Which Republican Would You Support

[dairygirl4u2c]

i often hear even the most arden successionists say that counties do not have the right to secede.
there's arguments that the union, when made, was made 'indivisible' given the way the founding documents were written, as if a contract. more like a contract, less like a marriage.
what makes a state so special that a county can't secede? is it cause the state existed, and then created the county? in some sense, that's what happened.
these are all mere legalities, bottomline. but if the union was made indivisible, it's not much different than a state v county.
or a state v. township for that matter.
down to each person?
township autonomy? each person? basically anarchy?

[Pontifite 7 of 10]

What about Sam T Eagle?
[img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110117133055/muppet/images/thumb/0/07/Sam_Eagle.JPG/250px-Sam_Eagle.JPG[/img]
I refuse to vote until he is added to the poll.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Pontifite 7 of 10

[StMichael]

None from that list.

Retreads, RINOS and whack jobs.

[Hinter dem Horizont]

NONE. I hate republicans.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hinter dem Horizont' timestamp='1298160347' post='2213957']
NONE. I hate republicans.
[/quote]
Oh good; you're halfway there. Do you hate Democrats too?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1298162515' post='2213980']
Oh good; you're halfway there. Do you hate Democrats too?
[/quote]
AGREED

Though if you are listing Republicans you should have also included Governors Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal.

[JenDeMaria]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1297996106' post='2213462']

what makes a state so special that a county can't secede? is it cause the state existed, and then created the county? in some sense, that's what happened.

[/quote]

States Rights! You must not be from the South.

I believe it would be safe to say we are not the United Counties of America for a reason.

[quote]
When the Federalists passed the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts"]Alien and Sedition Acts[/url] in 1798, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson"]Thomas Jefferson[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison"]James Madison[/url] secretly wrote the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions"]Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions[/url], which provide a classic statement in support of states' rights. According to this theory, the federal Union is a voluntary association of states, and if the central government goes too far each state has the right to nullify that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions:

[indent] Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

[/indent] The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, along with the supporting [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_of_1800"]Report of 1800[/url] by Madison, became final documents of Jefferson's [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party"]Democratic-Republican Party[/url]. The most vociferous supporters of states' rights, such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Randolph_of_Roanoke"]John Randolph of Roanoke[/url], were called "Old Republicans" into the 1820s and 1830s.

Another states' rights dispute occurred over the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812"]War of 1812[/url]. At the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention"]Hartford Convention[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England"]New England[/url] states voiced opposition to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States"]President[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison"]James Madison[/url] and the war, and discussed [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession"]secession[/url] from the Union.[/quote]

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Hinter dem Horizont' timestamp='1298160347' post='2213957']
NONE. I hate republicans.
[/quote]

I'm a Republican.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hinter dem Horizont' timestamp='1298160347' post='2213957']
NONE. I hate republicans.
[/quote]
How Christian of you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1297996106' post='2213462']
i often hear even the most arden successionists say that counties do not have the right to secede.
there's arguments that the union, when made, was made 'indivisible' given the way the founding documents were written, as if a contract. more like a contract, less like a marriage.
what makes a state so special that a county can't secede? is it cause the state existed, and then created the county? in some sense, that's what happened.
these are all mere legalities, bottomline. but if the union was made indivisible, it's not much different than a state v county.
or a state v. township for that matter.
down to each person?
township autonomy? each person? basically anarchy?
[/quote]

also, ya never hear the argument put in such terms. but, one could very well say if the person who wants to succede doesn't like where he's living, he could move. he can't just assume hte right to take land from the USA. that would be civil war material. pretty much the same mindset as those who say that a country or parts of a state can't succede, and the options of those inhabitants if htey dont like where they live

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1298818387' post='2216106']
also, ya never hear the argument put in such terms. but, one could very well say if the person who wants to succede doesn't like where he's living, he could move. he can't just assume hte right to take land from the USA. that would be civil war material. pretty much the same mindset as those who say that a country or parts of a state can't succede, and the options of those inhabitants if htey dont like where they live
[/quote]

They don't "have" Nevada. They exercise power over Nevada. "Stealing" land from a State is not unlike "stealing" gold from a pirate.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Hinter dem Horizont' timestamp='1298160347' post='2213957']
NONE. I hate republicans.
[/quote]




[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1298162515' post='2213980']
Oh good; you're halfway there. Do you hate Democrats too?
[/quote]

I hope he does....

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1298196856' post='2214086']
I'm a Republican.
[/quote]

He's speaking in general, don't worry.

Honestly, after more thinking on this topic, I feel as if we shouldn't be restricted to the Republican candidate. I feel that in the U.S. we [i]should[/i] vote for who we like, and ignore party lines. Though, this is just me, in reality the Church stands for the Third Way between both lines, though no American gets that in essence.

This is just my opinion though.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Hinter dem Horizont' timestamp='1298160347' post='2213957']
NONE. I hate republicans.
[/quote]


[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1298240486' post='2214189']
How Christian of you.
[/quote]

YEAH!!

Christians can only hate democrats and liberals!!!

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1298822950' post='2216119']





I hope he does....[/quote]
Yeah, the more hate, the better! If he hates Anarchists too, then that's really amesome!

Let the hate flow through you! Give in to the Dark Side, Luke . . .



[quote]He's speaking in general, don't worry.

Honestly, after more thinking on this topic, I feel as if we shouldn't be restricted to the Republican candidate. I feel that in the U.S. we [i]should[/i] vote for who we like, and ignore party lines. Though, this is just me, in reality the Church stands for the Third Way between both lines, though no American gets that in essence.

This is just my opinion though. [/quote]
I thought you said you were an anarchist.

Why you would favor some mushy compromise between the Statist Republicans and the Even-More-Statist Democrats is truly beyond me.


[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1298826618' post='2216133']
YEAH!!

Christians can only hate democrats and liberals!!!


[/quote]
I don't hate them. I pity the f[font="Arial"]oo[/font]ls.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]THe Court wrote that the original Union of the colonies had been made in reaction to some very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the Articles of Confederation which created a perpetual union between these states. The Constitution, when it was implemented, only strengthened and perfected this perpetual relationship.[14] Chase wrote:


Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase“ The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[15] ”

After establishing the origin of the nation, Chase next addressed Texas' relationship to that Union. He rejected the notion that Texas had merely created a compact with the other states; rather, he said it had in fact incorporated itself into an already existing indissoluble political body.[14] From the decision:

“ When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. [/quote]

and more on the USA indissolubility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White