jrrtoken Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Funny, I haven't seen this on Fox News yet, so I suppose it's not true... yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Funny, I haven't seen this on Fox News yet, so I suppose it's not true... yet. It was on several state government web pages, which I pointed out earlier... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 It was on several state government web pages, which I pointed out earlier...So? If both the mainstream media and Fox News didn't report it, then why attack the mainstream media for not reporting it? Both Fox News and the mainstream media is at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 So? If both the mainstream media and Fox News didn't report it, then why attack the mainstream media for not reporting it? Both Fox News and the mainstream media is at fault. I'm not sure if Fox News is sure what to make of it yet, for the record they have reported on the tea party incidents. Thing is Fox News doesn't have any motive to cover this up like the mainstream media would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Serious tone - I don't think the states are doing this to become seperated from the union Good thing, considering that would be illegal. Thing is Fox News doesn't have any motive to cover this up like the mainstream media would. Doesn't matter. They committed the same act, and share an equal portion of the "blame" (my opinion is actually that there was no reason to report this, but you're the one crying foul. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Good thing, considering that would be illegal. Not necessarily, there is an argument that the Federal Government has been violating the US Constitution. Doesn't matter. They committed the same act, and share an equal portion of the "blame" (my opinion is actually that there was no reason to report this, but you're the one crying foul. Fox actually reported on the tea party issue, however I'm not sure they have any idea what to make of this yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Not necessarily, there is an argument that the Federal Government has been violating the US Constitution. Irrelevant. Secession is illegal. Period. No caveats. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 Good thing, considering that would be illegal. _EW_ Did that stop our founding fathers from creating this nation? We commited treason to seek out and build a better life. By enforcing their rights under the Declaration of Independence, the states are only protectin the rights of it's people. Otherwords, the people are in control at all times. Declaration of Independance Declaration of Independance IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. — John Hancock New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The above quote is important. We are responsible to act through war and/or diplomacy to remove an abusive government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Irrelevant. Secession is illegal. Period. No caveats. Some of the more conservative elements and crazy elements of Texas would argue that point. However, I agree. Texas was given the right to divide into five smaller states, but not the right to leave the union. President Lincoln would seem to agree with you, but it could be just the beacon of the Republican Party’s liberal bias showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Did that stop our founding fathers from creating this nation? We commited treason to seek out and build a better life. By enforcing their rights under the Declaration of Independence, the states are only protectin the rights of it's people. Otherwords, the people are in control at all times.Okay, only thing is, I don't that I'm being threatened by the government, and there is no reason to think so.The above quote is important. We are responsible to act through war and/or diplomacy to remove an abusive government.Sorry, but I don't see this "abusive government". Perhaps if you could supply some reason, then maybe I'd actually feel threatened and resort to violent anarchy, as you're proposing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Some of the more conservative elements and crazy elements of Texas would argue that point. However, I agree. Texas was given the right to divide into five smaller states, but not the right to leave the union. President Lincoln would seem to agree with you, but it could be just the beacon of the Republican Party’s liberal bias showing. Study your history, Texas is the only state in the Union that was a country before joining the United States. Okay, only thing is, I don't that I'm being threatened by the government, and there is no reason to think so. So attempts to take away your first and second amendment rights don't concern you, that's good to know. Sorry, but I don't see this "abusive government". Perhaps if you could supply some reason, then maybe I'd actually feel threatened and resort to violent anarchy, as you're proposing. Let's see: Attempts to silence criticism of the Democrats. -- Fairness Doctrine Attempts to raise taxes on everything. Attempts to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Attempts to put the census under direct control of the White House which can be used to manipulate voting representation in the Legislature and the Electoral College. That's off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 Okay, only thing is, I don't that I'm being threatened by the government, and there is no reason to think so. Sorry, but I don't see this "abusive government". Perhaps if you could supply some reason, then maybe I'd actually feel threatened and resort to violent anarchy, as you're proposing. Don't you though? (1) They are taking taxpayer's money to bailout companies without the vote of the people. (2) They are limiting the rights to bare arms. (3) We left England because of a 7 cent tax rate. We are now up 30% or more in some states. (4) Politically correctness is here; thus, limiting the freedom of speech. (5) ... Just to name a very few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Study your history, Texas is the only state in the Union that was a country before joining the United States. For your information, I know my Texas history and if you would like to challenge me in a Texas history quiz for the championship, I'd be more than willing to accept you offer. I can even recite Travis letter to Sam Houston from memory. For you information I am a Texan. You need to read the quoted statement and the reply in order to have some context into what you are replying to. Without that your reply makes no sense besides being an attempt at a put down and has nothing to do with the topic. Groups like Texas Secede believe Texas has the right to secede from the union, but according the March 30, 1870 Act passed by Congress, Texas does NOT have that right. May I suggest you read the link instead of attempting to bash someone for something you obliviously don’t understand. What were the Conservatives saying to liberals, like Baldwin, when they were whinnying about President Bush being reelected? Oh yea, if you don’t like our freely elected government you can leave. The shoe on the other foot now, so if you don’t like our elected President, you have the right to leave too. That does not mean you can take your entire state with you though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Here's the problem with your argument though, the situation is that Congress is arguably attempting to violate people's first and second amendment rights in violation of the United States Constitution. You could also arguably throw in due process while we're at it. As well as trying to compromise border security, and manipulate the census to turn it into a one-party system. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/03/09/obama-reassures-illegal-alien-activists-hispanic-media-interviews And the left wing media wants the Democrats to do just that: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2009/03/03/democrats-must-keep-politics-in-2010-census-gerrymander--and-gender-mander--away.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Here's the problem with your argument though, the situation is that Congress is arguably attempting to violate people's first and second amendment rights in violation of the United States Constitution. You could also arguably throw in due process while we're at it. Whose argument? That has nothing to do with my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Don't you though? (1) They are taking taxpayer's money to bailout companies without the vote of the people. This is what we elect representatives to the Senate and the House of Reps for. If we had to put every single resolution to a national vote, do you know how long it would take to do anything in this country? (2) They are limiting the rights to bare arms. I'm wearing a tank top today, no one has stopped me and told me to cover up. (3) We left England because of a 7 cent tax rate. We are now up 30% or more in some states. Currency and finances back then # currency and finances now, so this comparison is flawed and immaterial to the discussion at hand. (4) Politically correctness is here; thus, limiting the freedom of speech. What exactly is political correctness limiting, pray tell? (5) ... OH JESUS THE MARXIST ELLIPSIS ARE OUT TO GET ME THEY'RE OPPRESSING ME AND ARE GONNA TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH Just to name a very few. Few indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Whose argument? That has nothing to do with my argument. If Congress and the Executive branch are deliberately trying to destroy everything this country stands for, are you saying that people have no recourse. Eliminating voices of opposition, attempts to hijack the election process, attempts to do away with the keystone amendment, excuse me but Congress is out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 If Congress and the Executive branch are deliberately trying to destroy everything this country stands for, are you saying that people have no recourse. Eliminating voices of opposition, attempts to hijack the election process, attempts to do away with the keystone amendment, excuse me but Congress is out of control. This still does not address mimartin's post. You are simply spouting the same things you have been spouting since the beginning of this thread. When someone makes an argument, all you do is say 'well, see here's your problem' and then regurgitate the same tired rhetoric you've been spewing all over this forum. This is a dishonest and fallacious tactic and does not speak well of your skills, integrity and rationality as a debater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 This still does not address mimartin's post. You are simply spouting the same things you have been spouting since the beginning of this thread. When someone makes an argument, all you do is say 'well, see here's your problem' and then regurgitate the same tired rhetoric you've been spewing all over this forum. How about next time before you decide to jump to conclusions you actually ask me about my reasoning. Anyways in matters of Contract Law, the United States Constitution is considered a contract between the people and the Federal Government. However, considering the States in question and we could be looking at 30 states now only need 3 more states to have the needed 2/3's this is a very serious situation. Now granted those states would need to have votes in them to do this, but a lot of people are fed up with the Federal Government. Quite frankly though, I'm not particularly surprised the Democrats are out for a power grab. The argument here is that the Federal Government is acting in violation of the US Constitution and effectively thumbing their noses at the contract between the Government and the people. While mimartin may have a point that Texas can't secede on their own, we're looking at 60% of the States voicing outrage towards the Federal Government's Behavior. This is a dishonest tactic and does not speak well of your skills, integrity and rationality as a debater. I'm not using a dishonest tactic, and quite frankly personally attacking someone because you don't agree with them is a dishonest tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 This still does not address mimartin's post. You are simply spouting the same things you have been spouting since the beginning of this thread. When someone makes an argument, all you do is say 'well, see here's your problem' and then regurgitate the same tired rhetoric you've been spewing all over this forum. This is a dishonest and fallacious tactic and does not speak well of your skills, integrity and rationality as a debater. Lets cutdown on the personal attacks. This is why several arguements go the wrong way, so lets agree to not enter into this type of regression. Comments like this gets visitors upset, and then you have a back and forth engagement of attacks. If you don't agree with his process, only make comments on his evidence. Don't attack him personally. OH JESUS THE MARXIST ELLIPSIS ARE OUT TO GET ME THEY'RE OPPRESSING ME AND ARE GONNA TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH I would appreciate it if you don't call me a Marxist. I wouldn't call you something on a personal level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Don't attack him personally. But it was alright for him to attack me personally by questioning my knowledge of Texas history? Double standard indeed Rogue Nine is correct; there is nothing in the response to my post that is relevant to my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 But it was alright for him to attack me personally by questioning my knowledge of history? Double standard indeed My comments go for Garfield as well. Two wrongs don't make a right. Rogue Nine is correct; there is nothing in the response to my post that is relevant to my post. Rogue Nine is also a Administrator. He/she might be correct, but he/she must represent the intergirty of these forums. Garfield might be wrong in his approach, but that doesn't mean he deserves a personal attack. They are two grown adults, and they both should exercise some restraint. I don't want this thread to be closed because of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 But it was alright for him to attack me personally by questioning my knowledge of Texas history? Double standard indeed Actually it's more of I switched bases without making a transition. Not sure where I personally attacked you though? Anyways sorry if you took anything personal, that's not my intent and I will concede your point on the Texas secession item. Should have remembered the events that took place during reconstruction following the Civil War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Lets cutdown on the personal attacks. This is why several arguements go the wrong way, so lets agree to not enter into this type of regression. Comments like this gets visitors upset, and then you have a back and forth engagement of attacks. If you don't agree with his process, only make comments on his evidence. Don't attack him personally. I simply summarized what he was doing. I would appreciate it if you don't call me a Marxist. I wouldn't call you something on a personal level. I was poking fun at the fact you didn't give an example for your fifth point, but merely left an ellipsis. I was not calling you a Marxist. Rogue Nine is also a Administrator. He/she might be correct, but he/she must represent the intergirty of these forums. Garfield might be wrong in his approach, but that doesn't mean he deserves a personal attack. They are two grown adults, and they both should exercise some restraint. I don't want this thread to be closed because of them. Nobody asked you to be a moderator, so stop trying to play one. Now. Actually it's more of I switched bases without making a transition. Not sure where I personally attacked you though? Anyways sorry if you took anything personal, that's not my intent and I will concede your point on the Texas secession item. Should have remembered the events that took place during reconstruction following the Civil War. Good, you admit that you completely switched topics and you conceded the point that mimartin was making. That is an appropriate response to his post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.