Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Civil War in the US soon???

russianmaster999
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 12:00:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I personally think that the us is going to have another civil war with the uneasiness of the southern states and northern or even state vs state could possiblly happen but i need help deciding if this is possible
Life to death death to life its the circle of life
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 12:03:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 12:00:59 PM, russianmaster999 wrote:
I personally think that the us is going to have another civil war with the uneasiness of the southern states and northern or even state vs state could possiblly happen but i need help deciding if this is possible

I can see where one draws that conclusion.
I wonder the same this.

But it is a completely different time and reason.

And I do not see another civil war happening.
russianmaster999
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 12:05:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
i mean states dont trust each other any more and even some states (no offically) are starting to talk about suession from the united states and if that happens that means state vs state or even north vs south or even goverment vs civilians
Life to death death to life its the circle of life
phil_writer
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 12:07:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 12:00:59 PM, russianmaster999 wrote:
I personally think that the us is going to have another civil war with the uneasiness of the southern states and northern or even state vs state could possiblly happen but i need help deciding if this is possible

You've posted the same topic on two different forums. Only post a topic once.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 12:25:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't see another Civil War. I could see some moves towards separation, but I think either side in a dispute would try their best to avoid violence, especially given the level of technology and the weapons involved in modern warfare.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 2:51:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
you know the interstates have sections designed to become makeshift runways if ever war came to american soil. I bet we would see some of that for the first time if civil war broke out.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 4:16:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 12:05:42 PM, russianmaster999 wrote:
i mean states dont trust each other any more and even some states (no offically) are starting to talk about suession from the united states and if that happens that means state vs state or even north vs south or even goverment vs civilians

You've been misinformed, it would seem. I don't expect you to know what thing are like here, since you are in Russia. Yes there are some rumblings about secession in a few states. However, these are coming from a very small minority of radial people within these states. This small minority of radicals has been around talking about secession for decades.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 4:43:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No.

Just...just no.

I count three primary reasons why no state or states will attempt to go to war on the rest of the US.

Firstly: The US has a National army, not a series of state militaries, meaning that no state governor or congressman can enact military action against the country without drawing on the populous.

Secondly: People are cowards. The same people that talk about secession and civil war are the ones preaching how bloody awesome the US is supposed to be and how righteous their military action is and blah blah blah (Glenn Beck, I'm looking at you, you weird looking little gluesniffer) and there is no way on earth these people, even with formal military training and fresh and funky for-real guns would ever want to go up against, say, the very army that includes veterans of up to two warzones in it because they would just get wiped out.

Thirdly: Military action of any kind is expensive. And these people really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really...really don't like the idea of spending money for their beliefs (or spending anything for their beliefs, because their beliefs are protected under the first amendment, a federal legal document, the instant they seceed, the bill of rights and the constitution both lose all meaning to all secessionist states)

Sorry, four reasons, the fourth being that the people who preach this crap can't even be bothered to do more than sit there and talk, much less actually fight for something, much less much less fight a numerically superior, better trained, better equipped and more experienced enemy (namely, the US Military)
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 4:50:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 12:00:59 PM, russianmaster999 wrote:
I personally think that the us is going to have another civil war with the uneasiness of the southern states and northern or even state vs state could possiblly happen but i need help deciding if this is possible

If a civil war is gonna happen, it's gonna be states vs federal, or grassroots militia vs government. And the feds will win in either case. It won't get to the point where it's S v N or states v states anytime soon.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 6:02:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Texas wouldn't fight. It would just secede. If the U. S. was stupid enough to try to stop Texas, we'd fight back.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 7:21:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well releasing TX would raise the national IQ... Are you guys gonna bring back slavery or what?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 7:26:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Veridas wins the thread. There's really nothing more to add. I want to hear reasoning as to why people believe it's even remotely plausible.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 7:46:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Revolutionary War seems much more likely than a Civil War. The People against the state instead of the states against themselves.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 8:09:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just to prove Kleptin wrong.

At 4/29/2010 4:43:27 PM, Veridas wrote:
Firstly: The US has a National army, not a series of state militaries, meaning that no state governor or congressman can enact military action against the country without drawing on the populous.

Governors control the National Guard, which include an Air Force and an Army. Texas also has the largest representation in the USFG military. I'm sure that Texas would have no problem gathering a military large enough and advanced enough to give a formidable fight to the US military. Besides, the US would probably not risk using military force against a seceding Texas. Its international reputation would be destroyed.

Secondly: People are cowards. The same people that talk about secession and civil war are the ones preaching how bloody awesome the US is supposed to be and how righteous their military action is and blah blah blah (Glenn Beck, I'm looking at you, you weird looking little gluesniffer) and there is no way on earth these people, even with formal military training and fresh and funky for-real guns would ever want to go up against, say, the very army that includes veterans of up to two warzones in it because they would just get wiped out.

I covered this above. If enough people in Texas were willing to secede, I'm sure Texas could do it. Cowardice isn't really a factor. Besides, the US military sucks. Untrained teenagers with AK-47s are doing quite fine against the US military in the Middle East. If the US were to go up against an actual military, then there would be an equal fight.

Thirdly: Military action of any kind is expensive. And these people really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really...really don't like the idea of spending money for their beliefs (or spending anything for their beliefs, because their beliefs are protected under the first amendment, a federal legal document, the instant they seceed, the bill of rights and the constitution both lose all meaning to all secessionist states)

Texas wouldn't choose to start the military action. Texas would secede peacefully. If the US decided to attack Texas, then Texas would be forced to defend itself. And drawing up a new constitution wouldn't be too hard, especially considering the fact that Texas would be seceding based on the Constitution, and how it's being disregarded today.

Sorry, four reasons, the fourth being that the people who preach this crap can't even be bothered to do more than sit there and talk, much less actually fight for something, much less much less fight a numerically superior, better trained, better equipped and more experienced enemy (namely, the US Military)

This is basically reason one and two repeated. I'd love to see if Barack Obama has the balls to attack a seceding state with a weaker military. Really, I'd love it. Because he probably wouldn't do it. The economy would probably collapse, along with the US's international reputation.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 8:40:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 7:21:38 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Well releasing TX would raise the national IQ

So would releasing black people.

So shut up.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 8:51:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 8:50:17 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/29/2010 8:40:17 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/29/2010 7:21:38 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Well releasing TX would raise the national IQ

So would releasing black people.

So shut up.

I had to take that down for my sig.

=)
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 11:20:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 8:09:47 PM, Nags wrote:
I covered this above. If enough people in Texas were willing to secede, I'm sure Texas could do it. Cowardice isn't really a factor. Besides, the US military sucks. Untrained teenagers with AK-47s are doing quite fine against the US military in the Middle East. If the US were to go up against an actual military, then there would be an equal fight.

The reason that the untrained teenagers with guns are holding out is because they are using unconventional tactics. If a trained force that was much smaller, say like that of Texas, tried to fight the U.S., the would probably use conventional tactics which would put them at a disadvantage.

The economy would probably collapse, along with the US's international reputation.

I doubt our international reputation would take much of a hit at all. It depends on what justification we try to use. Also, we have shown in the not so distant past that we don't always care about our international reputation.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 11:20:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I hate to say it, but Nags has some good points regarding TX's chances of seceding. Besides the one about me shutting up, of course. I don't know but I would kind of enjoy Texans leaving... No more Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Johnson, or George Bush's... I think Texas could pull it off, then they would create this hyper-conservative state where gays, dark-skinners, and liberals are terrorized constantly and the environment is absolutely destroyed within 10 years because of unbridled undustrial growth, ruining of the streams and water supply, deforestation... We would probably just conquer them back in in about 20-25 years and they wouldn't be able to put up a fight.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 11:41:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 11:20:08 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I hate to say it, but Nags has some good points regarding TX's chances of seceding. Besides the one about me shutting up, of course. I don't know but I would kind of enjoy Texans leaving... No more Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Johnson, or George Bush's... I think Texas could pull it off, then they would create this hyper-conservative state where gays, dark-skinners, and liberals are terrorized constantly and the environment is absolutely destroyed within 10 years because of unbridled undustrial growth, ruining of the streams and water supply, deforestation... We would probably just conquer them back in in about 20-25 years and they wouldn't be able to put up a fight.

Oh come on. That's taking it to an extreme, don't you think?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 1:00:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 11:20:03 PM, JBlake wrote:
The reason that the untrained teenagers with guns are holding out is because they are using unconventional tactics. If a trained force that was much smaller, say like that of Texas, tried to fight the U.S., the would probably use conventional tactics which would put them at a disadvantage.

Why would Texas use conventional tactics if they know that the United States would destroy them if they did so? Texans could easily use guerrilla tactics like the rebels/terrorists in the Middle East. The Texans would have more advanced technology and better training as well.

I doubt our international reputation would take much of a hit at all. It depends on what justification we try to use.

If the United States wages a full-blown war on a peaceful, seceding Texas, you seriously don't think our international reputation would take a major hit? The death toll would reach the tens of thousands rather quickly.

Also, we have shown in the not so distant past that we don't always care about our international reputation.

George Bush is the exception, rather than the rule. Any wise President would actually care about the international reputation of the country in which he or she presides over.

@Rob- Thanks. I was being sarcastic about the shut up part btw. :) And I'm sure you could always catch the Bush's on TV, that is, if the USFG allows Texas to secede peacefully.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 8:41:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Governors control the National Guard, which include an Air Force and an Army. Texas also has the largest representation in the USFG military."

The clue's in the name, "national guard" not "state" guard, also I reckon the representation of the military would end sharpish since Texas would no longer be part of the US.

"I'm sure that Texas would have no problem gathering a military large enough and advanced enough to give a formidable fight to the US military. "

So how would Texas pay for countermeasures for, say, an AC130? How would it take down A10's or F-22s? What weaponry does it apparently have on hand that can equate to the anti-armour capability of the Javelin Missile (for that matter, what armour do they have at all?)

Once again, all this stuff is expensive, and the people have to be trained in it's use, and they're gonna want to get paid.

"Besides, the US would probably not risk using military force against a seceding Texas. Its international reputation would be destroyed."

Civil war, not just secession, civil war, read the thread title please.

"If enough people in Texas were willing to secede, I'm sure Texas could do it. "

"You see" Field Marshal William Hague said, growing impatient with the protests of his advisers "if enough soldiers are willing to fight, the Hun machine guns at this "Somme" place will be no problem, I'm sure we could do it"

"Cowardice isn't really a factor"

Yeah, nobody fears death these days, no siree.

"Besides, the US military sucks."

I do hope none of your Marines heard that.

I hope even more they don't know where you live.

"Untrained teenagers with AK-47s are doing quite fine against the US military in the Middle East. "

How ignorant.

In Iraq the insurgents, which are generally men in their twenties and thirties, rely more on IEDs than any open combat, there's no real defence against an IED on a personal level. In Afghanistan, the US army is facing down the Taliban, a group trained and funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets in the eighties, trained to do so using the terrain and guerrilla tactics. Not open warfare, and the Taliban, again, generally do their own fighting.

Know thy enemy.

"If the US were to go up against an actual military, then there would be an equal fight."

You know I think I can actually hear all the AC130 pilots in the world laughing at you.

Have you ever seen an AC130 in action? Like actually seen what it is capable of?

How about a missile launched from a Predator Drone?

The effect of a shell from an Abrams tank?

Besides, you earlier claimed that most of the US military would be on Texas' side, so you're saying your own hypothetical fantasyland army would suck like a dehydrated hooker?

"Texas wouldn't choose to start the military action"

I feel like the father of twins. "I don't care who started it" thread title is civil war, so we can assume egregious quantities of violence"

"If the US decided to attack Texas, then Texas would be forced to defend itself"

Doesn't answer for the fact that doing so would be expensive and, once again, the people calling for this kind of thing probably don't want to spend money for their beliefs.

"And drawing up a new constitution wouldn't be too hard,"

Ok, alright, do me a favour, find an Atlas, ok? Find America, ok, imagine America is where my point is, ok? Now find Uzbekistan, now figure out the distance.

That distance is how far off you are from the point I was making.

"especially considering the fact that Texas would be seceding based on the Constitution, and how it's being disregarded today."

Disregarded by whom and how?

"This is basically reason one and two repeated."

Hmm, seems I made a mistake, one and two were initially going to refer to the civilians brought in to do the fighting. Knew I should have saved the Glenn Beck card for later.

On a related note, however, you know, I don't know who originally said this, I think it was one of your forefathers or original presidents or someone said something like "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"

What these people are saying is "I don't agree with what you say, and I will encourage others to physically fight you because I don't think you should have the right to say it"

"'d love to see if Barack Obama has the balls to attack a seceding state with a weaker military"

Honestly I think the guy would sit back and just watch. Texas gave him hell in the elections and like you said, if they're seceding due the constitution then he can't stop them, it just means he won't have to spend anymore taxpayer dollars on them at all, he can cease any federal funding of hospitals or schools, courts, prisons, insane asylums, and everything else, that'll save a bundle of cash too, plus he can simply relocate the military presence there somewhere else and begin erecting a new border fence around Texas to keep illegal immigrants out, then watch as the place is flooded with illegally emigrating Mexicans because odds are Texas will be an easier choice than the other border states.

Hell it might even get absorbed into Mexico formally.

Now THAT would be funny as hell.

"The economy would probably collapse"

Have you...have you paid any attention to the news in the last two or three years?

"along with the US's international reputation."

Bush is from Texas, I foresee a Champagne party and high-fives at the UN.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 10:50:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If Texas held a referendum on independence and the separatists won the US might let them go their own way peacefully. After all the Texan oil has run out, of course!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 10:54:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 10:50:27 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
If Texas held a referendum on independence and the separatists won the US might let them go their own way peacefully. After all the Texan oil has run out, of course!

I could see that, however I suspect the USFG would try everything that they can do within their legal powers to stop it. I mean, losing such a large chunk of the country would not spell out a nice future for a federal system.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 11:08:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 10:54:08 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/30/2010 10:50:27 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
If Texas held a referendum on independence and the separatists won the US might let them go their own way peacefully. After all the Texan oil has run out, of course!

I could see that, however I suspect the USFG would try everything that they can do within their legal powers to stop it. I mean, losing such a large chunk of the country would not spell out a nice future for a federal system.

I don't see why.

If I were advising the President of the United States and the Texans decided to hold a referendum on independence and it looked like they were going to vote in favour of it, I would tell him give the state back to Mexico where the US got it from in the first place.

That way all Texans would automatically become Mexicans and need visas to get into America.

Ha! Ha!

My Auntie and Uncle and seven of my younger cousins have all just moved to Austin - they'd be gutted if they couldn't get out again!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 11:08:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 10:54:08 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/30/2010 10:50:27 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
If Texas held a referendum on independence and the separatists won the US might let them go their own way peacefully. After all the Texan oil has run out, of course!

I could see that, however I suspect the USFG would try everything that they can do within their legal powers to stop it. I mean, losing such a large chunk of the country would not spell out a nice future for a federal system.

I really am beginning to think that the USFG is a body that no longer cares about it's legal powers....

I don't think most of the people do either...

Like who cares that the FCC tells random joe's that they can't broadcast their own little radio talk-show without a license???

It's the FCC blatently breaking the constitution... but noone cares.

likewise if the Legislature and executive wanted to go to war with Texas to keep it in the Union... it'd happen... regardless of it's "constitutionality".

Now I don't think any such thing is likely... but THE LAW will not act as any kind of restraint on such things...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 3:22:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 8:41:12 AM, Veridas wrote:
The clue's in the name, "national guard" not "state" guard

The National Guard has state and federal forces. Each state has its own National Guard, who is under control of the Governor of that state. Texas has the largest state National Guard.

also I reckon the representation of the military would end sharpish since Texas would no longer be part of the US.

Ya, that's the point. The members of the US military from Texas would leave the US military to go fight for Texas.

So how would Texas pay for countermeasures for, say, an AC130? How would it take down A10's or F-22s? What weaponry does it apparently have on hand that can equate to the anti-armour capability of the Javelin Missile (for that matter, what armour do they have at all?)

Once again, all this stuff is expensive, and the people have to be trained in it's use, and they're gonna want to get paid.

Texas has its own Air National Guard and probably dozens of US military bases and equipment within its borders. People would already be trained, and pay wouldn't be a problem, seeing as how just about no one goes into the military for the pay. Besides, guerrilla tactics would negate any advanced technological advantages.

Civil war, not just secession, civil war, read the thread title please.

Lol. We have been talking about secession this whole entire time. Now you straw man me and tell me to look at the title of the thread.

"You see" Field Marshal William Hague said, growing impatient with the protests of his advisers "if enough soldiers are willing to fight, the Hun machine guns at this "Somme" place will be no problem, I'm sure we could do it"

We're talking about a hypothetical, so I'm using this hypothetical to hypothesize that the majority of Texans would support secession.

Yeah, nobody fears death these days, no siree.

Same goes for each side, the US and Texas. People don't enter the military if they are so afraid of death.

"Besides, the US military sucks."

I do hope none of your Marines heard that.

I hope even more they don't know where you live.

LOL. Knowing the meat heads that are in the military, I wouldn't be surprised if they did show up at my house. Its disgusting that you would imply that Marines would want to hurt me because I dissed the military anyway. I guess the military is off-limits for criticisms. George Bush and Dick Cheney and other neocons would agree with you: The military PROTECTS YOUR FREEDOMS!!111!! Lolz. K.

"Untrained teenagers with AK-47s are doing quite fine against the US military in the Middle East. "

How ignorant.

How so?

In Iraq the insurgents, which are generally men in their twenties and thirties, rely more on IEDs than any open combat, there's no real defence against an IED on a personal level.

Ok... I never denied this.

In Afghanistan, the US army is facing down the Taliban, a group trained and funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets in the eighties, trained to do so using the terrain and guerrilla tactics. Not open warfare, and the Taliban, again, generally do their own fighting.

Good point. Blowback. The CIA shouldn't of aided the Taliban in the first place.

You know I think I can actually hear all the AC130 pilots in the world laughing at you.

Have you ever seen an AC130 in action? Like actually seen what it is capable of?

How about a missile launched from a Predator Drone?

The effect of a shell from an Abrams tank?

The untrained terrorists in the Middle East haven't had much of a problem with these expensive, useless constructions of the military industrial complex.

Besides, you earlier claimed that most of the US military would be on Texas' side, so you're saying your own hypothetical fantasyland army would suck like a dehydrated hooker?

Huh? I'm just saying that Texas could do OK militarily against the US. If two dehydrated hookers fight, then the dehydrated hooker with the most willpower will win. Texas, the seceding country, would have more willpower.

I feel like the father of twins. "I don't care who started it" thread title is civil war, so we can assume egregious quantities of violence"

No.

Doesn't answer for the fact that doing so would be expensive and, once again, the people calling for this kind of thing probably don't want to spend money for their beliefs.

The war would be expensive for both sides. Duh. And most people do spend money for their beliefs.

Ok, alright, do me a favour, find an Atlas, ok? Find America, ok, imagine America is where my point is, ok? Now find Uzbekistan, now figure out the distance.

That distance is how far off you are from the point I was making.

Then maybe you should start typing in English, rather than Uzbekistanian.

Disregarded by whom and how?

The US Federal Government. With the unconstitutional wars, nationalization of private industry, forced health care mandate, the USA Patriot Act, wire tapping, some welfare programs.

On a related note, however, you know, I don't know who originally said this, I think it was one of your forefathers or original presidents or someone said something like "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"

Nah. That is some woman from the 19th century. I don't see how this is applicable.

What these people are saying is "I don't agree with what you say, and I will encourage others to physically fight you because I don't think you should have the right to say it"

Texas would not secede violently. Besides, the quote isn't applicable. Texas would want its own say, not others' say.

Honestly I think the guy would sit back and just watch. Texas gave him hell in the elections and like you said, if they're seceding due the constitution then he can't stop them, it just means he won't have to spend anymore taxpayer dollars on them at all, he can cease any federal funding of hospitals or schools, courts, prisons, insane asylums, and everything else, that'll save a bundle of cash too, plus he can simply relocate the military presence there somewhere else and begin erecting a new border fence around Texas to keep illegal immigrants out, then watch as the place is flooded with illegally emigrating Mexicans because odds are Texas will be an easier choice than the other border states.

Hell it might even get absorbed into Mexico formally.

Now THAT would be funny as hell.

That was a lot of babbling.

Have you...have you paid any attention to the news in the last two or three years?

Yes.

Bush is from Texas, I foresee a Champagne party and high-fives at the UN.

Bush is popular with the UN and the international community? I was not aware.
Wahreliebegibtniemalsauf
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 4:11:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/29/2010 12:05:42 PM, russianmaster999 wrote:
i mean states dont trust each other any more and even some states (no offically) are starting to talk about suession from the united states and if that happens that means state vs state or even north vs south or even goverment vs civilians

Personally with all of the fear of things...it is humanly possible. History repeats itself so much and half of the time we don't even see it.

But the thing is...yes we all have our 'sectionalism' but when we're against other nations or sticking our noses into other people's business...we become a whole. Yes, we don't always get along but that's human. I think it would be weird if we all perfectly got along...besides things wouldn't be interesting in that way.

As far as I'm concerned about the succeeding thing...I've only heard that from Texas. And as we all know, Texas has seceded from the past. [I have nothing against Texas or any of the other states].

Either way with whatever happens...the United States is going down the tubes. Yes, we have the longest still standing government, but look at all of the problems it has sparked...between all the scandals and everything else. Some day everything's going to go down hill.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 4:12:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 4:11:04 PM, Wahreliebegibtniemalsauf wrote:
Yes, we have the longest still standing government,

Lie.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Wahreliebegibtniemalsauf
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 4:21:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 4:12:57 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 4/30/2010 4:11:04 PM, Wahreliebegibtniemalsauf wrote:
Yes, we have the longest still standing government,

Lie.

My bad.