Steve_d_64
Secession is for the weak, and for those who do not wish to take on the challenge to keep us whole...
What does that say about the original 13 colonies that seceded from England?
What does that say about Texas?
What does that say about the 11 Southern States
What does that say about the many counties that once made up the Soviet Union
What does that say about Scotland throughout it's history has attempted to achieve it's independence from England?
What does that say about Taiwan?
We can keep it together...Its easier to do so than you think...
If we can do this, and return to the system that the Founding Fathers intended...I wish you would enlighten us as to how "easy" this is.
Otherwise...what's the point in being a part of a nation that only sucks away our liberties? If it is "to keep us united and strong" the price is too high.
Our community of freedom minded citizens is much better than that...We understand the intricate sacrifices and challenges those before us have made, and we need to honor those sacrifices with as much vigor as they faced at that time in our history...
This is part of the problem. We aren't a community of freedom minded citizens. Half the country isn't freedom minded. They want the government to take care of them (at the price of your liberty, heritage and wealth)
There is a reason we have "red staes" and "blue states" How much do you, as a Texan, feel you have in common with somebody out in Kalifornia or New York City?
But unfortunately, it's even deeper than that, most people, even in our individual states (especially the cities) aren't freedom minded, one half wants to mind their own business and live life as free men, the other half wants to live off the wealth of the other half and have the care and protection of the government. As a whole, most look at it as everything being fine as long as they have a wide screen TV, money in the bank, 24 doesn't get canceled and a 6 pack of beer is in the refrigerator.
Your basic argument stems from the Hobbsian idea that in order for there to be peace, security and freedom (an oxymoron) there must be a centralized authority over a whole with little or no community independence. Even most conservatives these days embrace this idea. Case in point: Conservatives these days don't even look to preserving States Rights, they look to the Federal government to "Keep Marriage between a man and a woman" or "give everybody Concealed Carry Permits (and calling it RTKBA)" While these issues in and of themselves are important, it's not the Federal government's responsibility to take care of these things. What you've done, is created a bigger monster than you set out to destroy. If the government is empowered to declare what marriage is or isnt', then it can turn around against you 20 years down the road and declare illegal what you are trying ot protect.
What kept America good in the late 18th and early 19th century was it's ability to unite in a common defense when the need came up and each sovereign community or state was free to choose what kind of society they wanted for better or worse resisting the trend of so-called Enlightened europe which was creating large centralized nationstates through Revolution (For example, The French Revolution, with it's guise of throwing out the aristocrats in the name of justice and "equality", with all their faults, turned France into a centralized corrupt nationstate system that gave Europe the Napoleon war machine who attempted to "unite" all of Europe under the French flag...and 200 years later Hitler came along and tried the same thing.)
America could still do the same as allies in common defense today even if different sections of the current Union were seperated. Even Thomas Jefferson spoke of an Northern and Southern confederacy in peace (then called Eastern and Western) when political troubles were brewing over Southern states to the west of New England using the Mississippi river for trade.
Chas.
Commander Cody wrote:Quote removed.
There was nothing wrong with your quote. Feel free to put it back. Had there been a problem, I or one of the Moderators would have sent you a PM.
Chas.
Mr. Cotton
+1. I liked his post too. Glad he put it back.
But my question still remains: if we are worried about conveying a certain type of image to liberals and antigunners (who are going to say what they will about us anyway), then why are words such as his quote acceptable, but a civil discussion about secession is not?
Since you have left this thread open, not said anything to the contrary in PM, and others such as steve 64 are free to post here for comment, I assume this thread is still open for discussion. I'm not looking for trouble, but if a thread is open I want to feel free to respond to those who wish to discuss.
If the thread is still uncomfortable to you go ahead and close it.
