Secessionists can't leave yet because the Feds would declare war on them (militarily, economic, or both). Remember the civil war? The CSA seceded, but the tyrannical Lincoln started a civil war to prevent it!

Modern secessionists tend to focus on the Free State Project in New Hampshire, but there are secessionists in a number of States, including mine. (and don't call me "far right" either! Those are fightin' words!)

Secessionist are ridiculous.
They actually feel they have a right to take over some of this country...lol

Technically it all belongs to the federal government. The feds let people "own" it but they can take it back if they ever need to so they have no rights to take any land as their own country.

Our government will never allow it to happen.

Well, they say Never Say Never. Look at the USSR and what became of it.

I believe we discussed this before-- I know you're a political idealist and an Anarchist and you're certainly entitled to your beliefs and the forum space to promote them. I just don't believe you can find enough common cause with other elements in the various movements. It's those elements, especially the Far Right, upon which I'm basing my 'malcontent/elitist' arguments, not so much yours.

Besides, the biggest hotbeds of secessionism, as a rule, receive more than a dollar's worth of Federal money for the less-than-a-dollar-average of taxes paid.

-Kerry O.

Does Pillsbury say where he would go? I over heard to right wingers say the same thing while waiting in line at the store, and one stated he would move to Canada. WTF?????

And he will achieved by this???? NOTHING...what a dick!!!

The same court that granted people the right to twist the arms and legs of not yet born babies also grant liberals a Constitutional right to lie. I see that all the usual suspects are here perpetuation more lies about Rush.

And that simple statement doesn't bother you a bit ... ? You have no concept of the measures required to achieve that degree of 'control'. We've already undergone one episode of the government [sic] exercising that type of control. It lasted from 1861 until 1865. It is now popularly referred to as 'The Civil War' - the most ironic oxymoron ever given breath. Your words indicate your're quite comfortable with this happening all over again if people feel that the 'government' usurps and exercises power(-s) which are / is not granted it in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment exists for precisely this reason - to protect the states from the illegal and unauthorized exercise of Federal power. Pity you can't grasp that concept.

people like Rush thrive on controversy and publicity and left wing hyperventilators aid them by making threads just like this one.


as for as secession goes, this might be relevant,


when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Are there many who really care whether Rush stays or goes?

After all the fuss we have made about other countries sending their trash (specifically Canada)over to our trash dumps, I would have to say, Rush going to another country would make us look rather hypocritical to say the least!

Well quoted QM, and might I add that with this being the case, an argument can be made to abolish the two party system, as it is absolutely non-productive and will not be productive in any foreseeable future. Both "parties" have grown in size and personal caring, as to be willing to let the people suffer in order to prevent the other party from doing something, simply because of the fact that it is the other party doing it. This holds true for both the Democrats AND the Republicans.

so noone has figured this out that political talk TV/radio host defend their party and insult the other party,it's what they get paid to do and Rush is laughing all the way to the bank and then McDonalds and while he is eating his Big Mac he's going over to his pills dealer for a hook up

i wouldnt take it as gospel. There are alot of IFS in that statement which give him an out. IF it passes, and IF its five years and IF ALL that 'stuff'(whatever that means specifically) gets passed,,,lol

just some venting, all americans are capable of it. I have thought of leaving the country several times myself,,would probably be gone if not for having had my daughter and wanting her near her family.

Why do people not want ALL people to have access to affordable healthcare? Why did people not want ALL races to have access to inalienable rights?

simplest answer to me is we are in a time where some people feel their economic status or career choice makes them more 'entitled' than others and hypocrisy is on the rise(politicians having affairs impeach and belittle other politicians for doing the same, pundits who are drug abusers and sexual deviants love to yell about how deviant and unworthy others are,,etc,,,) and , yes, history has shown that wars and secession can arise from such sentiment if enough people organize to do so.....

Hmm. Pity you can't also include names like Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Janeane Garofalo, or AL FRANKEN. You've obviously intentionally overlooked the foam-at-the-mouth rantings of the thankfully-extinct 'AirAmerika' (even after The Gorebasm's 'investment' failed to keep it on the air). And how could you overlook shills like Mikhail Moore, Keith Dildoman, or Chris Matthews (Mister 'Thrill-Up-My-Leg') ... Funny how selectively permissible it is in your universe for only ONE side to be given the power to insult others ... but that's par for the course when we're in LibWhackLand ...

so noone has figured this out that political talk TV/radio host defend their party and insult the other party,it's what they get paid to do ..



doesnt that line include ANYONE for whom the shoe fits,,are NAMES really necessary?

Are names really necessary ... ? Damned right they are - when ONE person is specifically TARGETED for an attack, it's not only FAIR to use the name(-s) of those participating in the attack, it is MANDATORY. How else can the rebuttal be directed to the right people? Anonymity is for cowards.

So, if someone starts a thread about Martin Luther King, those who dont also bring up Malcolm X or Betty Shabaz are cowards?

The thread is about Rush, some are attacking him and some are defending him,,,thats what happens. Why does it require names of anyone else(besides the screen names of those in the discussion, of course)?

United States law dictates that the accused has the legal right to know who their accuser is, unless it can be proven that knowing the accuser can put the accuser in harms way.

The ACCUSER in this situation is the POSTER,,,lol,, what has that to do with anyone else's names,,,,,,?