Secession is the only hope for peace in USA.

[JesusLives]

Maybe we should divide the US into party states and make a line that parties don't cross. Republicans have their own section, Democrats theirs and other parties get their space/states too.

Tourist and I would have to live near the fence and sneak over to see each other once in awhile....lol

 

[Quantrill]

'not illegal in this country' = 'not wrong' is a false equivalence.

isn't it a contradiction of your very premise in starting this thread? if no national-law-abiding action is wrong the only problem with the country has a ready solution in the penal system

No, slavery was not illegal and is not wrong. If you want to argue the right or wrong of slavery create another thread. My point in this thread is the need for some form of secession to avoid a future civil war in this country.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

the history of abolition around the world is pretty interesting. its spread is strongly correlated with the growth of Christianity, but not immediately - as the populations of nations and cultures became more influenced by Christian faith and ethos, eventually thinking turned against it, and without forceful revolution but a revolution of common thought, slavery became viewed popularly as evil, with a philosophical basis in the inherent worth of all men and women coming from their creation by God, influenced by the advent of salvation being given to all mankind, not just to certain races or classes.
Christianity changed peoples hearts and minds, and in turn, they changed their views about slavery, having empathetic respect for others rather than egotistic pride over them.

The Chrisitianity that abolitionist came out of was a social Christianity. A do-gooder Christianity that would even deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.

If you want to argue the right or wrong of slavery, start another thread. My concern in this thread is the need of some sort of secession to avoid a future civil war.

Quantrill

 

[Jennie-Mae]

The key question is why the country is so divided that the word “secession” is even brought up?

The politicians are not able to analyze nor utilize, whenever they, on rare occasions are analyzing society. Why is that?

Our beloved politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have a tendency of trying to glue themselves to their positions, no matter what. Whenever they see wrong doings, they just turn a blind eye to it, and collect their money.

We have been treating each other poorly for decades in this country, and more often than not, any person, politician and organization is fixing one wrong with a new wrong. If the South treated the slaves unjustly, well, lash out on the South, tell us what kind of ignorant, white trash, no good hicks we are and that we respecting the memories of our fallen heroes are wrong and should be banned.

This is a recipe for disaster. Everybody’s just talking, nobody’s never listening.

But we all need the Union. A secession is counterproductive. What would happen to a divided America? The strategic position on a larger scale? Like it or not, a United America is a stabilizing force in the world, and I’d like to keep it that way.

I don’t like the idea of adversaries invading the two, three or four weakened countries formerly known as the United States of American.

 

[Quantrill]

The key question is why the country is so divided that the word “secession” is even brought up?

The politicians are not able to analyze nor utilize, whenever they, on rare occasions are analyzing society. Why is that?

Our beloved politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have a tendency of trying to glue themselves to their positions, no matter what. Whenever they see wrong doings, they just turn a blind eye to it, and collect their money.

We have been treating each other poorly for decades in this country, and more often than not, any person, politician and organization is fixing one wrong with a new wrong. If the South treated the slaves unjustly, well, lash out on the South, tell us what kind of ignorant, white trash, no good hicks we are and that we respecting the memories of our fallen heroes are wrong and should be banned.

This is a recipe for disaster. Everybody’s just talking, nobody’s never listening.

But we all need the Union. A secession is counterproductive. What would happen to a divided America? The strategic position on a larger scale? Like it or not, a United America is a stabilizing force in the world, and I’d like to keep it that way.

I don’t like the idea of adversaries invading the two, three or four weakened countries formerly known as the United States of American.

America is divided already. Secession doesn't divide it. It is just the result of the division that already exists amongst the people. Because it already exists, is why something will occur in the not to distant future to correct it. I now believe there are three possibilities.

1.) War
2.) A form of Secession
3.) The Rapture of the Church.

You say we need a union. Of course we want to see the Union maintained. But that Union must be based on something. It cannot be just union for the sake of union. There must be something which to unify around. Don't you agree?

People decry the idea of some form of secession, yet many of the same people preach 'diversity is our greatest strength'. What an oxymoronic statement that is.

Quantrill

 

[UnderGrace]

But we all need the Union. A secession is counterproductive. What would happen to a divided America? The strategic position on a larger scale? Like it or not, a United America is a stabilizing force in the world, and I’d like to keep it that way.

Exactly, a weakened United States is an invitation to disaster.

 

[posthuman]

Just because I believe a form of 'secession' is the only peaceful solution to the division we have in America, does not make me a racist or white supremacist. And, the form of secession I purpose is not racist. Again, what I am saying is take away the Supreme Courts authority to override the States authority except in areas of military and national defence, and commerce both state and foreign. Thus people could live in any state that reflected more as to how they want to live.

yeah we already live in states and communities like that.

you're proposing forced relocation of anyone with difference of socio-economic or political opinion into 'purified' nation states of individual tyranny of thought. so that within each ideological concentration camp there is no dissenting vote.

when my wife is sent to one intellectual prison-state and i am confined to another, will we be allowed to write letters to each other? who decides? a council of 9 dictators? which psychological concentration camps demagogue gets to pick those lifetime-appointment dictator council members?

 

[posthuman]

you are in the political section of the forum.

eh, i think the news section is more accurately the 'political section' -- tho we don't actually have a political section.

this is the section for lunatic ideas.
i do think you chose the right section, tho you apparently did so in miscomprehension.

 

[posthuman]

May we then presume they are trolling?

either trolling or arguably inciting high treason, IMO. maybe both.

 

[posthuman]

Are you an American? How much more reason do you need to vote? Strange statement.

pretty strange statement from a person whose argument is that those with dissenting opinions should be carried away to & isolated in some other nation rather than allowed to express those opinions with their vote and their voice.

 

[posthuman]

((courtesy of Merriam-Webster))

fascism
noun

fas·cism | \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- \

Definition of fascism

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such 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

 

[UnderGrace]

((courtesy of Merriam-Webster))

fascism
noun

fas·cism | \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- \

Definition of fascism

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such 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

This is a definition I can agree with!!!

 

[posthuman]

You say we need a union. Of course we want to see the Union maintained. But that Union must be based on something. It cannot be just union for the sake of union. There must be something which to unify around. Don't you agree?

something wrong with freedom of thought, expression and opinion?

 

[posthuman]

This is a definition I can agree with!!!

i've read through a lot of thread at this point, and my initial guess seems correct to me:

i'm getting the picture that Q is advocating dissolving the country into a number of individual fascist regimes ((severe regimentation)) where within each people of dissenting opinion are exiled ((forcible suppression of opposition)) 'for the good of the country' ((hyper-nationalism)). where Nazi Germany made Jews their scapegoat, assigning the origin of every socio-economic evil to them, Q makes people with liberal political thought his 'Jews' and would assign them to concentration camps -- which forced segregation he assures us would be fine because they can self-rule in their own little walled-off Auschwitzes.

his argument is that the only way to preserve democracy is to destroy it. wall off everyone into cliques where all ballots will be unanimous votes. once dissenting voices are eradicated within each, voila, hyper-nationalist autocratic fascist regime, where anyone who disagrees is railroaded out in a flood of propaganda under cries of 'you're tearing apart our nation-state with your difference of opinion!'

 

[UnderGrace]

i've read through a lot of thread at this point, and my initial guess seems correct to me:

i'm getting the picture that Q is advocating dissolving the country into a number of individual fascist regimes ((severe regimentation)) where within each people of dissenting opinion are exiled ((forcible suppression of opposition)) 'for the good of the country' ((hyper-nationalism)). where Nazi Germany made Jews their scapegoat, assigning the origin of every socio-economic evil to them, Q makes people with liberal political thought his 'Jews' and would assign them to concentration camps -- which forced segregation he assures us would be fine because they can self-rule in their own little walled-off Auschwitzes.

his argument is that the only way to preserve democracy is to destroy it. wall off everyone into cliques where all ballots will be unanimous votes. once dissenting voices are eradicated within each, voila, hyper-nationalist autocratic fascist regime, where anyone who disagrees is railroaded out in a flood of propaganda under cries of 'you're tearing apart our nation-state with your difference of opinion!'

Yes I agree.... excellent insight as always and spot on analysis.

I read the same basic intolerance that we see on the left, that is the real irony.

More irony, the moral christian do gooders that worked against slavery were wrong and in fact may not have been true believers, but the wrong beliefs (those of atheists) seems to be at the heart of the need for seceding.

 

[Quantrill]

yeah we already live in states and communities like that.

you're proposing forced relocation of anyone with difference of socio-economic or political opinion into 'purified' nation states of individual tyranny of thought. so that within each ideological concentration camp there is no dissenting vote.

when my wife is sent to one intellectual prison-state and i am confined to another, will we be allowed to write letters to each other? who decides? a council of 9 dictators? which psychological concentration camps demagogue gets to pick those lifetime-appointment dictator council members?

No we don't. The Supreme Court dictates over the States.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

eh, i think the news section is more accurately the 'political section' -- tho we don't actually have a political section.

this is the section for lunatic ideas.
i do think you chose the right section, tho you apparently did so in miscomprehension.

It is the correct section as it is described as government, political, agendas, and conspiracies. No miscomprehension.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

pretty strange statement from a person whose argument is that those with dissenting opinions should be carried away to & isolated in some other nation rather than allowed to express those opinions with their vote and their voice.

And where did I say that?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

something wrong with freedom of thought, expression and opinion?

How is that 'unifying' when everyone has a different thought, expression, and opinion. Another oxymoron. Freedom of experession is not a unifying factor. It instead helps divide. That doesn't mean you can't have freedom of expression to a degree, but it is not what unifies.

Quantrill

 

[posthuman]

No we don't. The Supreme Court dictates over the States.

Quantrill

that's exactly what i said.
9 dictators on a panel.

and who picks them?
what if as a body they are ideologically divided?