Originally posted by: =NCG=Leonidas
Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Originally posted by: =NCG=Leonidas
Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Originally posted by: Netscape
Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
You still haven't said why you oppose the USA ever splitting up. Why do you believe that?
I think it has the best foundations ever. The best consitution ever. If it is disolved, that might not survive. I believe we owe it to our forefathers and our children to try to correct it within our lifetime. This is why I support Ron Paul.
Ironic that the ultimate constitutionalist among the candidates is not fully endorsed by a majority of Americans NOW. I will vote for him.
The idea of ever getting it back while maintaining the central government is a pipe dream. The only way to get back what matters, the individual freedoms, is to destroy the leviathan that robbed us of them. So what if that means we have 50 different countries. So what if that means that Old Glory is replaced by 50 different flags. So what if people no longer talk about visiting "The United States". The freedom is all that matters. Everything else is illusion.
This is just impressively stupid. Really the sheer void of intelligence you just created may in fact endanger the entire planet.
In what way? Has "voting the bums out" fucking worked? Did hope and fucking change fucking work? Did the Contract with fucking America fucking work? How do we limit the out of control fucking government without peaceful dissolution of the Union or outright violence? Please enlighten me.
Lol. You know I tried explaining it, then deleted it because you just can't explain something to somebody who lacks the mental equipment to evaluate the information.
The bottom line is that if the USA were 50(or more) individual states we would be nothing more then kibble for the wolves on the world stage. China, India and Russia would politically and economically marginalise us into serfs to their ambitions. Sure we have problems and there's no easy solution, but shattering the country would be akin to using a .357 to cure a headache. It's a simplistic reactionary response to a complicated problem created over a long time.
I could go on but I'm pretty sure you can't understand what I've just posted anymore then you can understand that if the South had won the war then this country would have been stalled into 2nd world status at best and the problems we current have would seem like paradise compared to the bitter feuding and economic warfare that would have consumed this land.
More like you tried explaining it and then realized that you don't have an argument. Do you think that Texas, California, New York and Florida are incapable of maintaining their own complete sovereign status? Jesus Christ, California is the 8th or so largest economy in the world all on it's own! As for the smaller states, like my own state of Alabama, why wouldn't they be able to make it? How were Ireland, Iceland, Lithuania, Switzerland, Norway and the many other european nations able to govern themselves and retain their sovereignty for so long? What about the nations of South and Central America? Japan? New Zealand? What makes these nations any different than our states?
As for your assertion of constant conflict between the states, why would that be? Have you never heard of trade? Any secession from the Union does not necessarily equal isolationism. It didn't mean it when the colonies seceded from Britain, it didn't mean it when the CSA seceded from the USA, it didn't mean it when Winston County seceded from Alabama. It's an asinine assumption.
Texas has oil, Alabama has auto manufacturing, Pennsylvania has steel. Why couldn't these three trade with each other for their mutual benefit? Of course, this can be applied to all former American states and all other foreign states.
I'm going to quote Frederic Bastiat again:
When goods dont cross borders, soldiers will.
Trade is the key to peace, and peace is the key to freedom. Powerful centralized governments are not required for either to take place, and more often than not, hinder both peace and trade and, as a result, freedom.
Just look at NAFTA, CAFTA, the Patriot Act, Sopa, and NDAA 2012.
/capitalist
Post edited by Nathan Bedford Forrest at 12/29/2011 3:14:27 PM_________________
"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals."
-- Massachusetts Abolitionist, Lysander Spooner