By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Anti-secessionists: come at me, bros!

Tagged games:

SwansVanTerif on 25 January 2013

The only problem I could ever see with independence, is that complete freedom would lead to a lot of resource based regions, not to mention strategical one, like for example the Suez canal. If that can be avoided, I say let freedom ring for anyone who wants to be independent.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 25 January 2013
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:
Secession in America is synonymous with lost-cause Dixie conservatism, and secessionists look back to 19th century views on women, property, the environment, and religious freedom, thereby meaning that they should not be allowed out lest they enact these things.

Here you are describing a caricature of what you think a secessionist is, not what they are in actuality.

Mr Khan said:
Palestine's neither hear nor there, depending on how much of what Hamas says is just posturing and how much they really do just want to kill Jews (rather than have freedom or their fair share of political power vis-a-vis Fatah).

LOL. In conjunction with the above, I can't help but read this as: "Southerners are worse than Hamas." No way to an independent South! But a nation run by Hamas? Eh, maybe.

Mr Khan said:
Although I also believe that larger countries are more viable politically, better able to act on the international scene and better able to help their citizenry enrich themselves, so I tend to believe that countries shouldn't fall apart over small differences, and would likely oppose it if, say, Vermont wanted out, even though an independent Vermont would likely be a "better" country than America proper.

Okay, but who are you to say that it's a small difference, or to even oppose anything if you are not a Vermonter? That you even feel Vermont would likely do better on its own but would still deny them independence because... "we all belong to each other" or some such nonsense ought to give you pause. That's pretty tyrannical.

I do apologize if it came off as "Southerners are worse than Hamas." My whole point is that secession must serve the cause of progress, and if it does not, then it is not a good idea. The South in the Civil War was anti-progress. Southern secessionists of the modern day would also be anti-progress. A democratically elected government would likely have a bit more respect for their own human rights than the Israelis do, so forward movement. Even though a free Texas would still be a better place to live than a free Palestine, free Texas represents past ideas, free Palestine, the future.

And its not about liberty or tyranny so much as its about what works. A good amount of liberty works, and if a little judiciously applied authority also works, then its not a bad thing either. It's not about us all belonging to each other, its about having more opportunities by being part of a bigger and more important country than a smaller, less important one



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

badgenome on 25 January 2013
Mr Khan said:

I do apologize if it came off as "Southerners are worse than Hamas." My whole point is that secession must serve the cause of progress, and if it does not, then it is not a good idea. The South in the Civil War was anti-progress. Southern secessionists of the modern day would also be anti-progress. A democratically elected government would likely have a bit more respect for their own human rights than the Israelis do, so forward movement. Even though a free Texas would still be a better place to live than a free Palestine, free Texas represents past ideas, free Palestine, the future.

And its not about liberty or tyranny so much as its about what works. A good amount of liberty works, and if a little judiciously applied authority also works, then its not a bad thing either. It's not about us all belonging to each other, its about having more opportunities by being part of a bigger and more important country than a smaller, less important one

Who decides what is progress, and why would any secession movement in the South necessarily have to be out of a desire to recreate antebellum conditions? What if Texas wants to secede for reasons other than reinstituting slavery? Like, I dunno... the general purposes of self-determination? Or maybe the desire to not send its money to Washington, D.C., and then have to scrape and bow to try to get some of it back? If you think that an independent Texas could only represent past ideas, then it sounds like you're as stuck in the past as anyone.

A country that is like the mob - you can get in, but you can never get out - is not really a country worth belonging to. And that mindset is especially shameful for a country that prides itself on its revolutionary history. "When in the course of human events..." for me, but not for thee?



Player1x3 on 25 January 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LglMUg74eCA

enough said



Farsala on 25 January 2013

I want everything under one nation, that nation can be called Earth. If everything keeps splitting up then we will not be united towards a common goal.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 25 January 2013
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:
Secession in America is synonymous with lost-cause Dixie conservatism, and secessionists look back to 19th century views on women, property, the environment, and religious freedom, thereby meaning that they should not be allowed out lest they enact these things.

Here you are describing a caricature of what you think a secessionist is, not what they are in actuality.

Mr Khan said:
Palestine's neither hear nor there, depending on how much of what Hamas says is just posturing and how much they really do just want to kill Jews (rather than have freedom or their fair share of political power vis-a-vis Fatah).

LOL. In conjunction with the above, I can't help but read this as: "Southerners are worse than Hamas." No way to an independent South! But a nation run by Hamas? Eh, maybe.

Mr Khan said:
Although I also believe that larger countries are more viable politically, better able to act on the international scene and better able to help their citizenry enrich themselves, so I tend to believe that countries shouldn't fall apart over small differences, and would likely oppose it if, say, Vermont wanted out, even though an independent Vermont would likely be a "better" country than America proper.

Okay, but who are you to say that it's a small difference, or to even oppose anything if you are not a Vermonter? That you even feel Vermont would likely do better on its own but would still deny them independence because... "we all belong to each other" or some such nonsense ought to give you pause. That's pretty tyrannical.

I do apologize if it came off as "Southerners are worse than Hamas." My whole point is that secession must serve the cause of progress, and if it does not, then it is not a good idea. The South in the Civil War was anti-progress. Southern secessionists of the modern day would also be anti-progress. A democratically elected government would likely have a bit more respect for their own human rights than the Israelis do, so forward movement. Even though a free Texas would still be a better place to live than a free Palestine, free Texas represents past ideas, free Palestine, the future.

And its not about liberty or tyranny so much as its about what works. A good amount of liberty works, and if a little judiciously applied authority also works, then its not a bad thing either. It's not about us all belonging to each other, its about having more opportunities by being part of a bigger and more important country than a smaller, less important one


What if your reason for secession is to avoid progress towards an AMAZINGLY bad idea.

Like say... Mao's China.

What you seem to be argueing is pure opinion, as in... it's specifically your opinion on things.  Which is a pretty imature arguement...

Progress can be good, and it can be bad... and peoples opinions on said progress are in fact just that... opinions.

When opinions diverge enough...  Secession is all that makes sense.



fordy on 25 January 2013

States could leave....provided they pay back their per capita portion of the debt and all federal infastructure housed in their state. No bailing out without paying the bill. That's just sleazy.



Kasz216 on 25 January 2013
fordy said:
States could leave....provided they pay back their per capita portion of the debt and all federal infastructure housed in their state. No bailing out without paying the bill. That's just sleazy.


Under such a plan, Texas would actually be owed a lot of money.  As up until very recently, they paid more then they got back... and are likely a reason why the debt isn't higher.

It really only was until the last few years that they got more back then they paid, which mostly happened because pretty much every state but like I want to say 7-12 did.

 

Which out of 50 is just another way to point out just how awful our debt problem is.



fordy on 25 January 2013
Kasz216 said:
fordy said:
States could leave....provided they pay back their per capita portion of the debt and all federal infastructure housed in their state. No bailing out without paying the bill. That's just sleazy.


Under such a plan, Texas would actually be owed a lot of money.  As up until very recently, they paid more then they got back... and are likely a reason why the debt isn't higher.

It really only was until the last few years that they got more back then they paid, which mostly happened because pretty much every state but like I want to say 7-12 did.

 

Which out of 50 is just another way to point out just how awful our debt problem is.


I don't think I'd call 6 cents for every dollar as a lot, especially when the talk of trillions of dollars is involved...



outlawauron on 25 January 2013
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

I do apologize if it came off as "Southerners are worse than Hamas." My whole point is that secession must serve the cause of progress, and if it does not, then it is not a good idea. The South in the Civil War was anti-progress. Southern secessionists of the modern day would also be anti-progress. A democratically elected government would likely have a bit more respect for their own human rights than the Israelis do, so forward movement. Even though a free Texas would still be a better place to live than a free Palestine, free Texas represents past ideas, free Palestine, the future.

And its not about liberty or tyranny so much as its about what works. A good amount of liberty works, and if a little judiciously applied authority also works, then its not a bad thing either. It's not about us all belonging to each other, its about having more opportunities by being part of a bigger and more important country than a smaller, less important one

Who decides what is progress, and why would any secession movement in the South necessarily have to be out of a desire to recreate antebellum conditions? What if Texas wants to secede for reasons other than reinstituting slavery? Like, I dunno... the general purposes of self-determination? Or maybe the desire to not send its money to Washington, D.C., and then have to scrape and bow to try to get some of it back? If you think that an independent Texas could only represent past ideas, then it sounds like you're as stuck in the past as anyone.

A country that is like the mob - you can get in, but you can never get out - is not really a country worth belonging to. And that mindset is especially shameful for a country that prides itself on its revolutionary history. "When in the course of human events..." for me, but not for thee?

I agree completely. Why do you think people want to secede? To bring out the past or antebellum conditions? I'd say that's pretty ignornant.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.