grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Nov 12, 2012 12:50:47 GMT -5
Jim, gotta go with Helen on this one. Although it was her who equated a few states with petitions to succeed to a call for Civil War. I think that the term itself is an oxymoron to most on both sides of the aisle.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Nov 12, 2012 15:30:08 GMT -5
Just heard that three million republicans didn't even vote!!!!!!! No biggie. Romney lost by three point three. Now if you wanna go back to the clown car and pick another - Bachmann…Trump…Cain…Perry…Gingrich…Santorum - we could shoot for six million or nine million or . . .
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 12, 2012 15:42:23 GMT -5
Jim, gotta go with Helen on this one. Although it was her who equated a few states with petitions to succeed to a call for Civil War. I think that the term itself is an oxymoron to most on both sides of the aisle. Eh? What happens when a state 'secedes' from the Union, Bill?
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Nov 12, 2012 16:05:00 GMT -5
Boy you gotta argue with me even when I agree with you. (duly noted) The few states that are filing these petitions are doing so as an expression of their dismay at the outcome of the election. If the election had gone the other way there would be plenty of lefties acting up, and you know it.
The petitions are not informing the White House of secession, but are asking permission to secede. Even if they get the required 25,000 signatures in 30 days it will not go anywhere. And I know that you know it, you are just getting your jollies by being a sore winner.
If the time ever comes that states really are thinking about secession, I don't believe they will be asking permission.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 12, 2012 16:21:12 GMT -5
I argued with your statement that I equated a petition to secede with a call to civil war. That's EXACTLY what secession is... a call to Civil War by definition in this country, not just my equation. Just as legal precedence is set with a given verdict, Secession was set by Lincoln with the response.
OF COURSE it's not really going to happen, no one in this country is mad enough to do that, and you are right about the secession permission as well, there would be no petitioning. I'm just cleaning out my closet, and I'm looking for distraction because it's not very interesting.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Nov 12, 2012 16:25:52 GMT -5
Hahaha, on the first read I thought you were talking about your 'figurative' closet, and was about to agree with you . . . again.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Nov 12, 2012 16:32:09 GMT -5
Abe Lincoln. Worst president ever. Cause he didn’t just say, “Adios, mofos.”
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 12, 2012 16:35:47 GMT -5
I thought it turned out pretty well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2012 18:11:00 GMT -5
We're just having a silly discussion, no one can be stupid enough to want a real civil war.
If you really think that there is no one out there stupid enough to want a real civil war you have not been keeping up with the times. If you are only referring to the people on here you are probably right but if you are including everyone I think you are sorely wrong. I would be willing to bet that at least five groups are actually planning on it. Jim
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Nov 12, 2012 18:20:02 GMT -5
Lock-n-load. I'm ready to fight this stupid assed government. Old enough that I don't give a damn if I take a bullet for the cause of real freedom from the nanny state.
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Nov 12, 2012 20:06:14 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2012 23:03:47 GMT -5
The thing that I do not understand is why this did not happen when the truth came out about there not being any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. American citizens put in harms way so your friends get rich is treason isn't it? No huge uproar about it. None of the people that are wanting to secede now had a problem with what was going on then? American citizens were being killed unlike now. That travesty was just as bad or worse than what is going on now. I really wish someone would explain that phenomenon because I just can not grasp it.
Eleven years ago: citizens of the USA were being killed and a billion bucks a day was being spent just so we could get control of Iraq's oil. Did you watch the documentary? Nobody is watching it because they do not want to see the truth!!!!!!! Stubborn, mule headed, don't try to teach or influence me in any way, my mind is made up and I am right so go away and leave me alone kind of people ---- -- ----!
Today: not one citizen dead, war in Iraq is over, people are required to get health insurance the same as car insurance, the USA is right on the verge of being the biggest oil producer in the world which is going to create about 60,000 new jobs, and if we are lucky the people in charge will cut spending and pay down the debt etc etc etc. Maybe if we send a bunch more citizens to be killed everything will be ok. It worked in the past.
We have some serious problems but people need to try to put it together not divide it. What we really need is another good old war in Asia or Africa or maybe South America to pull us together again.
I am over it. Jim
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 13, 2012 0:14:07 GMT -5
Wow civil war theory! Very interesting. I'll play *L* Main thing both coasts have is people crowded into a few big cities. All the blue zones on the map are big cities. Seen what happened after Hurricane Sandy? Big cities don't have food, fuel or many military bases and are the most helpless and soft parts of the country. Most city folks don't know squat about using a weapon or about taking care of themselves because big cities hold most of the dependent semi-slave population that needs government handouts simply to survive. And the infrastructures are old and delicate. It is amazingly easy to take out a couple of powerlines and totally cut off power to a big city which as we've seen cuts off water and plumbing etc etc. It's relatively easy to cut off water to most of California simply by blowing up a canal or two and they all run through red areas of the state like the central valley. Most big cities would descend into anarchy in a week. Red areas got the guns, got the military bases which are a toss up as to who they'd support with Obama in power ( lots of soldiers are red state country kids) got the produce, got the beef, got the grain and most other food production, got the fuel and most the refineries and unlike the north-south arrangement during the civil war, they've now got a lot of the manufacturing. If I had to bet, I'd say the red area folks would simply blockade the blue cities by cutting off a few roads and pretty soon the city folks would all be eating each other because every big city has a strong unlawful element built in and city folks don't know each other and network like country folks do.
All just speculation of course but there are actually folks in Russia that predicted the break up of the Untied States as early as 2010. Now just think, if the Chinese stop loaning us money, the only choice we have is to print more causing galloping inflation. Seems obvious, the working folks might want to take care of their families instead of welfare folks in the big cities so what could happen if the gravy train was derailed and the freebies like food stamps, welfare etc were suddenly stopped cold? Seen pics from Greece lately? And in Greece they just riot and throw a few rocks. Millions upon millions of guns in this country. Riot police in relatively small numbers can control rock throwing crowds but not gun shooting ones. All the cops would go home to protect their families and their own possessions like in New Orleans during Katrina. Cities would become very unlovely places to live very fast and their violence would spill over into the countryside triggering a nasty response. Soldiers and martial law would result but soldiers have families too and would most likely not be too keen staying out in the field killing fellow Americans while their own families would be in jeopardy. Criminal gangs which already have ties and infrastructure would be another element that would breed chaos. Pretty soon, oops, no more U.S. Folks with the best chance for survival would be in spots like Alaska, Montana etc where self reliance is common. Mexico would probably take over most all the southwest because of all it's heavily armed organized gangs. There has been a pile of speculative sci -fi written about this very scenario and as with a lot of sci-fi, those books are not far off what could happen if the proper conditions occurred.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Nov 13, 2012 1:29:52 GMT -5
Yup Mel. Those east & west side folks think they could shut the center of the country down if we revolted. Maybe they'd like to import all of their vegetables from Mexico, where the farm workers still fertilize their crops by dropping their drawers between the rows. And they could import their beef and pork from south of the border too. Of course Mexico would immediately raise their prices, once they knew they had those big city folks over the barrel. As for Mexico taking over our southern border states, I'll bet the folks who live in those states would be a damned sight more effective in sealing the borders than the feds are. We have a majority of the oil and natural gas producing states, and could hold our own producing coal too. We have electric and water COOP's which most of those coast states don't have. We have a majority of the military bases. Those military who don't come from the red states would be welcome to go home, but their weapons would stay with the bases. The red states also have most of the largest National Guard units, and 99% of them live in the same state as their guard unit. Most red state residents own at least one gun, and know how to use them, unlike the city boys that come to our states every year for the great hunting. They end up shooting themselves or one of their hunting buddies.
Wouldn't take long at all for them east & west coast folks to come crying for us to please take them back. The green weenies would be the first to come crying, because we have the majority of the corn acres and ethanol plants. Be a real shame if they had to convert their green fuel cars to run on non blended fuel. And all of our electric power which is crossing our borders to power their big city cesspools. Be a real shame if we suddenly used all of that electricity inside our own states. Or better yet, caused rolling brown outs for the blue states. Wouldn't be hard to do. Just throw a few distribution switches.
The east & west coasts think they hold all of the power. (Think being the key word). But who really holds the power ? I'll give you left wing flappers all night to ponder that one, cause I'm going to bed knowing where my next home grown tomato or free range chicken is coming from.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Nov 13, 2012 2:04:52 GMT -5
Funny . . . all you electrical wizards out in the boondocks.
If it wasn’t for socialism, half o’ you hicks wouldn’t a had electricity in the first place. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2012 2:05:37 GMT -5
I can not believe there are people out there that are so mule headed that they do not believe that Iraq is what sucked us under and sank the ship. Have any of you checked out how much that war cost the USA? Ya'll sit your fat asses in a chair and talk about how frikin intelligent you are and how you know everything and you won't even look at what the root cause was and what some of the really intelligent people of the world are doing to try to fix it. Ya'll aren't Americans. Americans were not that mule headed.
A day without learning something new is a day wasted. Jim
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 13, 2012 6:23:24 GMT -5
Well, look! Gov Rick Perry took the petition seriously enough to comment:): www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/rick-perry-secession_n_2120453.htmlTexas Gov. Rick Perry does not stand behind a secession petition filed with the White House by a Lone Star State resident in the aftermath of the presidential election.
The Dallas Morning News reports that the Republican governor's press secretary, Catherine Frazier, said in an email that Perry "believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it." So the only state that could possibly get enough votes to secede won't do it. Considering what Texas had to do to get in as a state, and also considering how hard Puerto Rico has tried to become a state, only to get ignored indefinately (keeping in mind that the only difference is that Texas gets representation, while Puerto Rico has no representation and still has to do what the US says), that may be sort of smart. Here's Texas' Annexation: www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/part5/question11.htmlIt is said of Texas (and, occasionally, Vermont) that it received a letter or document of permission to withdraw from the Federal Union if it so chose. In the case of Texas, this permission is sometimes said to have been granted at the time of Texas's admission as a state. Other times it is said to have been included in the terms readmitting Texas to the Union after the Civil War.
In fact, Texas received no special terms in its admission to the Union. Once Texas had agreed to join the Union, she never had the legal option of leaving, either before or after the Civil War. This from the Presidential Proclaimation of 1866: And did further declare in the same proclamation THAT IT IS THE MANIFEST DETERMINATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT NO STATE, OF ITS OWN WILL, HAS A RIGHT OR POWER TO GO OUT OF OR SEPARATE ITSELF FROM, OR BE SEPARATED FROM THE AMERICAN UNION; and that, therefore, each State ought to remain and constitute an integral part of the United States; Mel, in any debate about a potential civil war scenario, you have to take into account modern warfare and not civil war era war. It is doubtful that there will be any consideration paid to logistics, food, or troop movement today. DC is re-built to withstand nukes actually... there's practically a city underneath the Capitol stretching to the White House and the Pentagon, connected by bullet train. Multiple redundancies in record keeping (the IRS has a paper about how to collect taxes AFTER we survive an all out nuclear war with the USSR). Our nuclear subs have standing orders to fight on after every US city has fallen and the enemy has overrun the nation. Individually, a single US nuclear sub can take out 1/2 a nation, or create fallout that will make recovery impossible for the entire world in the aftermath. We have known this from the era when top tax rates were 92%... because that's what that tax rate was for, both defense and offense. Actually... we have enough nukes where if only 1/5 of them were fired, we knock the earth off its axis. Every man woman and child on the planet goes down with us if we don't survive. Reagan's 'star wars' was implemented. We can see a mouse run across a field if we want to. That's been the plan for 50 years. I would assume Rick Perry knows this. That said, I would not believe that we'd ever use a single nuke in a civil war... however, the delivery and targeting capability is the same for less destructive ordnance. I doubt that Texas has the full underground facilities the older parts of the US do (beyond flooding, the subway systems are all interlinked across the entire city, you can walk to any part of NYC underground if the trains weren't running for example). You make the assumption that a civil war would be fought by civilians this time. Less than last time, there'd be no need, we have too much old ordnance to use up first. I don't think civil war could happen, no matter how many hotheads. We'd be easy pickings for any other nation on earth, big or small, but the rest of the earth probably couldn't survive either if we took it seriously. We all live on the same rock. But before anyone gets all excited about this even being possible, look at the number of signatures on the petitions. Not many.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 13, 2012 8:49:46 GMT -5
Helen: I agree a civil war is not likely, just gaming here but you are so far out to lunch with your guess as to who would win it's laughable. I was taking into account modern warfare and the mindset of the folks in red state areas. Big cities are incredibly easy to take down while rural areas are not. All big city supplies of food, energy and water go through the countryside and are too extensive to guard. Most all military bases are out in the countryside and in red areas. Where do the families of military folks live? Why by the bases of course. Soldiers who don't particularly care for a ruler are dang sure not to bomb or use heavy weapons on the towns their familes live in. Any fighting would have to be pretty low tech and conventional. In effect, even if they are loyal to the POTUS, the families of troops would effectively be hostages. No nukes would be used because you would be nuking your own food supplies, take out the entire power grids, transportation systems etc and the fallout would pollute the whole country. Hey the greenies would like that huh? I agree civil wars are nasty and costly and probably the Chinese would invade us to protect their investments anyway, so not real likely to have one.
Re: secession. Yep, no specific language but also no specific language in the US constitution prohibiting it. Only requires folks to want to do it. Texas does however have the right to break into five states with ten senators. that's interesting huh?
Re: Puerto Rico. Used to support their statehood till I read about it a bit more. It's known as the "welfare island" and is just another pile of dependents we all have to pay for. Another big bunch of welfare folks willing to sell their votes for free stuff if they had statehood. Sure Helen would ove to add them to the U.S. for more votes.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 13, 2012 9:29:23 GMT -5
Mel, we already got enough votes... you seem to forget who won.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 13, 2012 9:39:30 GMT -5
As odd as it seems, these things have been contingency planned for 150 years, what do you think the Pentagon DOES? They play 'what-if' all day every day. But here's where you just aren't getting it, the good guys won. Would you want to live in a smaller nation with few defensive capabilities? If that was a great goal, then wouldn't it be easier to move to Ethiopia to 'build it' ?
|
|