RINOS and whack jobs.
Nihil Obstat Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='Hinter dem Horizont' timestamp='1298160347' post='2213957'] NONE. I hate republicans. [/quote] Oh good; you're halfway there. Do you hate Democrats too?
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1298162515' post='2213980'] Oh good; you're halfway there. Do you hate Democrats too? [/quote] AGREED Though if you are listing Republicans you should have also included Governors Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal.
JenDeMaria Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1297996106' post='2213462'] what makes a state so special that a county can't secede? is it cause the state existed, and then created the county? in some sense, that's what happened. [/quote] States Rights! You must not be from the South. I believe it would be safe to say we are not the United Counties of America for a reason. [quote] When the Federalists passed the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts"]Alien and Sedition Acts[/url] in 1798, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson"]Thomas Jefferson[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison"]James Madison[/url] secretly wrote the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions"]Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions[/url], which provide a classic statement in support of states' rights. According to this theory, the federal Union is a voluntary association of states, and if the central government goes too far each state has the right to nullify that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions: [indent] Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. [/indent] The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, along with the supporting [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_of_1800"]Report of 1800[/url] by Madison, became final documents of Jefferson's [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party"]Democratic-Republican Party[/url]. The most vociferous supporters of states' rights, such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Randolph_of_Roanoke"]John Randolph of Roanoke[/url], were called "Old Republicans" into the 1820s and 1830s. Another states' rights dispute occurred over the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812"]War of 1812[/url]. At the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention"]Hartford Convention[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England"]New England[/url] states voiced opposition to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States"]President[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison"]James Madison[/url] and the war, and discussed [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession"]secession[/url] from the Union.[/quote]
AudreyGrace Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='Hinter dem Horizont' timestamp='1298160347' post='2213957'] NONE. I hate republicans. [/quote] I'm a Republican.
Socrates Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='Hinter dem Horizont' timestamp='1298160347' post='2213957'] NONE. I hate republicans. [/quote] How Christian of you.
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 27, 2011 Author Posted February 27, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1297996106' post='2213462'] i often hear even the most arden successionists say that counties do not have the right to secede. there's arguments that the union, when made, was made 'indivisible' given the way the founding documents were written, as if a contract. more like a contract, less like a marriage. what makes a state so special that a county can't secede? is it cause the state existed, and then created the county? in some sense, that's what happened. these are all mere legalities, bottomline. but if the union was made indivisible, it's not much different than a state v county. or a state v. township for that matter. down to each person? township autonomy? each person? basically anarchy? [/quote] also, ya never hear the argument put in such terms. but, one could very well say if the person who wants to succede doesn't like where he's living, he could move. he can't just assume hte right to take land from the USA. that would be civil war material. pretty much the same mindset as those who say that a country or parts of a state can't succede, and the options of those inhabitants if htey dont like where they live
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now