Presidential Election: 2012

[sumbrownkid]

But people willing to go to secession? No I don't think they would go that far in actual practice. Because the last time that happened over 600,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives. And the Civil War, though largely unseen from the mainstream, is still affecting the North-South relations to this day.

This will only weaken us all, not strengthen us.

I agree that the government of late has been a quack and a thief, but what government isn't?

People have to regain faith in the voting system and be disciplined enough to vote for who they personally believe is best fit for the job, and not vote for the guy that the media, both right and left, want you to pick. This is something that will take many years though at the rate we are going at.

 

[Danoff]

But people willing to go to secession? No I don't think they would go that far in actual practice. Because the last time that happened over 600,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives. And the Civil War, though largely unseen from the mainstream, is still affecting the North-South relations to this day.

This will only weaken us all, not strengthen us.

The Civil War strengthened us and was necessary. Now, granted, the people doing the seceding were in the wrong that time, but sometimes war (and death) is the answer.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I meant weakened in the actual process of secession.

Sometimes war and death is the answer, but it should be farthest thing away from the table.

 

[Famine]

But people willing to go to secession? No I don't think they would go that far in actual practice. Because the last time that happened over 600,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives.

With that in mind, do you think the federal government will go that far or pull out before they get to that state (no pun intended).

If it gets to actually being politically relevant, it'll be a big old game of chicken.


Why, for reference, do you think you even have a 2nd Amendment?

I agree that the government of late has been a quack and a thief, but what government isn't?

The US government is a little worse than that.

One of the strengths of the US political system is that there is an overriding set of rules that say what the US government cannot do - reserving powers to local government and the individual. The problem is that they're ignoring it with abandon (and then half of your countrymen who express a preference give it mandate to do it some more).

If it takes a bit of showboating with talk of secession to highlight it, so be it.

 

[Keef]

Because the last time that happened...

...was in 1982. It may or may not have been a legitimate effort but it did garner a lot of attention and respect. People were pissed.

 

[sumbrownkid]

We had the 2nd Amendment because we were weary of foreign invaders when America first started walking as a nation. This whole thing about protecting ourselves from our own government is a more modern construct.

The question of actually how far both parties would go? Well I can't say, but the last time it did happened it was not pretty at all.

I just hope that eventually people stop thinking with emotion and personal beliefs and start thinking with pragmatic logic and reasoning.

Never before have I seen a country so divided on along political lines. George Washington would weep.

@Keef: The Conch Republic makes for good laughs though today. The principles of the secession were solid though, but the execution of it was pretty novel.

 

[Signal52]

I just hope that eventually people stop thinking with emotion and personal beliefs and start thinking with pragmatic logic and reasoning.

Never before have I seen a country so divided on along political lines. George Washington would weep.

I really think the biggest factor is that there is such a large portion of the population who are only politically active once every 4 years. There is a lot of misinformation and ignorance floating around out there, and a lot of those same people are also susceptible to shady political adds that aren't so transparent either. Americans don't use their political system, and then wonder why it doesn't represent them.

 

[sumbrownkid]

My fellow Americans are more worried about their iPhone warranties and Facebook statuses than worry about the implications of a Supreme Court Ruling.

I guess people are too comfortable with the American lifestyle that we often forget how to take charge of our destinies.

 

[Keef]

We had the 2nd Amendment because we were weary of foreign invaders when America first started walking as a nation. This whole thing about protecting ourselves from our own government is a more modern construct.

I very strongly disagree and believe the Second Amendment was designed specifically to allow citizens to protect themselves from an overzealous government. That is exactly the reason we fought the British in the first place. The Second Amendment is a direct result of that. The founders didn't want this freedom to be implied or questioned, they wanted it written into law very clearly for all to see.

I just hope that eventually people stop thinking with emotion and personal beliefs and start thinking with pragmatic logic and reasoning.

I call it "not being dumb" and it's got a pretty strong foothold with kids these days. They listen to their parents constant bickering and going in circles, anger directed nowhere in particular, and they think to themselves, "I don't understand it because it doesn't make any sense." Often kids don't rebel against their parents because their brats, but because they think their parents are being dumb and in my experience that's usually the case. When young people say things like "Old people don't get it anymore" it's because old people don't get it anymore.

@Keef: The Conch Republic makes for good laughs though today. The principles of the secession were solid though, but the execution of it was pretty novel.

I've never actually been down there so I've never gotten a taste of the local attitudes. I've seen on TV that they have fun with it but I still respect the original efforts because the cause was real.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Well I remember reading about the 2nd Amendment in my junior high history class, and that of the larger reasons the 2nd Amendment came to be was not just for guarding against an overzealous government, but to fight a possible foreign army on our land. At the time we were a bunch of vagabonds (haters ) to the European world power.

Edit: Did you know George Washington was an OG?

 

[Keef]

Well I remember reading about the 2nd Amendment in my junior high history class, and that of the larger reasons the 2nd Amendment came to be was not just for guarding against an overzealous government, but to fight a possible foreign army on our land. At the time we were a bunch of vagabonds (haters ) to the European world power at the time.

I don't remember much that I learned in public school because it was all nonsense. I learned nothing about how the world operates at any point during all 12 years.

This is the jist of secession: It is an implied right of the people and States based on the 10th Amendment to the Cosntitution. But the Federal government doesn't think so. The Federal government sees it as an act of war. They do that because they want power and control over the States and people - it's human nature to desire control over others. It's not a uniquely human instinct, you see it throughout the animal kingdom. The Federal government despises the idea of secession so much that it started the Civil War because of it. Fighting against slavery was effectively a coverup to get people supporting the war, but the real cause for action was the secession of the South which cut the country in half. The Feds were afraid of competition for resources and land so they went to war determined to reunite the country under their banner.

I bet you've never heard the suggestion that Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we've ever had? He was a war monger, going to war with a sovereign nation - the Confederate States of America - and using human rights violations as the excuse.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Actually I know about the criticisms of Lincoln, and the biggest one being withdrawing the right of habeas Corpus.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

You guys speak as if the south was a victim of the civil war.

They should have gave up slavery, they didnt want to.

They are just as greedy as the North was.

 

[Liquid]

You guys speak as if the south was a victim of the civil war.

They should have gave up slavery, they didnt want to.

They are just as greedy as the North was.

But if they legally seceded, then there is no right to invade and wage war against them, regardless whether you agree with their laws or not.

You cannot disregard someone's sovereignty just because you don't agree with them.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

But if they legally seceded, then there is no right to invade and wage war against them, regardless whether you agree with their laws or not.

You cannot disregard someone's sovereignty just because you don't agree with them.

You say it as if they were arguing over what day to go to church.

The south was murdering and enslaving hundreds of thousands of Africans.

But I agree, let these states separate.
Then invade them
Especially Texas. With Texas as a sovereign state, we could invade and take their oil for free.

 

[Tornado]

I'd say the line for whether someone's right to sovereignty is valid is drawn well before they decide to base most of their economy around owning people.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Made a bet with my ESL teacher that Obama would win and prop 30 would go through. Now I am 5 USD richer.

 

[Famine]

Try reading this:

Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we've ever had. He was a war monger, going to war with a sovereign nation - the Confederate States of America - and using human rights violations as the excuse.

Like this:

George W. Bush was one of the worst presidents we've ever had. He was a war monger, going to war with a sovereign nation - the Republic of Iraq - and using human rights violations as the excuse.

And you'll see the point makes sense.

 

[DK]

Chances are, at least one of those states whose citizens want to secede will probably disregard the Establishment Clause.

 

[Liquid]

Keef, give us a Top 10 of the best and worst Presidents, in your opinion.

 

[Tornado]

Try reading this:



Like this:



And you'll see the point makes sense.

If that was directed at me, I saw his point like that to begin with. This isn't the first time he's made it.

 

[Famine]

Keef, give us a Top 10 of the best and worst Presidents, in your opinion.

I'll help with predictions!

W1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
W2. Barack H. Obama

If that was directed at me, I saw his point like that to begin with. This isn't the first time he's made it.

Twas aimed at no-one in particulars. Hence the lack of aiming. It's a fun point though - not that Lincoln was a bad president, but that W. Bush wasn't necessarily either. Well, for that reason at least - he had a few other poor qualities.

 

[Liquid]

I'll help with predictions!

W1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
W2. Barack H. Obama

W3. John F. Kennedy

 

[Famine]

Not sure he'll make the worst 10 list.

Essentially look for the guys looking at the constitution and The Forgotten Man to populate the top 10 (with exceptions) and the guys looking t'other way to populate the worst 10.

 

[Danoff]

I bet you've never heard the suggestion that Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we've ever had? He was a war monger, going to war with a sovereign nation - the Confederate States of America - and using human rights violations as the excuse.

Whether it was an excuse or not doesn't matter, it was a proper justification. Rampant human rights violations are, of course, a valid reason to go to war with a nation.

Keef, give us a Top 10 of the best and worst Presidents, in your opinion.

I'll help with predictions!

W1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
W2. Barack H. Obama

Carter was pretty bad too. Andrew Johnson is way down there. I think Obama might make the list of 10 worst.

What about 10 best?

Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln??. I'd list Reagan.

 

[Liquid]

Out of interest, what was wrong with Carter, terrible economics?

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

I'll help with predictions!

W1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
W2. Barack H. Obama



Twas aimed at no-one in particulars. Hence the lack of aiming. It's a fun point though - not that Lincoln was a bad president, but that W. Bush wasn't necessarily either. Well, for that reason at least - he had a few other poor qualities.

I was not aware Lincoln invaded the wrong country. Did he mean to invade Canada? The North had a valid reason to reunite the union, and whoever says the South was in the right, is seriously nuts.
Slavery and murder is never right.

 

[Liquid]

Whether it was an excuse or not doesn't matter, it was a proper justification. Rampant human rights violations are, of course, a valid reason to go to war with a nation.

It amazes me that it is reasons such as this that we go to war in several countries in the Middle East, yet countries like Eritrea, Zimbabwe, China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea are still violating their citizens' rights with very little done about it.

If country X goes to war based on perceived violations of human rights, how does it pick and choose whether that's country A and leave countries B and C, who commit atrocities as much as country A, alone? [/Rhetorical]

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

It amazes me that it is reasons such as this that we go to war in several countries in the Middle East, yet countries like Eritrea, Zimbabwe, China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea are still violating their citizens' rights with very little done about it.

If country X goes to war based on perceived violations of human rights, how does it pick and choose whether that's country A and leave countries B and C, who commit atrocities as much as country A, alone? [/Rhetorical]

Excuse me, we are talking about the 1800s here.
Lincoln did not know of any atrocities, in all those countries, in fact they probably weren't even countries.
What are you talking about? The South was maming, raping, killing, and not to mention the slavery right next door.

 

[Liquid]

Excuse me, we are talking about the 1800s here.
Lincoln did not know of any atrocities, in all those countries, in fact they probably weren't even countries.
What are you talking about? The South was maming, raping, killing, and not to mention the slavery right next door.

I had expanded and was talking generally, I wasn't at all asking why the USA did nothing about Eritrea 150 years ago...

But coincidentally, Eritrea was probably our problem 150 years ago, and England/the United Kingdom has a fantastic record of oppression against natives.