C
CMatt25
Guest
And I will call you on it when you ignore what some of the most prominent Tea Party Republican candidates have said.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
For starters
*]The New Black Panther voter intimidation case
*]Offering Govt jobs to candidates to get out races where they are opposing Obama favorites
*]Racial motivation in the closing of GM dealerships
*]Admin ties to ACORN
*]Bailout money used for political purposes
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Fair enough. Let me revise my statement that the Civil War decided this question:
Good point, but it nonetheless indicates what I attempted to underscore earlier: it’s ludicrous to maintain that the laws or governmental system of any sovereign state - such as the United States of America - implicitly, legally and approvingly includes the option for that state’s own self-termination.
The Civil War’s outcome doesn’t prove that might makes right, but it does show that might is not going to go down without a fight - and therefore that secession is illegal.
But yes, I fully and enthusiastically acknowledge that you’re 100% right to distinguish legality from morality. In the case of the Civil War, however, I do maintain that the Confederate States of America were wrong. That is not, perhaps, on-point, though. Moving on…
And that Lincoln quote is obviously political maneuvering in light of Lincoln’s later actions. He didn’t admit that he wanted to give black people the right to vote until after the Civil War, either. Plus it contradicts the Declaration of Independence (which I assume we all agree with, including Lincoln), which maintains that revolutionary change is appropriate only for grave reasons - and that means that not every people has that right.
Well, that’s not what Catholics believe, at least. We’re morally obligated to obey the laws of a true government *unless *injustice exists to such a degree that violent revolutionary change is a last resort.
And that is not the case here in the United States, where all government officials (except sometimes judicial ones like Supreme Court members) have strictly temporary terms most often based on popular vote (including the President in a de facto sense), and where we have the ability as a nation to amend the supreme law of the land - the Constitution.
I do and will continue to maintain that all Texas secessionists and even Texans who think they could if they wanted to, are seriously delusional and even dangerously nationalistic (as Texans). And this is not a condemnation of all Texans. I myself know many who are sane and rational.
In terms of resources and livelihood, I realize that. But how could it possibly work legally? The IRS will still want Texans’ taxes, and so on. And besides, not enough people feel that way for Texas even to be able to attempt this childish little experiment in the first place, even if it could work.
Here we go again. This is what’s going to happen: in a short time - probably this year or 2012 - the Republicans will recapture the House. At some point in the future - barring the possibility of the end of the world, the arrival of aliens, or the Second Coming - a conservative President will sit in the White House again.
Then the rhetoric will shift. Then it will be the liberals crying hysterically about a dangerous, encroaching right-wing ideology that has to be stopped At All Costs. The far right will whine - as the far left is now - that their President/Congress/whatever hasn’t gone far enough. And another ideological shift will occur.
Frankly, every political ideologue in this country prophesies doom and destruction when their opponents are in power, and I don’t care, because I think they’re all nuts. Do I approve of President Obama’s leadership and actions? No, I don’t. I voted against him in 2008 and will do so again two years from now. But the sky is not falling. No Glorious Revolution is necessary, right, or advisable.
I agree with what you just said - but you’re talking morally. I’m talking legally. Secession is illegal. If a grave injustice arises that cannot be resolved through legal means, then change must come nonetheless. But even those who seek to bring that change succeed, that won’t change the fact that according to the loser, it will have been illegal.
Besides, the reasons to throw off a government must be sufficiently grave, and they’re just not right now (see above).
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
It could be. But again, they wouldn’t have to unless the secessionists struck first. And they’d better be damn sure the moral right is on their side if they do that.
I think part of the problem here is that in Americans’ minds - including my own - secession is linked to its only real example in our nation’s history. And the social and moral ideology of Confederate politicians - with which our minds naturally associate secessionism - just doesn’t cry out for emulation to U.S. citizens today.
Oh, I could be dead wrong, I admit it. I didn’t exist yet in the 1970s, but from what I’ve read and seen, the rhetoric was very different then. The pro-choice side seems to become more euphemistic as each year passes - their most philosophically adept advocates today no longer deny that unborn children are in fact alive (“Well, sure, even a tumor is alive”) or separate human beings, or that abortion kills them (they now make arguments about “conflicts of rights” related to bodily autonomy). I give credit for this to better medical and ultrasound technology, etc. And I was at the march for life in January this year, and I forget how many people there were, but there must have been tens of thousands at the very least, including many whom the media think of as necessarily pro-abortion - irreligious people, pro-gay marriage people, feminists, African-American Democrats, etc. And imagine how many more pro-lifers out there there must be who didn’t make it to the march…
Well said.
I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right. It’s stupid to pretend that private gun ownership is an effective defense against actual tyranny.
Sadly, this is probably why the most radical “libertarian” gun lovers want citizens to have the right to anything, even assault rifles, attack helicopters (hey, if they can afford it!), or bombs.
Good question.
C
CMatt25
Guest
:clapping:But Good News I didn’t know :bigyikes: you were born in our 50th state in America called Hawaii, of a Kansan mother and Kenyan father, raised by your Kansan family, your grandfather served us in a world war, a professed Christian, democratically elected POTUS named Barack Hussein Obama. Welcome Mr President. I am honored by your presence.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
The sad thing is that I think you’re serious.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Quite specifically, it was white male Protestants who own 50 or more acres of land. And yes, it was a plutocratic oligarchy, more or less. Now, the government is run but multi-billion dollar corporations who’s lobbiest see to it that free markets don’t exist and that Congress votes the way they are paid to vote.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
If secession is illegal, then I guess that technically we are still a colony of Great Britain.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Well I suppose they might think the more for anarchy, political disorder, violence and unrest, and overthrow of a democratically elected government, the better.Sadly, this is probably why the most radical “libertarian” gun lovers want citizens to have the right to anything, even assault rifles, attack helicopters (hey, if they can afford it!), or bombs.
E
estesbob
Guest
The sad thing is that they have not been investigated… I guarantee you if two members of the KKK stood in front of a black polling place holding billy club’s the case would not have been dismissed the case would not have been dismissed
Another thing that need to be looked into is whether or not the Obama administration is using private tax information to attack their opponents, as it appears was done with Koch industries.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Nice try (hey, I’m generous). But it doesn’t follow from secession’s self-evident illegality that American independence is invalid. Laws change, and the loser - in the case of the American Revolution, it was Great Britain - necessarily accommodates its laws to reflect change.
Great Britain recognized American independence shortly after the Revolutionary War. That doesn’t change the fact that at the time of the revolution, declaring independence was not allowed under British law, nor does it change the fact that secession is not legal in this country.
If I invent a time machine, go forward in time to 2286, and discover that Texas is now its own country, I’m sure the United States of America (if it still exists) will have recognized that. But that won’t change the fact that in the USA of 2010, secession is illegal.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
No, the sad thing is that they have been reviewed, debunked, and debunked again, but there is no quantum of proof that you will accept in explanation, and no allegation too flimsy for you to accept in support of wrongdoing.
They did this to Bush, too, with Scooter Libby, and to Clinton, with about 75% of the investigations conducted during his administration, and (although less so) to Reagan. When the minority doesn’t get its way, it is tempting for them, I guess, to turn to the criminalization of politics. I don’t think other nations do this. It seems to be an American sickness.
O
Ocean52680
Guest
Yes, I am aware of the comments said by a couple of the Republican candidates. For every Sharron Angle on the GOP’s side, I can point out a Sheila Jackson Lee, a Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and a Pete Stark on the Democrat’s side of the aisle. Perhaps, you should spend time looking at the politicians elected under your party’s banner.
That being said, advocating for the complete privatization of Social Security and Medicare is a legitimate position. However, this not part of the GOP’s agenda. Further, I believe Sharron Angle has modified her previous position on both programs.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
The so-called “Civil War” did not answer the question of secessionist legality. Only that it is acceptable to use violence to force a group of people against their will to be part of a nation that it has expressly declared that it does not want to be part of.
So, in this case, if Texas were to notify the White House that it is leaving the Union, and (hypothetically) Pres. Obama opted to NOT pursue military action, then it would be, de facto legal, since Texas “wins” by US non-action. Or, if he did, and Texas were to win a violent contestation of its secessionist claim, then it would be legal, because Texas “won”. So you are confirming that might makes right. The civil war didn’t prove anything other than “he with the most loyal soldiers and guns gets to make the rules”. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler would be very proud of that arguement. So, the United States is only a single country because the other states are intimidated by the threat of force to remain. I just want to make sure that I have your position articulated correctly.
O
Ocean52680
Guest
Congress hasn’t conducted a thorough review of DOJ’s actions in the black panther case. By the way, I love the “reviewed, debunked, and debunked again” phrase. It’s all conspiracy theories! Perhaps, we can add the word "witch-hunt’ down the road or should we restrict that term to only Delaware and Nevada?
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I think we should restrict the term witch hunt to Bill Maher and Christine O’Donnell.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Of course it did.
Take an example. I might believe that it is unconstitutional for the government to prohibit me running a five acre pot farm. There might be other people who believe the same thing. I’m arrested and sitting in a jail cell for decades. My fellow pot growers put up webpages supporting me and their constitutional right to commercial pot farms.
I can, as I sit in my jail cell, tell myself that I have the proper interpretation of the constitution, and that it was merely illegitimate brute force that put me in jail. I may have a good argument, even. But, whether I have a good argument or a bad argument, there is probably nothing that will ever convince me that I don’t have a constitutional right to my pot farm, and there is nothing that will “resolve” the legality of the pot farm in my mind.
But outside of my mind in my jail cell, in reality, the objective fact is my pot farm is illegal.
As to “might makes right” - what would have happened in the Colonists had lost to Britain? Would you sit here today, as a British subject, and say that every law that had been passed in the last 200 plus years was invalid, because the losers were right in principle? Right doesn’t decide ethics - but it does decide law.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
The right to secede is found in natural law. Any positive law that contradicts natural law is invalid and only serves to legitimize either oppression or immorality. Try reading the Declaration of Independence and the various exposes on natural law by St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, et al…
G
Good_News_1
Guest
It is. Do a little research. A start:
newsweek.com/2010/07/23/the-new-black-panther-story-light-on-facts-heavy-on-echo.html
Do you think there are enough cases of voter suppression by the New Black Panther Party or black advocacy groups so that the DOJ would have a policy about it? It’s absurd from the start.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I didn’t know Shelia, Debbie, and Pete want to eliminate these safety nets too.
And FYI politicians always modify their positions for the general. They couldn’t get elected otherwise. So I look at the totality of their views. Not just what they say for a general. Sometimes like Obama when early on for instance his website and questionaire responses may have sited a govt option for healthcare, he didn’t mean it. Or at least he did not demand or even push one. Or in his mind perhaps future '“private exchanges” mean the same thing. But when he talked pragmatism and trying to strive for bipartisanship, he meant it. I don’t know if somewhere deep down in his heart he is more liberal or not. But he governs from the center, center-left. Not as a liberal. He took single payer off the table from the get go. Has said while if we were starting from scratch, he might look at it as an option, we are not starting from scratch he has repeatedly said. And a public option which he neither demanded nor pushed all that strongly for, was not even considered a compromise for conservatives and some centrists. And of course for bipartisanship it would have taken 2 to tango. That’s the “bi” part. Other times they revert back to their earlier views before they modified them for the general. And that is what scares the daylights out of me about the Tea Party no matter how they might attempt to modify now in order to get elected in a general election. I’d rather live with what I know I have. Center, center-left at best. Instead of risking what I consider to be a radical right wing agenda. But to each his or her own. God bless you and peace.- Status