"On the "McLaughlin Group," (November 7) MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell said there will be "a serious discussion of secession over the next 20 years." Since most of our military comes from red states, who do the blues imagine will defend them? The French? The Aspen Institute? An elite force of yoga instructors?"
IP: Logged |
I actually heard him make that comment, and it seemed he was somewhat serious. Pat Buchanan promptly reminded him that our country had been through all that a century ago.
Basically, O'Donnell is a sore loser, probably suffering from Post-Election Stress Trauma (PEST).
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
I took it as a serious left-wing remark. Like 13 year olds threatening to run away from home because they don't like the rules.
posted
I'm proud to be poor, uneducated and easy to command.
Poor, in that I have reached the end of myself and my own devices over and over again, and as Abraham Lincoln have frequently been driven to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go, uneducated in human knowlege which opposes spirituality, and easy to command when I realize I must surrender to gain the victory.
mm <*))))><
-------------------- "This is the way of peace: overcome evil with good, and falsehood with truth, and hatred with love...
posted
The last time a group of states wanted to secede was because they considered the right to enslave fellow human beings to be some sort of inalienable right. I think what is little talked about is the oppressive wave of Federal power and control that Lincoln unleashed to remedy this impossible situation. Granted, one couldn't let the Union be pulled apart, particularly by something as ugly as the right to maintain slavery. But the South did, I think, have a real point about being told what to do by Washington. We're still smarting from that overreach and institutionalization of centralized power.
quote:Many people today even argue for Confederate positions without realizing it. For example, if you argue for strict construction of the Constitution, you are arguing the Confederate position; when you oppose pork-barrel spending, you are arguing the Confederate position; when you oppose protective tariffs, you are arguing the Confederate position; when you argue for the Bill of Rights, you are arguing the Confederate position; and when you argue that the Constitution limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, you are arguing the Confederate position.
One of things that gets lost when you adopt the politically correct oversimplification that the War Between the States was a Civil War all about slavery is a whole treasure trove of American political history.
It was not a civil war. A civil war is when two or more factions contend for control of one government. At no time did the South intend to or attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. The Southern states simply withdrew from what they correctly viewed as a voluntary union. They formed their own union and adopted their own constitution.
Abraham Lincoln's invasion of the South was entirely without any constitutional authority. And it's as plain as an elephant at a tea party that Lincoln did not seek to preserve the union in order to end slavery. [That's quite true.] All you have to do is read his first inaugural address. What Lincoln didn't want to lose was the tax revenue generated by the South.
Don't ask me to vouch for everything in that link. I just thought another perspective on this would be useful. It's quite true that Lincoln's primary goal, at least at first, was to preserve the Union. (And there's little doubt also that he abhorred slavery.) He once said: …paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
So what great difference do the blue states have with us? Are we listening to little more than the pouts of unpampered spoiled brats? (Of course.)
" It is well that war is so terrible--we should grow too fond of it." – Robert E. Lee
" If the Confederacy falls, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a Theory. – Jefferson Davis
But I think any legitimate constitutional arguments were delegitimized when the South attacked the North militarily because they had lost a battle politically. And there's probably no separating the undercurrent of racism that corrodes and warps any culture that is long dependent on slavery. The South could hardly pose as the arbiters of justice or assume the role of the injured party. I feel the same about the blue state secessionists. Their moral ramblings, everything from "no blood for oil" to "Bush is Hitler" to Michael Moore's Goebbels-like propaganda, leave them stained and tainted. For God's sake, they practically fell over each other in their rush to side with Saddam against the United States. These people are hardly ready to govern anything, let alone tossed-off pieces of the United States. And wouldn't they be afraid of having us as neighbors? Could they trust us for more than five minutes not to preemptively invade? Goodness knows, it's not inconceivable, given the Left's record, that we might indeed have to at some point.
[ November 13, 2004, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Brad Nelson ]
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Careful now with this "us-vs.-them" language, Brad. I think Washington would be in the secession!
Yes, I would be at a bit of a disadvantage if Washington seceded with the rest of them. I guess I would then be behind enemy lines. I'd need to start my own terrorist network of loonies. We'd be pie-throwers, I suppose. We'd call ourselves…errr… al Amodea. Our demands would be simple and clear: 1) The capitalist and quite caffeinating corporation know as Starbucks would have to leave the state; 2) the architecture of the Experimental Music Project building in Seattle would have to be changed to something sensible; and 3) all of the place names of the imperialist pig dog English explorers (such as Mt. Hood, Bainbridge Island, Peter Puget, etc.) would have to be changed to Conservative American place names such as Reagan River, Mt. Limbaugh and Novak Narrows. These demands will be non-negotiable. Any pie stains or ruined carpets will be the responsibility of the imperialist Seattle liberals, may they shake and shiver in their own caffeine-induced comas.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Playing the minority card . . . This has been my experience with leftists since I first attended a "No Blood For Oil" peace rally before the coalition invasion of Iraq. I wanted to see what these folks did, which wasn't much besides holding up signs and trying to look wounded. I went home once it became clear Louis Farrikan was their prized guest speaker. For all the snide remarks these folks make about conservatives, they sure collapse quickly during an argument . . . that is, if you can get them to make an argument; it's mostly just a kind of "How dare you say that!"
posted
Liberal American Indian spokesmen and other liberals regularly tell us how offensive Indian names of sports teams are. The latest polls show that most Indians have no problem with such names, but liberals are still offended on their behalf.
Heh. That's funny. Being offended "on behalf" is a strange thing indeed! The Mean Green Meme strikes again!
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of leftist succession, I read a story in the Tacoma News Tribune yesterday about a group of 120 or so who met recently to apparently seriously find out more about moving to Canada.
They might actually love it there. Taxes, bureaucracy and political correctness are all high.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
