States wanting to Secede from the USA

Oh great, we could have barbed wire and border checkpoints, militarized zones, nuclear pouts, militaristic posturing, divided family and friends, people forced to relocate.

Yeah, that's a pretty fascist plan you've got. But that's to be expected, fascism is the ultimate conservativism, and the result of unchecked conservativeism.

The difference between a conservative state and a fascist state is a matter of time.

 

Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

The above sounds more like where we've been heading since the early 20th century, and even more rapidly today.

Why would you envision the necessity of such an extreme change? Does all your imagery exist between the U.S. and Canada? Why would families and friends be any more divided than they are today, I have relatives living in a number of States and even other countries, and why would people be forced to relocate unless they wanted to? Nothing fascist at all in what I posted, simply the allowance of people to have a choice of the form of government they would like to live under. Originally we had 13 choices and should have 50 today, and if 25 States were to form a new government, based on our existing Constitution with relatively little change, we would then have 26 choices, one governed by the Left and 25 governed by the Right. From the looks of the election results over the years, few people would probably want to move who don't already want to move elsewhere.

 

Define prosper.

 

prosper:
To grow or increase; to thrive; to make gain; as, to prosper in business. Our agriculture, commerce and manufactures now prosper.

prospered:
Having success; favored.

prosperity:
Advance or gain in any thing good or desirable; successful progress in any business or enterprise; success; attainment of the object desired; as the prosperity of arts; agricultural or commercial prosperity; national prosperity.

prosperous:
Advancing in the pursuit of any thing desirable; making gain or increase; thriving; successful; as a prosperous trade; a prosperous voyage; a prosperous expedition or undertaking; a prosperous man, family or nation; a prosperous war.

prosperously:
With gain or increase; successfully.

prosperousness:
The state of being successful; prosperity.


Does that help?

 

If we had the US divided into two, what the hell would it change WITHOUT fascism? It's already divided into 50.

You understand that without serious fascism there would simply be a mix of people on each side.

You found a nice definition of fascism, as far as supporting your ends goes. But it's simply where the people are secondary to, but bound to, and entirely answerable to the government. It's a fasces, where the dictator is the axe and the people are the sticks. But it matters little if you substitute corporations or politburos or whatever in place of the axe, it's still an axe.

 

Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Are you implying you are supportive of fascism?

It was a dictionary definition, Websters 1828 version to be exact. And it's the people who should be wielding the axe, which in this case would be the rules under which government is given authority to exercise as determined by the people who have consented to be governed.

 

Are you trying to tell me that definition is from 1828, or that that's the name of a dictionary version that's kept up to date? Because that's not a definition from 1828.....

I did not say, anywhere, that I support fascism. I was explaining how futile and generally fucking stupid the idea of splitting the US into two is. Especially with the assumption that each political "side" will magically get one nation that way.

 

Would you prefer the modern version from the Merriam-Webster dictionary?

fascism:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

While I don't propose that it need be THE solution, it does remain an option that could become necessary at some point in the future, and I tend view your 'explanation' as little more than an opinion, without need of employing expletives or vulgarity.

I believe we're actually seeing that fascism is the ultimate socialism, and the result of unchecked Left wing government.

"The difference between a conservative state and a fascist state is a matter of time." - Doesn't that resemble the change that began early in the 20th century, and now occurring with increasing rapidity as we go forth?

 

There was no entry for fascism in 1828, and if there was, it meant (and means) nothing with relation the the fascism we're talking about right now. The term was coined by Benito Mussolini, who invented the shit.

There is a wide range of definitions, (I consider, as I said, it to be more of a way of handling things, it does not need a particular ideology, it's just enforcement) but mussolini meant for it to be a fusion, and it generally is. It takes the leftist idea of socialism (which on it's own can be great or horrible) and then adds the fascist way of handling a state, and ends up basically transplanting a left idea into the farthest right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

There is, in fact, a whole wikipedia article on definitions of fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

As for splitting the US, no, as I explained (really, it was sort of gentle, when I called it fucking stupid) it is not a viable option, in any way, unless you are discussing the forced migration of many millions of people, especially if each side was to get a desirable section of the country, then at least half the people would need to move. And you are also ignoring the fact that there's already 50, and asserting their rights has nothing to do with seccession, as is being demonstraited as arizona defends their right to have batshit-crazy immigration laws, and on the opposite side of the political spectrum, colorado and washington defend their right to have economies regulated as they see fit, that can trade in the goods they want to trade (pot).

Interesting..... it seems that of those, the left is breaking harder with the feds, and the left is doing it in favor of local, state-run economies and freeing up people to trade in more commoditidies.... not to mention, have more rights in general, that don't involve being deported or beaten for looking brown.

So yeah, there's 50 of us, if you try to dissolve the union you'll face a civil war from most people of most orientations, but if you say fuck your DEA, most states will support you, and instead of civil war, you usher in reforms and states rights. Which approach is "fucking stupid"? Like I said before, dividing the US in two.

 

How then are you wanting to define fascism? Every definition I've found seems to be quite similar.

You state that there are 50 States and I agree, but they've given up much of their autonomy as guaranteed by the Constitution over the last century to greater Federal control, and laws that not even the law makers are able to define clearly which allows the Federal government great latitude in how the laws are imposed and enforced from a Central point. Like I said, I don't promote breaking up the U.S., but government can only divide people to a point in which there remains no room for compromise and unify them. Government seems to be quite effective in dividing us, as can be seen in many of the posts on these forums. And in my opinion, the point at which division becomes a rationally reasonable option will be when the value of our currency has been destroyed.

Thanks for the humor, the DEA huh, that's what you see to be the highest priority problem needing to be solved? Debt, Federal spending, and unemployment are what I feel are the highest priority items, and they seem to never gain much more than token notice by our elected representatives in Washington.

As this thread is related to States wanting to secede from the U.S.A., although I do agree that none of the State governments have really proposed such seriously, and that the White House petition website is simply to allow citizens a place to sound off with no consequences or expectations of changing anything, I would fully support any State who put the question to a vote by their citizens to use the results in demanding changes in Washington and to band together in promoting changes that their citizens demand, in place of those demanded by lobbyists and large campaign contributors. It's time the people made their voice heard, and not just go to work and pay taxes.

 

I seceded years ago, never looked back and life is much richer without letting all their BS swirl around and interfere with living the good life, sans government. I highly recommend you give it a try.

 

Yeah, actually the DEA and it's sweeping (and highly unconstitutional) power, and massive pork barrel spending for a problem that they cause in the first place, is a huge problem. It's also fascist, they decide what you can feel and think. It's a militarized federal police force that runs around busting in doors when states have legalized what's happening behind those doors. I do think they are a problem, and that they repersent the type of thinking that is causing the other problems. It's also a fusion of (grabbed) executive power, heavy judicial sway, (grabbed) heavy legislative sway, and this militarized police force.

I could be wrong, but I think most states have had, through their politicians, not only an equal share in fucking the country, but an equal share in the temporary spoils. Pretty sure no one's letting them leave.

If the states have given up power to the feds, they can simply take power back, as, again, some states are doing, and yes, they're doing it by fighting the DEA, or, in other cases, by taking the job of federal agents into their own hands -- even if I think it's jackassery and nobody should be deporting anyone, it IS the states taking feds jobs, and even winning in court, sometimes, I think.

States are a lot closer to being able to say no, we won't do this, we need more autonomy, than anyone is to being able to say hey, we should make two nations here. States are already formed and already function (to some degree, and generally as great a degree as the feds). All it takes is responsible politicians who stop making laws that give the federal government power. Senators and reps are supposed to be there for the states, even if they are federal legislators. They are to blame for the problems you're talking about, and they are the ones who have to be replaced to fix them. If those people can get into power, it wouldn't matter how much the country breaks down into smaller units, they will still fuck things with no care for anything but personal power.

It's not just federal power grabs, it's federal power grabs, conducted by people who are supposed to be in the federal government on behalf of the state governments, and therefore, on behalf of the state people. And you know how and why they do what they do? big money and less regulation. At the time when you think the US was doing better (before taxes and such) it was literally bad form to campaign.

 

Actually, before 1913 and the 16th and 17th amendments, the people were represented in the Federal government by their districts Congressman, who was directly elected by the people they were to represent, and the States were represented by their Senators, who were indirectly selected by the people of each State by those persons directly elected to govern their State.

The Federal government prior to passage of the 16th amendment, had no power to tax the people directly, and could only tax the States uniformly based on the proportion of population. Federal spending programs under that system of taxation made both the Congress and the Senate have to consider the effect of each program would have on their State in proportion to their share of the total population. The passage of a spending bill would increase the cost to each State proportional to their States population, and require each States government to find the means of acquiring it, taxing their total population higher, or just their wealthiest, or some other means.

If you think about it, you might recognize that the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments had the effect of changing the United States of America, made up of what would today be 50 sovereign States, into what is more realistically the United State of America, a unitary sovereign nation, and that, in my opinion, has been the greatest loss of freedom for American citizens since the country was founded, taking control of government from the people and giving control of government to the two parties who are intimately involved not only Nationally, but right down to the local level as well.

 

Indie

We have been through this many many many times – the problem is one of definition – for example many Americans seem to see anything to the ‘left’ of their rather extreme right wing view as some kind of extreme left wing thinking. I’ve seen people that in other places in the world would be seen as right wing being called socialist or even communist by such people.

As pointed out your rather Social Darwinist ideas (that you label Spenceristic after Herbert Spenser the promoter of Social Darwinist ideas) seem to mark you out as rather on the very right I mean you have said you actually want a society where people who find themselves in hardship through no fault of their own should suffer even unto dead from that hardship.

Again as pointed out many times you are too simplistic in your thinking. Do you really think that would be easy? The last time it was tried (a division between two social and economic systems) your country (but you live in Laos so maybe I should say) that country being the US was plunged into a bloody civil war.

And again as pointed out it highlights that either/or - black/white – good/bad – them/us - mentality that so hampers rational thought for many.

I mean taking into account what I said above can there really be a clear definition of left and right? One persons ‘left’ can be another persons ‘right’.

I think the thing is that many Americans seem to be basing their political ideas on faith rather than rational thought, that is why so many of them seem totally unable to defend their ideas from criticism in any rational or reasonable way. So it would seem to be a problem of indoctrination and education.

It is like those in that earlier time that wanted to break away from the Union because they believed that slavery was right and justified.

 

Bal,

I don't know how you define simplistic, considering you seem to feel that there is a single answer to everything, "your answer".

 

Indie

Oh what wit and repartee - you should be on the stage.

I mean come on man is that it that all you can do, that just pathetic – anyway we have been through this many, many, many, many, many times, I don’t claim to have the answers but I have some ideas that I’m happy to defend from criticism – you however seem totally unwilling and unable to defend your ideas in any way beyond just saying you are right, I’ll ask again why is that?

 

Bal,

I've yet to see you defend your ideas to my satisfaction, but find you willing only to engage arrogantly in perpetual attempts to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you. In other words I find it unlikely that we could ever reach agreement on anything and therefore a total waste of time to pursue trying.

 

Indie

We have been here many many many many many times before – to repeat

Other than telling me I’m wrong - you rarely if ever actually put up any rational or reasonable criticisms for me to address. And those few I've addressed.

If you believe you have produced something i haven't addressed please link to it (as I often do your you).

But anyway I’d be happy, very happy to address any genuine criticisms (I actually like to debate) so please produce some.

For what seems like the millionth time I repeat – I’m not seeking your agreement I’m trying to work out why you hold and promote ideas you seem unable and unwilling to defend from criticism.

 

nothing says im butt-hurt more then signing a petition to secede from the United States.. Reminds me of when people tried to sign a petition to not allow George Lucas to direct anymore Star Wars films after The Phantom Menace because people hated Jar-Jar.....for those of you wondering how that turned out he directed the next two.... AND JAR-JAR WAS IN THEM!!!!! Signing this petition will mean as much as a first grade penmanship award. ....You might get a fancy pencil but youll lose it in a game of pencil pop and wish you friggin brought out the big guns instead of old fancy pencil!!

 

Bal,

Do you even bother to read the thread topic when you post?