NationStates Jolt Archive

Or not, but the title made you look.

So Heikoku's thread got me thinking, what would happen if Georgia and Texas really did secede from the United States? Would they collapse instantly? Be conquered by Mexico in about a week? Continue along fine? How would their economy work? How would citizenship? Armed Forces? What about their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? What are your thoughts?

They'd be fucked, that is all.

they would suffer with extreme political instability due to the vast majority of their citizens wanting to be citizens of the united states. it would cripple them.

Texas is big enough and diverse enough to be able to go it alone - it would be hideously painful, especially if the US slapped on some punitive duties, but they could probably make it.

Georgia'd simply be hosed.

What are your thoughts?

My mind is plank like normal.

Tex declaring independence only to join Mexico as a state couple of years later? Oh my, the irony...

they would suffer deeply.

Texas is big enough and diverse enough to be able to go it alone - it would be hideously painful, especially if the US slapped on some punitive duties, but they could probably make it.
Yes. Expecially thanks to the oil.

Georgia'd simply be hosed.
I would see Coca-Cola bashing.

Obama would humiliate the leadership of the seceding states in a televised rap battle, leading to fighting in the streets. The states would then be annexed by the mighty force of the San Marinese Crossbow Corps, intervening on the pretext of 'restoring order'.

The United States Government would not let them, surely?

they would suffer with extreme political instability due to the vast majority of their citizens wanting to be citizens of the united states. it would cripple them.

Ashmoria, I like you, but I have to respectfully disagree. I have relatives in Texas. They generally think that they are MORE American than the rest of the country. Also, it's quite possible that people who believe that the 21st century U.S. Govt. is too intrusive would have a great incentive to move to Texas.

Georgia, I do not know much about.

The United States Government would not let them, surely.

Might not have a choice. If they obeyed all the forms, and took their case to the US Supreme Court, the US government might not be legally able to stop them.

Nothing preventing the US declaring war on day 2, of course.

Seceding from the union would most likely just be a show of protest. Like governor Wallace trying to block schools from being desegregated by standing in the doorway and giving speeches. If violence did actually break out, I would get the fuck out of here. I'm not going to die for nationalism, what a crock of shit.

I seriously doubt either state will advance attempts at secession past the angry grumbling stage.

The better thing for Texas to do, if it still retains the right, would be to split itself into five states. It would then get eight more U.S. Senators. If they all went Republican (and not RINO!), they could really create a cloture-proof opposition to the Dark Lord's power-grab agenda.

There would be one helluva lot fewer Mexicans, as they would all flee toward the "new" US

Might not have a choice. If they obeyed all the forms, and took their case to the US Supreme Court, the US government might not be legally able to stop them.

Nothing preventing the US declaring war on day 2, of course.

The President would probably send Federal troops before they could secede.

Ashmoria, I like you, but I have to respectfully disagree. I have relatives in Texas. They generally think that they are MORE American than the rest of the country. Also, it's quite possible that people who believe that the 21st century U.S. Govt. is too intrusive would have a great incentive to move to Texas.

Georgia, I do not know much about.
but esteemed you-gi-owe, i am basing that opinion on polls conducted that put the secession desires of the population of texas (i am only extrapolating that georgia but i do think they have less secession desire) at far below 25%.

having a dissatifaction with a democratic adminstration does not imply a willingness to leave the union.

The President would probably send Federal troops before they could secede.

That'd probably be more trouble than allowing the attempt to succeed. The only way to stop a secession attempt would be to go after the State Legislature - and that would risk pissing off the other 49 of those, and starting a secession cascade.

Better to allow the state to secede - See? We're not an oppressive regime - then launch an assault and re-annex it. That way you're not stepping on a state government - you're stepping on a nest of traitors.

but esteemed you-gi-owe, i am basing that opinion on polls conducted that put the secession desires of the population of texas (i am only extrapolating that georgia but i do think they have less secession desire) at far below 25%.

having a dissatifaction with a democratic adminstration does not imply a willingness to leave the union.

My most gracious and thoughtful Ashmoria, thank you for the statistics that you have so kindly provided. However, as an anecdote, the population of the American colonies, not their representatives, were not especially enamored of the idea of breaking away from the British empire. Many of them simply tried to go about their lives, in spite of the revolution. It seems, to me, to be a matter of if the tipping or boiling point is reached by the states' elected representatives. The populace may be inclined to follow the people that they elected.

I, personally, am not surprised with the Democrat party administration. They are doing pretty much what I expected them to. My personal dissatisfaction is actually with the party that shares most of the views that I have in not standing up and fighting harder. The impressive thing about the Democrat party is that even if they lose, they come back for multiple re-matches and don't act like losers.

My most gracious and thoughtful Ashmoria, thank you for the statistics that you have so kindly provided. However, as an anecdote, the population of the American colonies, not their representatives, were not especially enamored of the idea of breaking away from the British empire. Many of them simply tried to go about their lives, in spite of the revolution. It seems, to me, to be a matter of if the tipping or boiling point is reached by the states' elected representatives. The populace may be inclined to follow the people that they elected.

I, personally, am not surprised with the Democrat party administration. They are doing pretty much what I expected them to. My personal dissatisfaction is actually with the party that shares most of the views that I have in not standing up and fighting harder. The impressive thing about the Democrat party is that even if they lose, they come back for multiple re-matches and don't act like losers.
yes i am aware of the statistics on the revolution. but i see today's circumstance as much different.

for example in 1961 the confederacy could fall back on the memory of the successful revolution, todays secessionists can only fall back on the memory of the unsuccessful confederacy.

AND, as i recall from that great civil war documentary by ken burns, before the civil war americans thought of themselves as citizens of their states, after the civil war we no longer thought that way. its not totally true but even in a state like texas (with its influx of yankees in the past 50 years) people would be loathe to give up their US citizenship.

Might not have a choice. If they obeyed all the forms, and took their case to the US Supreme Court, the US government might not be legally able to stop them.

Nothing preventing the US declaring war on day 2, of course.

Which forms allow them to secede?

I think we've already had this argument. The secessionists lost it.

The President would probably send Federal troops before they could secede.

Especially if there are... say... military installations, or strategic targets in either state.

The only reason that the country tolerates that 'South is gonna rise again' crap is for the peace and quiet. If it ever becomes an issue, the rest of the Union will kick the ass of Texas... or Georgia.

Personally, I think Alaska is more likely to try to make a break than Georgia.

This is not a valid counterfactual. It would never, ever happen.

I seriously doubt either state will advance attempts at secession past the angry grumbling stage.

The better thing for Texas to do, if it still retains the right, would be to split itself into five states. It would then get eight more U.S. Senators. If they all went Republican (and not RINO!), they could really create a cloture-proof opposition to the Dark Lord's power-grab agenda.
It's refreshing to see someone who hasn't jumped on the 'Bush wasn't a real conservative!' bandwagon.:p

In any case, if slavery wasn't enough to make Texas divide into more states, I doubt any other issue will be in the forseeable future, and if it looked like Texas was going that way, the Democrats in Congress would likely repeal that section of the resolution admitting Texas and challenge it in the courts on grounds that that section is legally spent as a result of the Compromise of 1850.

If Texas were to divide, where would they draw the lines?

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no State shall be formed of erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislature of the States concerned as well as of Congress.

It isn't Texas' decision.

It isn't Texas' decision.

gee, you'd think a lawyer would know that....

gee, you'd think a lawyer would know that....

He should consult my personal legal dictionary more often: Google.

Or not, but the title made you look.

So Heikoku's thread got me thinking, what would happen if Georgia and Texas really did secede from the United States
Nationwide celebrations, a special day to commemorate.

So Heikoku's thread got me thinking, what would happen if Georgia and Texas really did secede from the United States? Would they collapse instantly? Be conquered by Mexico in about a week?
Just prosper more than they do now.

And they might conquer the Mexico, with all their bases, not the other way around.

It isn't Texas' decision.

gee, you'd think a lawyer would know that....
I'm not a lawyer, but the joint resolution of Congress consenting to the annexation of Texas did consent to the creation and admission of up to four states from Texas:

Third -- New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html

Whether that is still legally valid, I don't know. I suppose one could argue that the intent of the legislation was to reduce Texas's size, which was much greater before 1850, and that since the Compromise of 1850 cut Texas down to its present borders, that the Compromise of 1850 implicitly overrides that part of the joint resolution. But what do I know?

Just prosper more than they do now.

Eh? Surely they'd have to import a ton of stuff, particularly Georgia?

Eh? Surely they'd have to import a ton of stuff, particularly Georgia?
So? Every country imports lots of stuff. And the more they prosper, the more they import.

The issue was resolved in the early 1860's, although, if Georgia were to go, as an Ohioan, I'd feel it's my duty to my state to re-enact Sherman's march.

Georgia would probably collapse, only because its population of those who would support the move would be too small to support a nation. Texas on the other hand, might have a chance. It would become drastically smaller, due to those who would leave, but I think there are enough people who feel more loyal to the state than the president in Texas. It might last five years...maybe...

What I'm worried about is whether other states will follow Texas and Georgia to secede from the Union.

What I'm worried about is whether other states will follow Texas and Georgia to secede from the Union.

I'll spell it out.

N-o-n-e.

Nor will Texas or Georgia secede.

I'll spell it out.

N-o-n-e.

Nor will Texas or Georgia secede.

Well, this thread about what could happen in the even that Georgia and/or Texas secede.

As neither the states of Georgia or Texas have any state military worth noting, I assume it would be a very, very short secession.

The one thing that I don't see mentioned in these threads is the impact of migration. If Texas was really to secede peacefully, it would basically have a set date in which to do so, so that assets could be divided, or removed [in the case of the U.S. Army]. During that time you would likely see a flock of hard rightwingers moving into Texas, and basically the entire city of Austin and whatever other left-wingers are left would evacuate the state in order to remain in the Union.

[See example: People in these threads have already claimed that they would move to Texas in a heartbeat.]

Since Texas is already a pretty right-leaning state, there would probably be a lot more inflow of non-Texan rightwingers than outflow, strengthening Texas. In the end, I think Texas would probably be a fair bit larger, maybe having up to 50 Million residents. The rest of the country would get bluer overnight.

I'll leave you to make your own conclusions on that.

Might not have a choice. If they obeyed all the forms, and took their case to the US Supreme Court, the US government might not be legally able to stop them.

Nothing preventing the US declaring war on day 2, of course.

Actually, theyve done that before....There's a court case where secession was declared illegal...I just need to find it...

where's Neo Art when you need him?

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_ruling

Supreme Court ruling

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". However, the decision did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States."

The real question would have to be, how far does that supposed flexibility get you? Presumably, not far, although it is "citation needed" lol...

Many former Confederate officials such as Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens as well as legal theorists such as Lysander Spooner rejected the court's reasoning and defended the right of states to secede.

Actually, theyve done that before....There's a court case where secession was declared illegal...I just need to find it...

where's Neo Art when you need him?

the legal status of secession is utterly irrelevant. when the governed no longer consent, then they always ought be allowed to form a new governing structure, no matter what the old rules say. actions aimed at forcing them to remain under the rule of a government they do not consent to are literally nothing more than imperialistic tyranny.

the legal status of secession is utterly irrelevant. when the governed no longer consent, then they can always form a new governing structure, no matter what the old rules say. moreover, actions aimed at forcing them to remain under the rule of a government they do not consent to are literally nothing more than imperialistic tyranny.

Youre getting no argument from me there, Im from MS, lol :p


Im just saying that if/when it did happen, Washington aint lettin it go without a fight, and theyll consider it having a legal basis for doing so...Whether its wrong or right will be irrelevant, save maybe PR purposes...

what would happen if Georgia and Texas really did secede from the United States? Just prosper more than they do now.

and now back to the news for those not from outer wingnuttia...

And then Texas would be joined not only by Georgia, but by Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, hopefully Virginia, West Virginia, and a bunch of others.

And it would be epic.

And then Texas would be joined not only by Georgia, but by Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, hopefully Virginia, West Virginia, and a bunch of others.

And it would be epic.

Woah. Don't lump Virginia in with all those other crazy states. We're moderate.

The one thing that I don't see mentioned in these threads is the impact of migration. If Texas was really to secede peacefully, it would basically have a set date in which to do so, so that assets could be divided, or removed [in the case of the U.S. Army]. During that time you would likely see a flock of hard rightwingers moving into Texas, and basically the entire city of Austin and whatever other left-wingers are left would evacuate the state in order to remain in the Union.

[See example: People in these threads have already claimed that they would move to Texas in a heartbeat.]

Since Texas is already a pretty right-leaning state, there would probably be a lot more inflow of non-Texan rightwingers than outflow, strengthening Texas. In the end, I think Texas would probably be a fair bit larger, maybe having up to 50 Million residents. The rest of the country would get bluer overnight.

I'll leave you to make your own conclusions on that.

You're forgetting NASA - the entire Johnson Space Center in Houston would be moved to Florida.

And then Texas would be joined not only by Georgia, but by Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, hopefully Virginia, West Virginia, and a bunch of others.

And it would be epic.

I doubt it, Id give you South Carolina...The rest, well, I dont think they would manage to get majority support for the measure, especially Louisiana, and Alabama, I can tell you that from experience...

I notice you didnt mention us, I suspect conspiracy here, lol....

Im just saying that if/when it did happen, Washington aint lettin it go without a fight, and theyll consider it having a legal basis for doing so...

i really don't see why anyone would agree to the idea of putting tanks on the street of dallas and running bombing raids in savannah. we don't live in a world where the wanton use of force is looked upon kindly anymore, even when done to brown people on the other side of the planet, let alone our friends and neighbors.

i could see there would definitely be negotiations and attempts to keep them in, but if the problem wasn't resolvable, letting them go is pretty much the only realistic option available.

i really don't see why anyone would agree to the idea of putting tanks on the street of dallas and running bombing raids in savannah. we don't live in a world where the wanton use of force is looked upon kindly anymore, even when done to brown people on the other side of the planet, let alone our friends and neighbors.

i could see there would definitely be negotiations and attempts to keep them in, but if the problem wasn't resolvable, letting them go is pretty much the only realistic option available.

True, I dont think it would make it that far, Ive got five bucks Governor Perry gives it up after just the threat of Violence...

So? Every country imports lots of stuff. And the more they prosper, the more they import.
Be kind of hard if the 4th fleet parks itself off the coast and blows the hell out of Savannah and Brunswick.


i could see there would definitely be negotiations and attempts to keep them in, but if the problem wasn't resolvable, letting them go is pretty much the only realistic option available.
And what of the minority of the people who don't want to secede? Considering how nuts a group would have to be in order to secede would the US really want some nutjob former state as a Neighbor?

Nothing preventing the US declaring war on day 2, of course.

Depends. Would Texas and Georgia still be considered as full-fledged members of NATO?

And what of the minority of the people who don't want to secede? Considering how nuts a group would have to be in order to secede would the US really want some nutjob former state as a Neighbor?

Not really, no...and we'd probably negotiate to get our loyalists back, lol...

the real problem would be the anti-war protests, you think these were bad? just wait till Code Pink gets a load of the Second War between the States...

Be kind of hard if the 4th fleet parks itself off the coast and blows the hell out of Savannah and Brunswick.
You don't get it, do you? The military is fundamentally Republican.

It won't follow a criminal order from the pinko commies to kill civilians - an order which would be criminal even if it wasn't your own citizens you're murdering. In fact, the military wouldn't eagerly follow orders from the commies just because they happen to have invaded half the US. Its whole purpose is to fight commies.

You don't get it, do you? The military is fundamentally Republican.

It won't follow a criminal order from the pinko commies that happen to have invaded half the US. Its whole purpose is to fight commies.

Actually, Id wager the Military is fundamentally College Kids trying to get money without being raped by loan sharks...

The Military's purpose is to defend the Government and People of the United States, in that order, lol...

Actually, Id wager the Military is fundamentally College Kids trying to get money without being raped by loan sharks...
It's not. The college kids go milk their daddy.

The Military's purpose is to defend the Government and People of the United States, in that order, lol...
You lie.

The oath goes as follows:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

It doesn't mention the government. And the commies are, in fact, a domestic enemy. The occupation, the mold, the plague.

The oath goes as follows:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

It doesn't mention the government. And the commies are, in fact, a domestic enemy. The occupation, the mold, the plague.

Funny how the Constitution doesn't mention commies. At all. Ever. Even in the most vague sense. I guess Skallvia isn't the only one telling lies.

Funny how the Constitution doesn't mention commies. At all. Ever. Even in the most vague sense.
It does.

"against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

It's not. The college kids go milk their daddy.
You over estimate the number of daddies with milk...


You lie.

The oath goes as follows:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

It doesn't mention the government. And the commies are, in fact, a domestic enemy. The occupation, the mold, the plague.

Ill give you three guesses whose side the Military will consider the "Constitution" to be on, ;)

And, seriously, what is this the '50s?

"against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

That's a matter of interpretation. You could just as well say that Scientologists are a domestic enemy, or Trekkies.

You over estimate the number of daddies with milk...
Men can produce milk too, they just have only one nipple.


Ill give you three guesses whose side the Military will consider the "Constitution" to be on, ;)
The people of the United States.

Not the communist occupational government.

And don't pretend to speak for the military, for you're probably not even in it.

It does.

"against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Yes, but "commies" and "enemies" are two different words. Come now, don't be lazy. You're actually going to have to demonstrate why one word is the same as the other in order to win this point.

You can do that, right?

Men can produce milk too, they just have only one nipple.
Yeah, I thought the metaphor was for getting money.....



The people of the United States.

Not the communist occupational government.

And don't pretend to speak for the military, for you're probably not even in it.

The people of the United States voted for this Government, they will consider the two one and the same...

Actually, Im in the midst of joining, I just have to go down to New Orleans and pass the physical, ;)

Yes, but "commies" and "enemies" are two different words.
They may sound different, but they mean the same.


Come now, don't be lazy. You're actually going to have to demonstrate why one word is the same as the other in order to win this point.
Most letters in them are exactly the same.

Also, the US military was basically built up to fight the commies.

The people of the United States voted for this Government, they will consider the two one and the same...
No. When the government has betrayed its people or its country, it's not only our right, but our duty to revolt against it.



Actually, Im in the midst of joining, I just have to go down to New Orleans and pass the physical, ;)
Maybe then you'll learn something. I hope so at least.

No. When the government has betrayed its people or its country, it's not only our right, but our duty to revolt against it.
Yeah, but youll have to prove that its done so, and even then, youre naive if you think the Pentagon, or even the majority of the country is going to agree...




Maybe then you'll learn something. I hope so at least.

Well, Im not sure about the example being set here...

They may sound different, but they mean the same.

Hmmmm...


com⋅mu⋅nist
   /ˈkɒmyənɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-yuh-nist] Show IPA
–noun
1. (initial capital letter) a member of the Communist party or movement.
2. an advocate of communism.
3. a person who is regarded as supporting politically leftist or subversive causes.
4. (usually initial capital letter) a Communard.
–adjective
5. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Communist party or to Communism.
6. pertaining to communists or communism.
Origin:
1835–45; < F communiste. See common, -ist

Related forms:
com⋅mu⋅nis⋅tic, com⋅mu⋅nis⋅ti⋅cal, adjective
com⋅mu⋅nis⋅ti⋅cal⋅ly, adverb

en⋅e⋅my
   /ˈɛnəmi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-uh-mee] Show IPA noun, plural -mies, adjective
–noun
1. a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.
2. an armed foe; an opposing military force: The army attacked the enemy at dawn.
3. a hostile nation or state.
4. a citizen of such a state.
5. enemies, persons, nations, etc., that are hostile to one another: Let's make up and stop being enemies.
6. something harmful or prejudical: His unbridled ambition is his worst enemy.
7. the Enemy, the Devil; Satan.
–adjective
8. belonging to a hostile power or to any of its nationals: enemy property.
9. Obsolete. inimical; ill-disposed.
Origin:
1250–1300; ME enemi < AF, OF < L inimicus unfriendly, equiv. to in- in- 3 + amicus friendly, friend; see amicable

Usage note:
See collective noun.

Synonyms:
1. antagonist. Enemy, foe refer to a dangerous public or personal adversary. Enemy emphasizes the idea of hostility: to overcome the enemy; a bitter enemy. Foe, a more literary word, may be used interchangeably with enemy, but emphasizes somewhat more the danger to be feared from such a one: deadly foe; arch foe of humankind (the Devil).

You know what? I don't see it.

Most letters in them are exactly the same.

Congratulations, but that's really more what we'd call a coincidence. Or, as "commie" is a derogatory term used by people who already hate them, worthless as evidence.

Also, the US military was basically built up to fight the commies.

Yeah, we totally fought the German and Japanese armies with our local militias, right?

Yeah, but youll have to prove that its done so, and even then, youre naive if you think the Pentagon is going to agree...
If Pentagon disagrees, only the worse for the Pentagon. It was hit once, you know, and it didn't even take any effort.

An order to murder the civilian population of a state that was always your ally and hasn't conducted any hostile acts is a very clear act of betrayal against your people.

By giving such an order, the Dark Lord would finally reveal his true face as an enemy infiltrator agent, and it would be everyone's duty to eliminate him and his government, to save the nation.

Yeah, we totally fought the German and Japanese armies with our local militias, right?

Nah, dont you remember the Nazis are Commies now, because they use the word "Socialist"!

If Pentagon disagrees, only the worse for the Pentagon. It was hit once, you know, and it didn't even take any effort.

An order to murder the civilian population of a state that was always your ally and hasn't conducted any hostile acts is a very clear act of betrayal against your people.


Im sure the CSA would agree, but I leave it to you to see how it turned out for them....

If Pentagon disagrees, only the worse for the Pentagon. It was hit once, you know, and it didn't even take any effort.

An order to murder the civilian population of a state that was always your ally and hasn't conducted any hostile acts is a very clear act of betrayal against your people.

By giving such an order, the Dark Lord would finally reveal his true face as an enemy infiltrator agent, and it would be everyone's duty to eliminate him and his government, to save the nation.

One Presidency to rule them all, One Presidency to find them,
One Presidency to bring them all and in the darkness nationalize their industries
In the Land of Mordor where Obama was democratically elected by the people of this country?

the legal status of secession is utterly irrelevant. when the governed no longer consent, then they always ought be allowed to form a new governing structure, no matter what the old rules say. actions aimed at forcing them to remain under the rule of a government they do not consent to are literally nothing more than imperialistic tyranny.

They have every right to form a new governing structure, but they'll need to leave the land where they found it.

I would encourge Mexico to retake Texas.

I seriously doubt either state will advance attempts at secession past the angry grumbling stage.

The better thing for Texas to do, if it still retains the right, would be to split itself into five states. It would then get eight more U.S. Senators. If they all went Republican (and not RINO!), they could really create a cloture-proof opposition to the Dark Lord's power-grab agenda.

1- You say "power-grab", normal people say "being elected".

2- It boggles the mind how you can call ANYTHING a "power grab" when you support one from Texas.

3- And what is to prevent California from splitting into 5 states, Illinois into another 3, Oregon and Washington into 4 each, New York into 4, and so on until the cows came home and you woke up from your anti-democracy dream?

No, really, Leeroy.

How the fuck can you call anything, especially a democratic election in which a majority (which you now call "obammunists") spoke, a power grab when you make it clear in your post that you want Texas to screw democracy over and pull such a crappy trick? That's not even funny, and that speaks volumes about yourself: It says that you don't care about democracy or freedom, you care about control. So much so that you were the kind of person equating dissent with hatred towards America, and NOW support dirty gerrymandering political tricks to try and prevent the majority from speaking.

Such an American you are, right? After all, America wasn't founded on democracy, was it? Your forefathers were in favor of gerrymandering and grandstanding to try and screw over the will of the majority, weren't they?

Only, not really. Your discourse, Leeroy, your idea of trying to circumvent the will of the people, all the while calling a normal election a power-grab, are the most un-American things I ever read in this forum, and given the kind of company you keep, that's saying something!

What IS funny, though, is that Texas won't split. And you'll have to watch while the Democrats, now in power and likely in power for the next 8 years, undo all those horrible things Bush did, and while the GOP fades further and further into the insignificance it so richly deserves. Powerless. Impotent. Unable to do anything about it whatsoever, while America moves further to the left. And we have Bush to thank for that. If it weren't for him, you see, the GOP wouldn't be the political equivalent of a headless chicken right now. To the GOP, for picking that moron known as Bush, you deserve it. You can vote for a GOPer in the next election, Leeroy, that's true - assuming the GOP lasts that long, that is, so savor it while you can! :D

3- And what is to prevent California from splitting into 5 states, Illinois into another 3, Oregon and Washington into 4 each, New York into 4, and so on until the cows came home and you woke up from your anti-democracy dream?

Until eventually, the US has 500 states instead of 50, and absolutely nothing has changed except the size of the Senate?:D

What IS funny, though, is that Texas won't split. And you'll have to watch while the Democrats, now in power and likely in power for the next 8 years, undo all those horrible things Bush did, and while the GOP fades further and further into the insignificance it so richly deserves. Powerless. Impotent. Unable to do anything about it whatsoever, while America moves further to the left. And we have Bush to thank for that. If it weren't for him, you see, the GOP wouldn't be the political equivalent of a headless chicken right now. To the GOP, for picking that moron known as Bush, you deserve it. You can vote for a GOPer in the next election, Leeroy, that's true - assuming the GOP lasts that long, that is, so savor it while you can! :D

Personally, I avoid taunting far Right nuts about how powerless they are, because people who feel they are politically powerless are more likely to drop democratic politics and pick up guns.

Anyway, the next most damaging thing to democracy after a theocratic Republican coup or something like that would be for the nation to become a one-party state. Unfortunatley, the GOP's goals run counter both to the democratic principles of the nation and to the goal of survival in a dangerous and changing world. Moreover, a large portion of the GOP has made it clear that the Democrats will not be dealt with as legitimate and worthy political opponents, but as an enemy to be destroyed. Hence, I maintain that the only viable hope for salvaging American democracy is for a viable third party candidate to emerge.

3- And what is to prevent California from splitting into 5 states, Illinois into another 3, Oregon and Washington into 4 each, New York into 4, and so on until the cows came home and you woke up from your anti-democracy dream?

Because Texas's constitution says they can.

How the fuck can you call anything, especially a democratic election in which a majority (which you now call "obammunists") spoke, a power grab when you make it clear in your post that you want Texas to screw democracy over and pull such a crappy trick? That's not even funny, and that speaks volumes about yourself: It says that you don't care about democracy or freedom, you care about control. So much so that you were the kind of person equating dissent with hatred towards America, and NOW support dirty gerrymandering political tricks to try and prevent the majority from speaking.

NM's confussion over what a 'power grab' and an 'election' is aside, its not a dirty trick. Texas is allowed to do that. NM's biggest mistake is assuming that every single newly created state would be Republican. There are blue areas of Texas.

NM's contempt for democracy is apperant, despite all that.

Personally, I avoid taunting far Right nuts about how powerless they are, because people who feel they are politically powerless are more likely to drop democratic politics and pick up guns.

IF Leeroy tries to kill Obama, he most likely fails and gets arrested (And NSG loses... well, him), and hands Obama one more election cycle on a silver platter while destroying the GOP soon after. And I'll have indirectly changed the world for the best.

IF he succeeds, or otherwise harms Obama or anyone close to him, Biden becomes VP if Obama dies or gets incapacitated, and there is one HELL of a backlash against the GOP, which obliterates it, for GOOD, that instant, and the US goes further left. And I'll have indirectly changed the world for the best for most people (Obama's family excluded, obviously).

And if - most likely - Leeroy simply seethes with rage at his own powerlessness, then the future (deserved) demise of the GOP runs its course naturally.

Don't enable Vault 10's delusional ranting with responses. That just legitimizes what he says.

Because Texas's constitution says they can.

Congratulations for actually knowing what you are talking about.

NM's biggest mistake is assuming that every single newly created state would be Republican. There are blue areas of Texas.

You must have missed the IF in my post.

NM's contempt for democracy is apperant, despite all that.

I don't hold "democracy" in very high regard. Neither did the Founding Fathers. That's why they set up a constitutional republic.

I don't hold "democracy" in very high regard.

With or without the quotation marks.

IF Leeroy tries to kill Obama, he most likely fails and gets arrested (And NSG loses... well, him), and hands Obama one more election cycle on a silver platter while destroying the GOP soon after. And I'll have indirectly changed the world for the best.

IF he succeeds, or otherwise harms Obama or anyone close to him, Biden becomes VP if Obama dies or gets incapacitated, and there is one HELL of a backlash against the GOP, which obliterates it, for GOOD, that instant, and the US goes further left. And I'll have indirectly changed the world for the best for most people (Obama's family excluded, obviously).

And if - most likely - Leeroy simply seethes with rage at his own powerlessness, then the future (deserved) demise of the GOP runs its course naturally.

First, I wasn't suggesting that anyone here would try such a stupid and evil thing.

Second, it is so typical of you to view the possibility of such a tragedy only from the point of view short-term political gain. That you go so far as to say that causing such a tragedy would be improving the world shows that extreemists on the left can be just as pathetic and simple-minded as extreemists on the right. Not only would such an event be a terrible blow to those who know Obama personally, it would also be a devestating blow to American democracy. It would almost certainly lead to waves of retaliatory violence and race riots, and shatter many American's belief in democracy forever. It would slow the political process and deprive America of a talented and inspiring leader at a time when swift action and brilliant leadership are desperately needed. And it might be used to justify further crack downs on civil liberties in the name of security. In other words, use your brain, since you seem unable or unwilling to use your conscience.

Third, you are thinking only in the short term. You sit their gloating over Obama's victory and the presumed demise of the GOP, apparently without considering the long term implications of America without a viable political opposition. As repulsive as the current GOP is, the thought of any political party acting as the sole powerful voice in government, without legitimate opposition and without adequate checks and balances, frightens me. Does it not frighten you? Do you truly agree with the Democrats on every single policy, and feel confident that they will always act in the best interests of America and the world? If the answer is yes, then you are a fool.

I don't hold "democracy" in very high regard.
Really? Because you always throw around how great democracy is when its the majority taking away the rights of minorities. Prop 8 anyone?
Neither did the Founding Fathers. That's why they set up a constitutional republic.
Yeah, and in the last vote for the representatives of the constitutional republic, you lost. But you keep calling it a power grab. Its not a 'power grab' when you lose an election.

First, I wasn't suggesting that anyone here would try such a stupid and evil thing.

Second, it is so typical of you to view the possibility of such a tragedy only from the point of view short-term political gain. That you go so far as to say that causing such a tragedy would be improving the world shows that extreemists on the left can be just as pathetic and simple-minded as extreemists on the right. Not only would such an event be a terrible blow to those who know Obama personally, it would also be a devestating blow to American democracy. It would almost certainly lead to waves of retaliatory violence and race riots, and shatter many American's belief in democracy forever. It would slow the political process and deprive America of a talented and inspiring leader at a time when swift action and brilliant leadership are desperately needed. And it might be used to justify further crack downs on civil liberties in the name of security. In other words, use your brain, since you seem unable or unwilling to use your conscience.

Third, you are thinking only in the short term. You sit their gloating over Obama's victory and the presumed demise of the GOP, apparently without considering the long term implications of America without a viable political opposition. As repulsive as the current GOP is, the thought of any political party acting as the sole powerful voice in government, without legitimate opposition and without adequate checks and balances, frightens me. Does it not frighten you? Do you truly agree with the Democrats on every single policy, and feel confident that they will always act in the best interests of America and the world? If the answer is yes, then you are a fool.

1- Leeroy got his nickname with "Fort Sumter".

2- Maybe so, but it would kill the GOP.

3- Never said I want an one-party state. I want a state in which the dispute is between the Democrats and a party further to the left.

And it appears that NM was viewing this thread, yet ran off as usual once people started to challange the crap he spews.


Because he cant defend it.

1- Leeroy got his nickname with "Fort Sumter".

No comment, except that what people say (especially on-line?) and what people do are often, and fortunately, two radically different things.

2- Maybe so, but it would kill the GOP.

The GOP in its current form is already dying. They may gain in strength for a while, but if so they will quickly do something to remind the American people why they voted for Obama. Seriously, the party leadership is a pack of reactionary, simple-minded clowns, who would be utterly comical if their insanity was not so terrifying. Their is no prominent Republican I know of who is likely to lead the party to anything but ruin.

The GOP of our time is dying. It will change, or disappear. If nothing else, demographic shifts will screw it. The only question is how much damage they do on the way out.

Regardless, however, I want the GOP to reform or die because the people will it, and not because of the backlash generated by a national tragedy. And I'd rather it reform than utterly disappear. I consider it a national tragedy that the Republican Party has fallen so far from the days of Lincoln.

3- Never said I want an one-party state. I want a state in which the dispute is between the Democrats and a party further to the left.

But how likely is that in the foreseeable future? And their are probably a few (very, very few) issues where the Democrats might (especially with an all-around majority) move too far left.

At present, my hope is for a slightly-further-left-on-some-issues Democratic Party, a dead GOP, and a moderately libertarian party as the opposition.

The Supreme Court, in Texas v. White (1869) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White), said that states can't secede, that the Constitution created a "perpetual union" and that the Confederate States had remained states of the United States even while in rebellion. There were three dissenting justices, so there might be room for debate. But "Nuh-uh, no you can't" remains the prevailing jurisprudence on the issue.

Now, the Act of Annexation that brought Texas into the US does say that new states, up to four, can be formed from Texas' territory through the usual means for admitting new states. That requires the state legislature to agree and for Congress to act to admit the new state. Strikes me as pretty unlikely.

Now, the Act of Annexation that brought Texas into the US does say that new states, up to four, can be formed from Texas' territory through the usual means for admitting new states. That requires the state legislature to agree and for Congress to act to admit the new state. Strikes me as pretty unlikely.

Well, yes, there is that too.

I think a more interesting question would be: What if Washington, DC tried to secede from the union?

Chances are, we'd be reenacting Sherman's March to the Sea in a few weeks.

I think a more interesting question would be: What if Washington, DC tried to secede from the union?

We'd wait. I mean, what the hell is DC going to do on its own? Does it even have any resources?

They have every right to form a new governing structure, but they'll need to leave the land where they found it.

that ain't how self-determination works

I seriously doubt either state will advance attempts at secession past the angry grumbling stage.

The better thing for Texas to do, if it still retains the right, would be to split itself into five states. It would then get eight more U.S. Senators. If they all went Republican (and not RINO!), they could really create a cloture-proof opposition to the Dark Lord's power-grab agenda.

You make it sound like Obama is Emperor Palpatine...

You make it sound like Obama is Emperor Palpatine...

But I thought he was Luke Skywalker?

http://www.homepagedaily.com/uploads/20080506/e810a3d6-97b9-4332-919c-36ac7bd458be/thumb150-obama%20skywalker.jpg

although, ironically, they did make a powergrab for the New Republic at the end of that, lol...

But I thought he was Luke Skywalker?

http://www.homepagedaily.com/uploads/20080506/e810a3d6-97b9-4332-919c-36ac7bd458be/thumb150-obama%20skywalker.jpg

although, ironically, they did make a powergrab for the New Republic at the end of that, lol...

If Obama is Luke, who are Han, Chewie, C-3PO, R2-D2, and Obi-Wan? :confused:

3- Never said I want an one-party state. I want a state in which the dispute is between the Democrats and a party further to the left.

I'd prefer to have so many political parties that it would be impossible to accomplish anything. :tongue:

If Obama is Luke, who are Han, Chewie, C-3PO, R2-D2, and Obi-Wan? :confused:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b42/Segomo2/untitled5.jpg

(thats like the second time ive used that picture, lol)

I suppose Chewie is Bill, and C-3PO is Timothy Geithner, and R2-D2 is Rahm Emmanuel...

We'd wait. I mean, what the hell is DC going to do on its own? Does it even have any resources?

Bureaucracy is the only system which loses no energy.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b42/Segomo2/untitled5.jpg

(thats like the second time ive used that picture, lol)

I suppose Chewie is Bill, and C-3PO is Timothy Geithner, and R2-D2 is Rahm Emmanuel...

lol

NM is one of the Storm troopers.

They have every right to form a new governing structure, but they'll need to leave the land where they found it.

So I expect you'll advocate that the US return the land that we took from the British, then?

So I expect you'll advocate that the US return the land that we took from the British, then?

Wait, Texas is a colony? If so, someone remind the government to stop giving Texas electoral votes. :p

The Supreme Court, in Texas v. White (1869) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White), said that states can't secede, that the Constitution created a "perpetual union" and that the Confederate States had remained states of the United States even while in rebellion. There were three dissenting justices, so there might be room for debate. But "Nuh-uh, no you can't" remains the prevailing jurisprudence on the issue.

Fuck the Supreme Court. I hope every State secedes from the Union and brings about the long-overdue death of the American Empire. At the very least, it would mean a lot fewer innocent people being killed abroad.

Fuck the Supreme Court.

Ummm, no?


Thats the only branch of government left that I trust.

Ummm, no?


Thats the only branch of government left that I trust.

They also don't believe in self-determination. This is not to say that the CSA states did, of course (no one can allow slavery and claim to support self-determination, without also being a pious hypocrite), but saying that no state ever has the right to secede, ever, is just wrong. Secession would be a very powerful check on governmental authority, far more than the ludicrous "checks and balances" in the much-vaunted overrated piece of paper.

They also don't believe in self-determination. This is not to say that the CSA states did, of course (no one can allow slavery and claim to support self-determination, without also being a pious hypocrite), but saying that no state ever has the right to secede, ever, is just wrong. Secession would be a very powerful check on governmental authority, far more than the ludicrous "checks and balances" in the much-vaunted overrated piece of paper.

I dont believe in "self determination either".

Dude, you know I love ya, but seccession is bad, m'kay?

I dont believe in "self determination either".

Dude, you know I love ya, but seccession is bad, m'kay?

I love you, too. :fluffle:

Secession can be bad, if a state is seceding for a wrong reason. But I would loved to see some of the states secede when the U.S. invaded Iraq.

Wait, Texas is a colony? If so, someone remind the government to stop giving Texas electoral votes. :p

No, my point was that when we formed our country, we didn't "leave the land where we found it." We took it with us.

Well the U.S would probably just retake them like they did in the civil war. It would be damaging to the U.S though. If they seceded other states might join them making the U.S weak, and with our terrorist "friends" we would be fighting two wars. Mexico is very weak currently and would not be able to take them currently at this time. No offence btw just opinion. Their troops overseas would still be enlisted under the military legally so they'd be stuck. Economy wise they could not afford it. U.S can barely afford the economy so I doubt they would last long

IF Leeroy tries to kill Obama, he most likely fails and gets arrested (And NSG loses... well, him), and hands Obama one more election cycle on a silver platter while destroying the GOP soon after. And I'll have indirectly changed the world for the best.

IF he succeeds, or otherwise harms Obama or anyone close to him, Biden becomes VP if Obama dies or gets incapacitated, and there is one HELL of a backlash against the GOP, which obliterates it, for GOOD, that instant, and the US goes further left. And I'll have indirectly changed the world for the best for most people (Obama's family excluded, obviously).

And if - most likely - Leeroy simply seethes with rage at his own powerlessness, then the future (deserved) demise of the GOP runs its course naturally.

All of your scenarios epically fail, because the Republican party won't explode just because someone who supports them tries to kill Obama.

All of your scenarios epically fail, because the Republican party won't explode just because someone who supports them tries to kill Obama.

It would be good to see though.

It would be good to see though.

No it wouldn't.

No it wouldn't.

Yeah, it really would.

Yeah, it really would.

Explain why.

Yeah, but youll have to prove that its done so, and even then, youre naive if you think the Pentagon, or even the majority of the country is going to agree...





Well, Im not sure about the example being set here...

Ignore Vault, not all military personnel/former military are right-wing nutjobs.

I dont believe in "self determination either".

Dude, you know I love ya, but seccession is bad, m'kay?

fan of evil empires of doom, eh?

Explain why.

To see the Republican scum in turmoil.

All of your scenarios epically fail, because the Republican party won't explode just because someone who supports them tries to kill Obama.

With a whole history of screwing up America behind it and the murder of a charismatic leader? The GOP would go down in flames quicker than it is now.

With a whole history of screwing up America behind it and the murder of a charismatic leader? The GOP would go down in flames quicker than it is now.

It certainly wouldn't be an instant effect.

It certainly wouldn't be an instant effect.

Oh, the GOP would exist officially for a while, but it'd become a "regional" political party pretty quickly.

Just prosper more than they do now.

And they might conquer the Mexico, with all their bases, not the other way around.

Boo. 0/2. Read the coursework when tests are coming.

And then Texas would be joined not only by Georgia, but by Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, hopefully Virginia, West Virginia, and a bunch of others.

And it would be epic.

If you'd have said Alaska, I might have bought it.

Maybe.

Depends. Would Texas and Georgia still be considered as full-fledged members of NATO?

Texas and Georgia aren't members of NATO, at all, are they?

They'd have to be 'officially recognized' as nation states before they could be members of antyhing. (Or their new Confederacy would have to be recognized... one or the other).

The oath goes as follows:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."


Which is exactly why, if there were a secession, the military would put down the resistance.

Which is exactly why, if there were a secession, the military would put down the resistance.

And if we're lucky, they'd eliminate the secessionist forces with a veritable overkill of violence. Everything's bigger in Texas, that should also go for saturation bombardments!

You don't get it, do you? The military is fundamentally Republican.

It won't follow a criminal order from the pinko commies to kill civilians - an order which would be criminal even if it wasn't your own citizens you're murdering. In fact, the military wouldn't eagerly follow orders from the commies just because they happen to have invaded half the US. Its whole purpose is to fight commies.

Wow Vault 10 is channeling Pinochet.

He wants the military to rebel against both the government and the public .

Thank goodness we know tha the military isn't a hivemind and that between a bunch of nuts who want to genocide a large portion of the nation (The voters who DIDN'T vote Republican) and the elected government most will chose the latter.

It would start a chain reaction of secession.

It would start a chain reaction of secession.

No, it really wouldn't.

Most people, living in most states of the US have long ago realised that they'd be fucked without Washington. They don't like it, and they like to bitch about state-rights, etc - but they always take the check when it comes.

Wow Vault 10 is channeling Pinochet.

He wants the military to rebel against both the government and the public .

Thank goodness we know tha the military isn't a hivemind and that between a bunch of nuts who want to genocide a large portion of the nation (The voters who DIDN'T vote Republican) and the elected government most will chose the latter.

Stop him Vault 10 is heading for Chile with an army!!!

So I expect you'll advocate that the US return the land that we took from the British, then?

Nope. King George III relinquished Britain's claim on the 13 colonies when he signed the Treaty of Paris (Article 1).

Basically, the colonies told King George III to pound sand, and war broke out. America won, and the land became theirs. Then, in 1861, several southern states told Lincoln to pound sand, and war broke out. The southern states lost, so the land remained in the Union.

It may suck, but when it comes to secession, might makes right.

It may suck, but when it comes to secession, might makes right.

Yeah, but when it comes to Civil Wars, numbers of Reenactors makes victory! :p

It may suck, but when it comes to secession, might makes right.

that claim is not demonstrated by the former examples.
at all.

that claim is not demonstrated by the former examples.
at all.

Um, what?

Revolutionary war: Colonists VS Britain. Colonists won, they got the land instead of staying British colonies.
Civil war: North VS South. North won, southern states stayed in the Union instead of becoming their own nation.

Seems like that claim IS demonstrated by the examples.

Um, what?

Revolutionary war: Colonists VS Britain. Colonists won, they got the land instead of staying British colonies.
Civil war: North VS South. North won, southern states stayed in the Union instead of becoming their own nation.

Seems like that claim IS demonstrated by the examples.

only if rape is right if you get away with it

only if rape is right if you get away with it

Im not sure that rape is equal to secession...

All though, right and wrong dont really belong in these kinds of discussions, for the simple fact that Britain thought it was in the right just as much as the Colonies and you cant exactly prove objectively which one was...

There's a case to be made for the South being wrong, but, its still debatable for the majority of its populace at the time...

the point is that Might makes Ownership would be more appropriate...

Here is how a Texas, Georgia succession would go down, provided GA,TX doesn't attack a federal base and start it.
US government tries to work it out diplomatically, it wont go anywhere as their really isn't anyway the federal government can give one state special treatment over another.
Next the US will move to block recognition of Independence by other countries.
When this looks like this will start to unravel the US will begin a campaign against the rouge states. However, the Idea of fighting people who just want out of the US doesn't garner much support inside or outside of the US.
Furthermore a guerrilla Campaign is fought causing several thousand federal Causalities.
The public pressure on the US government causes the state of Texas to be given independence provided weapons secrets the state happens to have are kept safe. And a few other little details.

Im not sure that rape is equal to secession...

All though, right and wrong dont really belong in these kinds of discussions, for the simple fact that Britain though it was in the right just as much as the Colonies and you cant exactly prove objectively which one was...

There's a case to be made for the South being wrong, but, its still debatable for the majority of its populace at the time...

the point is that Might makes Ownership would be more appropriate...

I think he is saying war is equal to rape

I think he is saying war is equal to rape

Maybe...Idk though, Maybe in countries that are invaded without provocation...

But, Idk if there was a non-consenting side in the American Revolution, Civil War, or WWII, for example...

Both sides wanted to fight for one reason or another...

Im not sure that rape is equal to secession...

it isn't a question of equating things, but of undermining principles. GM's examples demonstrated that might means you can force the other side to comply, one way or the other (which is nearly tautological). they claimed this demonstrated that "when it comes to secession, might makes right." if this actually follows, then it follows just as well for any successful use of force to get what one wants. if they don't intend to defend all instances where force is used successfully, then they'll need to actually provide some means of making that distinction. the given examples don't cut it.

All though, right and wrong dont really belong in these kinds of discussions, for the simple fact that Britain though it was in the right just as much as the Colonies and you cant exactly prove objectively which one was...

There's a case to be made for the South being wrong, but, its still debatable for the majority of its populace at the time...

the fact that there is disagreement doesn't demonstrate that there isn't some fact of the matter, or at least that one side has objectively better arguments. i mean, people disagree about fucking math problems all the time, and there definitely are knowable correct answers to those.

it isn't a question of equating things, but of undermining principles. GM's examples demonstrated that might means you can force the other side to comply, one way or the other (which is nearly tautological). they claimed this demonstrated that "when it comes to secession, might makes right." if this actually follows, then it follows just as well for any successful use of force to get what one wants. if they don't intend to defend all instances where force is used successfully, then they'll need to actually provide some means of making that distinction. the given examples don't cut it.

Like I said, I would change it to "Might makes ownership" or maybe "Might makes possession" which can be objectively proved, its hard to say that China doesnt posses Tibet, for example...




the fact that there is disagreement doesn't demonstrate that there isn't some fact of the matter, or at least that one side has objectively better arguments. i mean, people disagree about fucking math problems all the time, and there definitely are knowable correct answers to those.

Yeah, but you can objectively prove that 2+2=4 is the right answer, you cant objectively prove that say, Austria was wrong in WW1...

Yeah, but you can objectively prove that 2+2=4 is the right answer, you cant objectively prove that say, Austria was wrong in WW1...

that sort of assumes the conclusion, no?

Civil war: North VS South. North won, southern states stayed in the Union instead of becoming their own nation.


England and France table resolutions to recognise the CSA as sovereign, but fail to go through with it in the end, and hilarity ensues.

The complexion of the Americas would have changed overnight on those two decisions - politicians arguing in draughty rooms, not guns and blood on a battlefield.

However, the Idea of fighting people who just want out of the US doesn't garner much support inside or outside of the US.
Furthermore a guerrilla Campaign is fought causing several thousand federal Causalities.

First: those two things are pretty much contradictory.

Second: someone needs to hit the history books.

I have little faith that either state could secede without federal approval. I seem to recall a previous attempt at this, with a lot more support from other, neighboring states.

This small event. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) I believe the Federal government won that argument.

that sort of assumes the conclusion, no?

Maybe Im just stupid, but, I only have this to say to that, wha? :confused:

Im just saying in a right or wrong scenario like the one he listed, the loser would be wrong, but I cant say that Austria was entirely wrong in their fight, even though they lost, afterall, Franz Ferdinand was killed by what we would probably call 'Terrorists' today...


however, that being said, there's no question that the majority of the territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, is in the possession of countries that were largely on the winning side of that war...

only if rape is right if you get away with it

You'd be surprised at how genocide, cannibalism and yes, rape were viewed as "right" simply because the perpetrators had the might to carry them out with impunity. Society decides what is "right" and when it has the power to impose it's will over other societies, what they do to them then becomes "right". Human morality is subjective that way. Some have stricter moral codes than others, but most don't.

Maybe Im just stupid, but, I only have this to say to that, wha? :confused:

it is entirely possible that we could objectively demonstrate that austria was wrong in ww1 (assuming, of course, that they actually were. we could perhaps see this more clearly in a war that wasn't just one big clusterfuck everyone had seen coming for years. take that war's sequel, for example).

merely saying that we can't compellingly argue that some nation was in the wrong is just repeating the thing that was to be demonstrated. and it isn't really all that inherently plausible of a position, given the nazis.* definitely needs to be argued for, at least.


*damn useful things, nazis. if they hadn't actually existed, philosophy would have had to invent them

You'd be surprised at how genocide, cannibalism and yes, rape were viewed as "right" simply because the perpetrators had the might to carry them out with impunity. Society decides what is "right" and when it has the power to impose it's will over other societies, what they do to them then becomes "right". Human morality is subjective that way. Some have stricter moral codes than others, but most don't.

no, i wouldn't be. more to the point, merely claiming a thing is right is not sufficient to demonstrate that it actually is. your above argument is viciously circular.

and are you honestly willing to concede that rape is right if a society says it is? i mean, this is typically where one tends to come to the conclusion that something must have gone awry with the relativist argument.

it is entirely possible that we could objectively demonstrate that austria was wrong in ww1 (assuming, of course, that they actually were. we could perhaps see this more clearly in a war that wasn't just one big clusterfuck everyone had seen coming for years. take that war's sequel, for example).

merely saying that we can't compellingly argue that some nation was in the wrong is just repeating the thing that was to be demonstrated. and it isn't really all that inherently plausible of a position, given the nazis.* definitely needs to be argued for, at least.


*damn useful things, nazis. if they hadn't actually existed, philosophy would have had to invent them
Well, I would say that nazis were the exception rather than the rule, there are very very few wars so cut and dry like WWII...so the idea that winners are always right, and losers are always wrong is undoubtedly not true, as you stated...

There can be little doubt, however, that after WWII the land was in the possession of the victors...

So , my posit, that "Might makes Possession" is undoubtedly true...

So , my posit, that "Might makes Possession" is undoubtedly true...

east timor

east timor

Well I would say that, for a time, the might of Indonesia definitely made it its possession...

and later the potential might of the UN and the NATO countries that support it, forced Indonesia to relinquish its possession...

Well I would say that, for a time, the might of Indonesia definitely made it its possession...

and later the potential might of the UN and the NATO countries that support it, forced Indonesia to relinquish its possession...

ah, so potential might is enough, and it can be the potential might of third parties, with those third parties using their potential might to open a space for entirely non-might-based decision making. that puts us in a rather different ball game altogether - one where might takes a back seat and the objectively less mighty can get their way.

might didn't determine whether east timor would be independent or not. voting did.

no, i wouldn't be. more to the point, merely claiming a thing is right is not sufficient to demonstrate that it actually is. your above argument is viciously circular.

Circular logic is one of the hallmarks of human behavior, especially when it comes to justifying actions. How often do you see people saying something is just and right because *insert higher/intangible power* told them to, which they will then back as unquestionable in its rightness?


and are you honestly willing to concede that rape is right if a society says it is? i mean, this is typically where one tends to come to the conclusion that something must have gone awry with the relativist argument.

From a personal standpoint, no, I can't see rape under any circumstance as being right. But what I think is or isn't right has at best, a negligible impact on what society says is right. As I said, some people have a stricter moral code than others and aren't so easily swayed. Most don't.

Take for example, torture and murder. Normally, people would be opposed to that, right? But given the right circumstances, not only did a significant portion of the American populace accept those actions, but demand them.

For a society to view rape as right, it simply has to have a significant portion of it's populace do the one thing that it's always been and always be capable of doing. Recognizing a subgroup or external group as less than them.

ah, so potential might is enough, and it can be the potential might of third parties, with those third parties using their potential might to open a space for entirely non-might-based decision making..

Because Indonesia feared the consequences of disobeying the UN, i.e they and their member-states might, yes...

If Indonesia did not fear the consequences, East Timor would either be in the possession of Indonesia, or whomever the UN decided, depending on who won the ensuing war, the most 'mighty' so to speak...


Whether potential might is enough is decided on by the one that receives the Ultimatum....

For a society to view rape as right, it simply has to have a significant portion of it's populace do the one thing that it's always been and always be capable of doing. Recognizing a subgroup or external group as less than them.
That's warfare-related rape, where it's just a part of overall violence. But recognizing a subgroup as lessers isn't necessary.

I think the right of the first night could qualify as socially accepted rape of those within the same group. While it perhaps rarely involved the use of force, being mandated by local law or order is quite a strong coercive factor. I doubt the society viewed it as right, but at the very least, the attitude was far from modern.

Stepping even further away from dark-alley-maniac cliche, the parents-enforced marriages, where the bride's consent was not present, could as well be considered a form of rape - this time, with pretty much complete social acceptance.

Circular logic is one of the hallmarks of human behavior, especially when it comes to justifying actions.

yeah, and? just because something is used widely, doesn't mean that it is proper to do so.

How often do you see people saying something is just and right because *insert higher/intangible power* told them to, which they will then back as unquestionable in its rightness?

all the time. but that isn't necessarily circular, that's just poorly grounded. and in any case, those people are wrong.

From a personal standpoint, no, I can't see rape under any circumstance as being right. But what I think is or isn't right has at best, a negligible impact on what society says is right. As I said, some people have a stricter moral code than others and aren't so easily swayed. Most don't.

is/ought

Because Indonesia feared the consequences of disobeying the UN, i.e they and their member-states might, yes...

If Indonesia did not fear the consequences, East Timor would either be in the possession of Indonesia, or whomever the UN decided, depending on who won the ensuing war, the most 'mighty' so to speak...


Whether potential might is enough is decided on by the one that receives the Ultimatum....

the point is that any actual might involved in east timor was on the side of continued indonesian occupation. all the east timorese got were some international peacekeepers and international pressure on the indonesians to stop being assholes. none of that international pressure, btw, was of the "we'll come to your country and kick the crap out of you" variety. they didn't defeat the indonesians in battle, nor could they.

might lost.

only if rape is right if you get away with it

Nice strawman, FS. :rolleyes:

it isn't a question of equating things, but of undermining principles. GM's examples demonstrated that might means you can force the other side to comply, one way or the other (which is nearly tautological). they claimed this demonstrated that "when it comes to secession, might makes right." if this actually follows, then it follows just as well for any successful use of force to get what one wants. if they don't intend to defend all instances where force is used successfully, then they'll need to actually provide some means of making that distinction. the given examples don't cut it.



the fact that there is disagreement doesn't demonstrate that there isn't some fact of the matter, or at least that one side has objectively better arguments. i mean, people disagree about fucking math problems all the time, and there definitely are knowable correct answers to those.

Please try reading what I wrote, and what you yourself quoted.

Nope. King George III relinquished Britain's claim on the 13 colonies when he signed the Treaty of Paris (Article 1).

Basically, the colonies told King George III to pound sand, and war broke out. America won, and the land became theirs. Then, in 1861, several southern states told Lincoln to pound sand, and war broke out. The southern states lost, so the land remained in the Union.

It may suck, but when it comes to secession, might makes right.

I'm talking about land, during secession. I'm not talking about people, during rape.

Please try reading what I wrote, and what you yourself quoted.

I'm talking about land, during secession. I'm not talking about people, during rape.

yes, but merely claiming there is a distinction doesn't actually draw one. what is the principle that allows you to claim that might and right are the same in some circumstances but not in others?

at a completely wild-ass guess, you intend to say something about the difference of agency between people and land. that won't work either, for fairly obvious reasons involving motorcycle gangs and arsonists, but i'd prefer to actually see how you intend to define your distinction and on what grounds first.