1 in 4 Americans open to secession by their state

whateverpedia

10 years ago

1 in 4 or 25% eh?

Makes the Scottish secessionist vote look good.

Edit to add: This isn't going to end well.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536478].message }}

MissTerraK

10 years ago

I'm flabbergasted that only 25% were angry with Washington!

Or was it only 25% were open to secession?

I'm angry with Washington for a quite a few things but I wouldn't want to separate from my beloved country. I love the principles it was founded on.

Can anyone clear that up for me?

Terra

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537071].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

I'm flabbergasted that only 25% were angry with Washington!

Or was it only 25% were open to secession?

I'm angry with Washington for a quite a few things but I wouldn't want to separate from my beloved country.

I love the principles it was founded on.

Can anyone clear that up for me?

Terra

I believe its the "S" word.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537082].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

With perhaps the exception of Texas, I think voting would go like Scotland. You want it badly but....maybe not so much.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537091].message }}
- garyv 10 years ago
  
  I wonder what that percentage would be if asked if we wanted to make Washington DC and everyone in it Secede from the country?
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  2 replies
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537339].message }}
  
  BigFrank Banned 10 years ago
  
  Anyone looking to leave the country, I'm available to help you pack your bags. Just PM me.
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  [ 3 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537459].message }}
  
  seasoned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by garyv
  
  I wonder what that percentage would be if asked if we wanted to make Washington DC and everyone in it Secede from the country?
  
  HECK YEAH! Let's take the WHOLE DISTRICT, and everyone that lived there, outside of a hotel, and everyone flying there to talk with the government, as lobbyists, etc..., for the last 6 years, and ship them off to cuba or something. Most should ENJOY IT, since it is so much like what they want here!
  
  HECK, they have been trying to become the 51st state for a while. We couldn't have them secede because it technically isn't their land, and it would then end up like an east berlin with NO borders! STATES have their own land, such as it is, and want to secede because they don't like the way things are going.
  
  Washington DC is a DISTRICT that was setup to be an IMPARTIAL seat of government! And the whitehouse was built to that end. White House History | Facts / FAQs / Trivia
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537528].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

I'm flabbergasted that only 25% were angry with Washington!

Or was it only 25% were open to secession?

I'm angry with Washington for a quite a few things but I wouldn't want to separate from my beloved country. I love the principles it was founded on.

Can anyone clear that up for me?

Terra

Last I heard, over 60% were angry with Washington! I think Tim, TL, and I ALL fall into that group, even though we want different things. So you are NOT alone!

As for the 1 in 4? How many states had ANY people really wanting to do so? Of course, they did NOT interview everyone! But some states probably see few prospects from seceding. Some see few prospects staying with the union.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537493].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

I'd be happy if New York City seceded from New York State, in fact most of New York State would be happy with that.
- [ 3 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537524].message }}
- BigFrank Banned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  I'd be happy if New York City seceded from New York State, in fact most of New York State would be happy with that.
  
  You won't hear any complaints from the folks in NYC, either. :-)
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537533].message }}
  
  ThomM 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by BigFrank
  
  You won't hear any complaints from the folks in NYC, either. :-)
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  Then lets get it done.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537552].message }}
  
  BigFrank Banned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  Then lets get it done.
  
  Game, on. lol
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537566].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

my beloved country. I love the principles it was founded on.

Can anyone clear that up for me?

Terra

Yes. This country no longer functions with the principles on which it was founded. Your country is gone.

Joe Mobley

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537572].message }}

BigFrank Banned 10 years ago

Kate Smith, God Bless America - YouTube
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 2 replies
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537798].message }}
- Joe Stewart 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by BigFrank
  
  Kate Smith, God Bless America - YouTube
  
  Hence the term "it ain't over until the fat lady sings".
  
  America, love it or leave it - period.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  My New "Share All" Blog Is Coming Soon! Online & Offline Marketing, More!
  
  http://www.UnCENTSored.com
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538209].message }}
- MissTerraK 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by BigFrank
  
  Kate Smith, God Bless America - YouTube
  
  I just have to add mine to yours.
  
  God Bless the U.S.A. by Lee Greenwood - YouTube
  
  Terra
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538410].message }}
  
  ForumGuru Banned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by MissTerraK
  
  I just have to add mine to yours.
  
  Thanks, here are a couple more.
  
  God Bless America 2013 World Series Game 4 in St....
  
  God Bless America - Mormon Tabernacle Choir -...
  
  Cheers
  
  -don
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538536].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Yes. This country no longer functions with the principles on which it was founded. Your country is gone.

Joe Mobley

And women, blacks, native Americans and white men that don't own property should be thrilled about that...Maybe we can go back to the good old days when we were giving blankets infested with small pox to the Indians? Or should we reread Ben Franklin's report on how to starve the mastiffs before having them attack the natives so the dogs would be even more viscious?

Let's ask a gay black woman that smokes pot and wants to go the the University of Alabama how she feels about her rights now compared to 100 years ago and before?

People pretend that our Founding Fathers all had the same principles and ideals. They didn't. They fought hard and long over just about every detail. The difference is, they were willing to compromise.

[ 5 ] Thanks
4 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537802].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

And women, blacks, native Americans and white men that don't own property should be thrilled about that...Maybe we can go back to the good old days when we were giving blankets infested with small pox to the Indians? Or should we reread Ben Franklin's report on how to starve the mastiffs before having them attack the natives so the dogs would be even more viscious?

Let's ask a gay black woman that smokes pot and wants to go the the University of Alabama how she feels about her rights now compared to 100 years ago and before?

People pretend that our Founding Fathers all had the same principles and ideals. They didn't. They fought hard and long over just about every detail. The difference is, they were willing to compromise.

Well, Kurt - it appears that you did not get the memo that it is very chic these days to denigrate the country that still serves as the beacon of hope for the oppressed, regardless of which far-flung corner of the world they currently reside in. They would gladly trade places with those that find living here so incredibly onerous.

'Compromise' is a lofty goal, up to a point. Some things should never be compromised, such as loving your country and never bad-mouthing her while at the same time living in comfort that she provides. That's just being an ingrate.

How miserable must someone's life be when they choose to gleefully and proudly boast about how much they hate America, without an iota of shame? What happened to them that made them think and act that way? And a more important question - if it's such a horrible place to live why do they still choose to stay here? That's simply unfathomable to me.

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537831].message }}

Tom B

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Well, Kurt - it appears that you did not get the memo that it is very chic these days to denigrate the country that still serves as the beacon of hope for the oppressed, regardless of which far-flung corner of the world they currently reside in. They would gladly trade places with those that find living here so incredibly onerous.

'Compromise' is a lofty goal, up to a point. Some things should never be compromised, such as loving your country and never bad-mouthing her while at the same time living in comfort that she provides. That's just being an ingrate.

How miserable must someone's life be when they choose to gleefully and proudly boast about how much they hate America, without an iota of shame? What happened to them that made them think and act that way? And a more important question - if it's such a horrible place to live why do they still choose to stay here? That's simply unfathomable to me.

Cheers. - Frank

I agree, the secession thing is going too far and closer to hating. I do want to say that not everyone voicing their displeasure is hating. If this country is a beacon of the oppressed, we should be actively encouraging debate even if it is something we don't like to hear.

Not talking about what is wrong makes things worst. The real hate is trying to shut down these voices, imo.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537856].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Well, Kurt - it appears that you did not get the memo that it is very chic these days to denigrate the country that still serves as the beacon of hope for the oppressed, regardless of which far-flung corner of the world they currently reside in. They would gladly trade places with those that find living here so incredibly onerous.

'Compromise' is a lofty goal, up to a point. Some things should never be compromised, such as loving your country and never bad-mouthing her while at the same time living in comfort that she provides. That's just being an ingrate.

How miserable must someone's life be when they choose to gleefully and proudly boast about how much they hate America, without an iota of shame? What happened to them that made them think and act that way? And a more important question - if it's such a horrible place to live why do they still choose to stay here? That's simply unfathomable to me.

Cheers. - Frank

From a purely social point of view, I find it interesting how things have changed. In the late 1960's, it was the liberals that didn't trust the gov and were highly critical of it, with the conservatives telling them to "love it or leave it". Now, it seems to be the total opposite.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537887].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

From a purely social point of view, I find it interesting how things have changed. In the late 1960's, it was the liberals that didn't trust the gov and were highly critical of it, with the conservatives telling them to "love it or leave it". Now, it seems to be the total opposite.

Both time we've had a president embroiled in political scandal, to the point of constitutional crisis.

Constitutional crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538551].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Let's ask a gay black woman that smokes pot and wants to go the the University of Alabama how she feels about her rights now compared to 100 years ago and before?

Exactly. I think it could be argued that in many ways this country works better now for a larger percentage of the people than at any time in the past. My main concerns are the recent widening of the income gap and the shrinking of the middle class. Those trends can be reversed though.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537846].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Exactly. I think it could be argued that in many ways this country works better now for a larger percentage of the people than at any time in the past. My main concerns are the recent widening of the income gap and the shrinking of the middle class. Those things can be reversed though.

I agree. I don't like the suspension of habeas corpus, parts of the Patriot Act or forced drug testing which I feel is "bearing witness against one's self".

However, to only focus on these issues without taking into account the number of rights we have gained is only looking at one side of the story. And IMO, the rights we've gained as a society do affect more people more of the time.

Another example is the total failure "war on drugs", which has likely stomped on more Americans' rights than anything else in recent history. Look at the timeline of the war on drugs and the increase in our prison population. There's obviously a direct correalation. And it looks like this disaster of human rights is starting to come to an end.

Things aren't perfect. But to only look at the bad and totally discount the good is BS.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537872].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Let's ask a gay black woman that smokes pot and wants to go the the University of Alabama how she feels...

If she is petitioning her government representative to steal money from Joe to pay for her food, to pay for her health care, to pay for her cell phone, to help pay for where she lives, to guarantee her student loan, etc...

I don't give a damn how the b*tch feels.

Joe Mobley

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538453].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

If she is petitioning her government representative to steal money from Joe to pay for her food, to pay for her health care, to pay for her cell phone, to help pay for where she lives, to guarantee her student loan, etc...

I don't give a damn how the b*tch feels.

Joe Mobley

Damn I wish I had a thanks button.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538480].message }}

Joe Mobley 10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Damn I wish I had a thanks button.

Appreciated either way.

Joe Mobley
- Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538493].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

If she is petitioning her government representative to steal money from Joe to pay for her food, to pay for her health care, to pay for her cell phone, to help pay for where she lives, to guarantee her student loan, etc...

I don't give a damn how the b*tch feels.

Joe Mobley

Classic example of a red herring to try to disctract from the issue being discussed.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538542].message }}

SteveJohnson 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Classic example of a red herring to try to disctract from the issue being discussed.

I think it's a decent example of WHY many of the 25% feel the way they do.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538583].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I know. I've heard that same argument over and over and over. What I haven't heard mentioned is the rights we've gained. As I pointed out above, we need to be "fair and balanced", and consider both pros and cons, not just the negative.

And while the Founding Fathers talked a good talk. they didn't actually walk it.

They didn't allow woman or poor white men to vote. They owned slaves and George Washington was the only Founding Father to free his slave upon his death.

Blacks were only counted as 3/5s of whites. I haven't taken math in a long time, so can you explain how being 60% is "equal"? Must be that "new math" everyone is talking about. What they really meant was, "All rich white men were created equal. Kind of."

So yes, I agree our Founding Fathers has some excellent philosophies about society. Too bad they didn't actually practice what they preached.

We've not gained any rights - we've activated civil rights that the constitution guaranteed from the get go. Yes they didn't allow blacks and women to vote - that was against the constitution, though. So you didn't "gain" rights - you were just given the ones that were guaranteed. Those rights wouldn't be in action today if the constitution hadn't guaranteed them.

You have to remember - back then it was extremely progressive that they had stopped the church from being able to burn women live at the stake just because some yahoo had a voovaa against them and screamed "witch".

We have actually lost quite a few rights. NDAA - we have no 4th Amendment rights, and that's absolutely scary. "Free speech zones" - really? The USA is supposed to BE a free speech zone. There are now attacks on both the 1st and 2nd amendment, and our right to privacy has been completely usurped.

This admin is also attacking the 10th amendments - and that is where states are starting to get unrestful. The fed gov needs to quit over-stepping its authority or states will eventually secede - and at this point that means 35 of them, which would make a union of the secession states a majority of the US. The rest would end up a socialist union.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Classic example of a red herring to try to disctract from the issue being discussed.

Not actually. He was responding directly to a statement in a previous thread. So his answer is on point enough -- and if that distracted anyone from the main topic..........um.....someone needs work in attention skills. Both the original statement and the answer encompass one of the premises that are of focus in the secession states.
As far as the correctness of his statement - nothing in our constitution gives that woman a right to anything that is derived from funding stolen from other citizens. That's just another reason some people are wanting secession.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9539080].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

We've not gained any rights - we've activated civil rights that the constitution guaranteed from the get go... So you didn't "gain" rights - you were just given the ones that were guaranteed. Those rights wouldn't be in action today if the constitution hadn't guaranteed them.

We have actually lost quite a few rights. .

Wait, if we didn't gain any rights because they were already in the constitution somewhere, then we can't really be losing any either for the same reason.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540260].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Wait, if we didn't gain any rights because they were already in the constitution somewhere, then we can't really be losing any either for the same reason.

Certainly you can. Well we don't actually loose them, but they are suppressed. One example is free speech zones.
The Constitution recognized rights we already had and is simply a protection of those rights. All mankind has the right to free speech, freedom to practice their religion, freedom to peacefully assemble, etc. A government can only do certain things like protect those rights, restrict those rights, or deny those rights. A slave always had the same right to be free as anyone else, governments have not always protected that right. Woman have always had a right to vote, governments haven't always and some still don't protect that right.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540306].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

So you agree with me then.

Originally Posted by ThomM

Certainly you can. Well we don't actually loose them, but they are suppressed. One example is free speech zones.
The Constitution recognized rights we already had and is simply a protection of those rights. All mankind has the right to free speech, freedom to practice their religion, freedom to peacefully assemble, etc. A government can only do certain things like protect those rights, restrict those rights, or deny those rights. A slave always had the same right to be free as anyone else, governments have not always protected that right. Woman have always had a right to vote, governments haven't always and some still don't protect that right.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540434].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

Hey Frank -

I had forgotten Kate Smith - that was HER song.

Wasn't that Ronald Reagan toward the end of that video? (about 4:10)
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540500].message }}
- BigFrank Banned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kay King
  
  Hey Frank -
  
  Howdy Kay,
  
  I had forgotten Kate Smith - that was HER song.
  
  Yep. I was there when she sang it at Game 7 of the Flyers-Bruins Stanley Cup Final when the Flyers won their first Cup. She is revered in Philly and folks genuflect when her name is spoken. lol
  
  Wasn't that Ronald Reagan toward the end of that video? (about 4:10)
  
  That was a very young R.R.. :-)
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540519].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

So you agree with me then.

Damn Tim I do believe so

Now do we agree on what a right actually is?
I have a pretty simple definition of rights, privileges, and entitlements (which I've mentioned here before).
A right is something that everyone is born with and can pursue or practice on their own.
A privilege is an interaction between two or more people entered into without duress.
An entitlement is an interaction where at least one party is forced (by law or threat) to interact.

So a woman has a right to pursue birth control, but the only actual birth control she has a right to is abstinence. Any other types like a pill or even condoms (for the male) is a privilege because they are produced by another person and freely sold or given to that woman. If she receives that birth control because the person with the birth control is forced to give it to her by law even if that party doesn't want to, it's an entitlement.
Do we still agree?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540571].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Damn Tim I do believe so

Now do we agree on what a right actually is?

I don't think even you and Sal agree on the definition. She seems to be talking about legal rights that the constitution grants us while you seem to be talking about natural rights we are born with. Two different things really. Some believe we have both and some believe it's just one or the other.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540674].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I don't think even you and Sal agree on the definition. She seems to be talking about legal rights that the constitution grants us while you seem to be talking about natural rights we are born with. Two different things really. Some believe we have both and some believe it's just one or the other.

Geez Tim here we go agreeing twice in the same thread

If you have paid attention to Sal and I on FB then you know there's a few things we don't agree on

For the most part I think the rights in the constitution are simply natural rights that are recognized by the govt. Certain rights can turn into privileges simply by taking an action, which is not by any means always a bad thing. It's really about understanding where the change occurs.
We have a right to bare arms for self protection. We don't have a right to purchase a gun, that is a privilege.
Also just because a govt. says something is a right, doesn't make it so.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540731].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Geez Tim here we go agreeing twice in the same thread

If you have paid attention to Sal and I on FB then you know there's a few things we don't agree on

For the most part I think the rights in the constitution are simply natural rights that are recognized by the govt. Certain rights can turn into privileges simply by taking an action, which is not by any means always a bad thing. It's really about understanding where the change occurs.
We have a right to bare arms for self protection. We don't have a right to purchase a gun, that is a privilege.
Also just because a govt. says something is a right, doesn't make it so.

I'm with you, two on this one. When I say Constitutional rights - I mean natural rights that we are born with......rights that are ours by right of our natural birth. A gov can only protect these. Legally anyway. Doesn't mean that's the way things work, huh? Slavery was one of those things. Not legal one whit under the Constitution and supporting documents, but damned if it wasn't a normal practice. There really wasn't anyone that would fight for them until around the civil war time. Same with women's votes - they fought for those. If you make enough noise they have to relent and grant your rights to you. If you don't, and they take them.............well, whose fault is that.

Problem is that right now they are openly just taking them - usurped. This is not legal, but we haven't made enough noise to stop them yet. The fed is usurping state power at every opportunity. This is why people of some states are considering secession. They don't want the fed deciding for states in matters that the fed's disagree and it is the state's 10th amendment right not to care. The feds are greatly overstepping their authority right now. We're not supposed to be under corporate law. So why are we?

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9541279].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I don't think even you and Sal agree on the definition. She seems to be talking about legal rights that the constitution grants us while you seem to be talking about natural rights we are born with. Two different things really. Some believe we have both and some believe it's just one or the other.

The U.S. Constitution does not grant any rights. None whatsoever. Read it.

The constitution restricts the powers of the federal government. That is (was) its whole purpose.

The ninth and tenth amendments in the Bill of Rights make this plain, and this is where liberal-leaning supreme courts have screwed us. The language is plain, so they 'find' government privilege where there was none, as in the bustardization of the Commerce Clause.

LOL - the language filter needs some work

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540799].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

The U.S. Constitution does not grant any rights. None whatsoever.

I was paraphrasing Sal, who used the term guarantee. So sorry I didn't use her exact word.

The constitution restricts the powers of the federal government. That is (was) its whole purpose.

"It's whole purpose"? Ridiculous! Read it. It can just as accurately be said said it restricts the powers of the states, but of course saying that was it's whole purpose would be just as inaccurate as what you said. I went around and around with this with Ken last year. I thought you were in that thread. Our first constitution was the Articles of Confederation and one of the main reasons we needed a new one was to grant the federal government more powers. Oops. There goes your "whole purpose" theory.

By the way, nice way to bring politics into it as usual.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540894].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Our first constitution was the Articles of Confederation and one of the main reasons we needed a new one was to grant the federal government more powers. Oops. There goes your "whole purpose" theory.

Actually I think you're both kind of wrong. The Constitution defines the powers of the 3 branches of the federal govt. and of the states.
The Articles of Confederation was to establish the sovereignty of the original 13 colonies and the United states. It gave the continental congress 'authority' over the revolution and negotiating powers with other countries.
The Constitution in effect just made the central government stronger. One of the intents was to give the states and people a strong say and representation in the federal govt.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9540996].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

How am I wrong Thom?

Originally Posted by ThomM

Actually I think you're both kind of wrong. The Constitution defines the powers of the 3 branches of the federal govt. and of the states.
The Articles of Confederation was to establish the sovereignty of the original 13 colonies and the United states. It gave the continental congress 'authority' over the revolution and negotiating powers with other countries.
The Constitution in effect just made the central government stronger. One of the intents was to give the states and people a strong say and representation in the federal govt.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9541041].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

How am I wrong Thom?

First not everyone considers the Articles of Confederation as our first constitution. It was drafted more to give the original 13 legitimacy as a country, provide a central control over the state militias in the revolution, and a recognized govt. to negotiate with foreign powers. In other words it's purpose was just to establish that we where an independent country.
The Constitution was established to define how the central (or federal) government would work and the role the states and people would have in that govt.
Congress represents each individual state, with representatives elected by the citizens of that state.
The president was elected by the people as a representative of the people when dealing with congress and in other matters. The supreme courts job is basically to make sure the other two branches 'play fair'.
So the Constitution doesn't really give the federal govt. more power, but in fact gives the states and people more power.
Look at the preamble to the Constitution. The first three words in really big letters are WE THE PEOPLE.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9542218].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

First not everyone considers the Articles of Confederation as our first constitution. It was drafted more to give the original 13 legitimacy as a country, provide a central control over the state militias in the revolution, and a recognized govt. to negotiate with foreign powers. In other words it's purpose was just to establish that we where an independent country.
The Constitution was established to define how the central (or federal) government would work and the role the states and people would have in that govt.
Congress represents each individual state, with representatives elected by the citizens of that state.
The president was elected by the people as a representative of the people when dealing with congress and in other matters. The supreme courts job is basically to make sure the other two branches 'play fair'.
So the Constitution doesn't really give the federal govt. more power, but in fact gives the states and people more power.
Look at the preamble to the Constitution. The first three words in really big letters are WE THE PEOPLE.

"The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787." ~ Library of Congress.

I don't know who wouldn't consider it our first constitution ( with a small c ), but that is what it is usually referred to. The US Constitution gave the federal government more power than what the Articles of Confederation did. That was my point. Yeah, the people are supposed to have the ultimate power by electing representatives. Still don't see where I was wrong.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9542810].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

"The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787." ~ Library of Congress.

I don't know who wouldn't consider it our first constitution ( with a small c ), but that is what it is usually referred to. The US Constitution gave the federal government more power than what the Articles of Confederation did. That was my point. Yeah, the people are supposed to have the ultimate power by electing representatives. Still don't see where I was wrong.

Mainly because of intent. It was thrown together for the reasons I stated above. It gave the "rebels" legitimacy.
The Constitution gave limited power to the federal govt. allowing it to negotiate with foreign powers and oversee the states so they didn't try to screw each other and to collect taxes. It wasn't until the late 1800's with the Interstate Commerce Act that the feds started exerting it's strength. That acts (our first federal regulation) original intent was just to regulate railroads, but what it did was open pandoras box giving us over 350,000 federal regulations today and a bloated self serving government that is a far cry from what was originally intended.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9542886].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Mainly because of intent. It was thrown together for the reasons I stated above. It gave the "rebels" legitimacy.
The Constitution gave limited power to the federal govt. allowing it to negotiate with foreign powers and oversee the states so they didn't try to screw each other and to collect taxes. It wasn't until the late 1800's with the Interstate Commerce Act that the feds started exerting it's strength. That acts (our first federal regulation) original intent was just to regulate railroads, but what it did was open pandoras box giving us over 350,000 federal regulations today and a bloated self serving government that is a far cry from what was originally intended.

Are you saying the AoF was not intended to last? I don't think that is the case Thom. After several years of using the AoC as the constitution for the government they realized they needed to change it.

As I stated earlier, the Constitution also limited the powers of the states. Even more so, especially when compared to the AoF.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9542896].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Are you saying the AoF was not intended to last? I don't think that is the case Thom. After several years of using the AoC as the constitution for the government they realized they needed to change it.

As I stated earlier, the Constitution also limited the powers of the states. Even more so, especially when compared to the AoF.

I think the framers wouldn't mind the federal gov evolving and being able to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives and living standards of Americans.

After all, the federal/national gov is made up of the house of reps, the senate and a chief executive - all whom are elected by a direct vote of the people.

We keep hearing about how the federal gov isn't supposed to do this and that but looking at the constitution it looks like the federal gov can do a whole bunch of stuff - including "Promote The General Welfare".

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9543002].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I think the framers wouldn't mind the federal gov evolving and being able to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives and living standards of Americans.

After all, the federal/national gov is made up of the house of reps, the senate and a chief executive - all whom are elected by a direct vote of the people.

We keep hearing about how the federal gov isn't supposed to do this and that but looking at the constitution it looks like the federal gov can do a whole bunch of stuff - including "Promote The General Welfare".

I agree. Another main reason for replacing the AoC with the Constitution was to give the federal government commerce power which it didn't have at all under the AofC.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9543067].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I agree. Another main reason for replacing the AoC with the Constitution was to give the federal government commerce power which it didn't have at all under the AofC.

And that part in the preamble about promoting the general welfare can cover a lot of ground.

The framers were smart to put the power of the purse in the hands of the house of reps who have to go back to the people every two years for reelection.

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9543173].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I think the framers wouldn't mind the federal gov evolving and being able to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives and living standards of Americans.

After all, the federal/national gov is made up of the house of reps, the senate and a chief executive - all whom are elected by a direct vote of the people.

We keep hearing about how the federal gov isn't supposed to do this and that but looking at the constitution it looks like the federal gov can do a whole bunch of stuff - including "Promote The General Welfare".

No - the federal gov can't do whatever it wants to. It has clearly outlined duties and anything not outlined are states rights to determine. Take the Board of Education in point. The federal government has not one whit of given authority to determine anything about our educational system - yet they are doing it now. It's an overstep and states are starting to nullify the Common Core mandate in their state -- as well as a few other actions that have overstepped states rights. Some people scream about states that are nullifying federal actions, too - but it's states rights and they are taking action against having a centralized gov that is trying to take over every aspect of our lives.

"One in four adults−approximately 61.5 million Americans−experiences mental illness in a given year. One in 17−about 13.6 million−live with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, major depression or bipolar disorder."

Brian - please tell me you were kidding. One of the things I've always been ticked off about is people who are not comfortable enough with reality that they don't need to be drugged being allowed to vote.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9543078].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Are you saying the AoF was not intended to last? I don't think that is the case Thom. After several years of using the AoC as the constitution for the government they realized they needed to change it.

As I stated earlier, the Constitution also limited the powers of the states. Even more so, especially when compared to the AoF.

I think they had an idea it wouldn't work. After all it was thrown together mainly to give the revolution some validity.
The Constitution defines the powers the states and feds have.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9543094].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

And women, blacks, native Americans and white men that don't own property should be thrilled about that...Maybe we can go back to the good old days when we were giving blankets infested with small pox to the Indians? Or should we reread Ben Franklin's report on how to starve the mastiffs before having them attack the natives so the dogs would be even more viscious?

Let's ask a gay black woman that smokes pot and wants to go the the University of Alabama how she feels about her rights now compared to 100 years ago and before?

People pretend that our Founding Fathers all had the same principles and ideals. They didn't. They fought hard and long over just about every detail. The difference is, they were willing to compromise.

Our founding fathers setup a constitution that was to be followed, and it could be amended with proper authority. All of these new rights came about because they were amended to the constitution using a proposal by the congress and a 2/3 majority vote in both the House and Senate.

Right now many of our rights are being trampled on with laws and referendums being passed by a very slight majority - and many times not even that, the President has been bypassing the constitution for quite a while now.

The constitution has worked nicely to bring about new rights for quite some time. There's no need not to let it work as it should. - But lately we've been trying to do that - to our obvious detriment.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538529].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Our founding fathers setup a constitution that was to be followed, and it could be amended with proper authority. All of these new rights came about because they were amended to the constitution using a proposal by the congress and a 2/3 majority vote in both the House and Senate.

Right now many of our rights are being trampled on with laws and referendums being passed by a very slight majority - and many times not even that, the President has been bypassing the constitution for quite a while now.

The constitution has worked nicely to bring about new rights for quite some time. There's no need not to let it work as it should. - But lately we've been trying to do that - to our obvious detriment.

I know. I've heard that same argument over and over and over. What I haven't heard mentioned is the rights we've gained. As I pointed out above, we need to be "fair and balanced", and consider both pros and cons, not just the negative.

And while the Founding Fathers talked a good talk. they didn't actually walk it.

They didn't allow woman or poor white men to vote. They owned slaves and George Washington was the only Founding Father to free his slave upon his death.

Blacks were only counted as 3/5s of whites. I haven't taken math in a long time, so can you explain how being 60% is "equal"? Must be that "new math" everyone is talking about. What they really meant was, "All rich white men were created equal. Kind of."

So yes, I agree our Founding Fathers has some excellent philosophies about society. Too bad they didn't actually practice what they preached.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538556].message }}

MikeAmbrosio 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

As I pointed out above, we need to be "fair and balanced", and consider both pros and cons, not just the negative.

The problem isn't that people don't agree that we need to be fair and balanced. The problem is that everyone has their own viewpoint of what fair and balanced is and the over riding unwillingness to compromise
- Thanks
Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538655].message }}

MissTerraK

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Yes. This country no longer functions with the principles on which it was founded. Your country is gone.

Joe Mobley

I'm not sure which principles you are referring to in your post, but these are the principles I was referring to in mine...

Founding Principles

Especially this one...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – Declaration of Independence, 1776

Terra

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538073].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

I checked out the link and, indeed, these are admirable principles to aspire to. However, these are not the guiding principles of the current government. These principles are mocked, criticized, or at best held in low regard by those currently in power.

Joe Mobley

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

I'm not sure which principles you are referring to in your post, but these are the principles I was referring to in mine...

Founding Principles

Especially this one...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - Declaration of Independence, 1776

Terra

Thanks

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538434].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

1 in 4 Americans open to secession by their state

Those nice Hawaiians didn't join all that long ago, did they? They surely can't be tired of it, yet?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537564].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Those nice Hawaiians didn't join all that long ago, did they? They surely can't be tired of it, yet?

It started as a COUP, to overthrow the queen! I have heard from some that should know that, EVEN TODAY, many RESENT IT!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538767].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

... and 3 out of 4 support letting them

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537828].message }}

socialentry Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

... and 3 out of 4 support letting them

Why don't you guys just go Abraham Lincoln on them????
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537900].message }}
- Kurt 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by socialentry
  
  Why don't you guys just go Abraham Lincoln on them????
  
  I don't think many of them are vampires.
  
  Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter - Official Trailer...
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9537909].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

I heard a great line the other day...it's amazing how many Americans know their rights, but so few have any concept of their responsibilities.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538425].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I heard a great line the other day...it's amazing how many Americans know their rights, but so few have any concept of their responsibilities.

What's just as amazing is how many Americans don't know the difference between a right, an entitlement, and a privilege.
- [ 6 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538533].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

It's not "America" that those for succession want to secede from - it's "Amerika". They want to go back to Gov the way it was before it became so bloated and corrupt. Take us out from under the FED rule and put back rule of law without the power of big corp to own our legislators, and you'd see the cries for secession would cease pretty fast.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538477].message }}

richardking2005

10 years ago

What's happening? The 25% US, seems influenced by Quebec separatist in Canada. Then Scotish, The Catalogne in Spain and again, coming back in the North America. as saying goes "WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND".

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9538677].message }}

BrianMcLeod

10 years ago

"One in four adults−approximately 61.5 million Americans−experiences mental illness in a given year. One in 17−about 13.6 million−live with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, major depression or bipolar disorder."

Source: http://www.nami.org/factsheets/menta..._factsheet.pdf

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Brian McLeod

Direct Response Copywriting

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9542280].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by BrianMcLeod

"One in four adults−approximately 61.5 million Americans−experiences mental illness in a given year. One in 17−about 13.6 million−live with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, major depression or bipolar disorder."

Source: http://www.nami.org/factsheets/menta..._factsheet.pdf

About the same numbers that belong to the two parties and vote for those parties. Good information.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9542300].message }}

MissTerraK

10 years ago

Originally Posted by BrianMcLeod

"One in four adults−approximately 61.5 million Americans−experiences mental illness in a given year. One in 17−about 13.6 million−live with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, major depression or bipolar disorder."

Source: http://www.nami.org/factsheets/menta..._factsheet.pdf

I get it.

1 in 4 Americans open to secession by their state

"One in four adults−approximately 61.5 million Americans−experiences mental illness in a given year.

Terra

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9542379].message }}

1 in 4 Americans open to secession by their state

Trending Topics

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??

The Twilight Zone

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?

best high quality crypto traffic.

Should i Index Author pages?