Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/13/12 09:39 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Unhappy with current political environment = racist...

Sense. You made it all.

Right, the logical conclusion for people who are unhappy with the political climate is to petition to succeed from the Union. I mean, it's largely unprecedented as it never happened.

At 11/13/12 09:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Mitt Romney did not "want the rich to have more money". He stated several times, the taxes on the rich were largely irrelevant at this point in time...he was against the middle class paying more.

Stop letting the media form your decisions in politics.

I will not argue with your reply, I can only learn from what you typed for yea I may have went overboard. Thank you for correcting me.

Well if there's some who want to strip these people (who are exercising their right to protest) of their citizenship or make them leave the country, then here's a better solution to the problem:

Deport everyone who supports Socialism.

Seriously that is one of the main reasons people are doing stuff like this. This country is getting more and more of it's own version of Chavs. The number of lazy retards who don't want to work for their money is growing, and Obama is supporting them with some of his policies. People are fed up with having their tax dollars going to support them.
If Romney hadn't had so many radical ideas that would've hurt this country just as much, he would've won.

@ wildfire4461

Good point there, about the radical idea part idk what to say about deporting people.

At 11/13/12 09:49 PM, Feoric wrote:

Right, the logical conclusion for people who are unhappy with the political climate is to petition to succeed from the Union. I mean, it's largely unprecedented as it never happened.

It wasn't motivated by race then either, nor is it now.

And yes, actually in 1776, a dissatisfaction with the government led to a petitioning to leave a nation. Happened in France around that time as well. In fact, it happens constantly, historically.

If a state wants to leave peacefully, why shouldn't they be permitted to?

At 11/13/12 11:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

If a state wants to leave peacefully, why shouldn't they be permitted to?

Because it's against your beloved constitution for starters.

At 11/13/12 11:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote: It wasn't motivated by race then either, nor is it now.

I think you're right. I'm trying to think of a reason why the south wanted to secede for any reason that had to do with race, but I just can't think of one.

At 11/13/12 11:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Because it's against your beloved constitution for starters.

Where?

You know what, never mind. You don't even know what fascism is.

At 11/14/12 12:08 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/13/12 11:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Because it's against your beloved constitution for starters.

Where?

You know what, never mind. You don't even know what fascism is.

True I dont remember secession being against the Constitution.

At 11/14/12 12:01 AM, Feoric wrote:

I think you're right. I'm trying to think of a reason why the south wanted to secede for any reason that had to do with race, but I just can't think of one.

They were dissatisfied with the Federal government's bullshit. Just like now.

Despite what you're retard, racist teachers try to tell you, it wasn't about race, and never was. But again, those same liberal racists probably left out the whole fight for abolitionism in the south right? They were all racist slave owners, and the whole war was about keeping blacks in chains right?

LOL.

At 11/11/12 09:33 PM, fmn335 wrote: What are your thoughts on the matter?

What pisses me off more than political ignorance is how partisan this country has become. Nobody wants to come to terms. Nobody wants to compromise. Everyone just wants to fight.

You may not be happy with the current president but that doesn't mean you should fight against it, you should work it. Still believe that things can get better and realize that no matter what someone's views or positions are, their goals are the same: to help this nation be the best it can be.

Also, a petition from an absolutely minuscule 25,000 people doesn't mean a fucking thing. You think that because a handful of people from a state with millions of people want to leave they will let the WHOLE state go just *poof* like that? Good luck.

At 11/14/12 12:15 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Despite what you're retard, racist teachers try to tell you, it wasn't about race, and never was. But again, those same liberal racists probably left out the whole fight for abolitionism in the south right? They were all racist slave owners, and the whole war was about keeping blacks in chains right?

LOL.

Sure, I'll bite, why not?

The reasons of the Civil War are, obviously, immensely complex, but the largest contributing factor was, imo, the economy. The economy in the south based around relatively poor whites who, at most, might have one slave, and just as often none. Comparatively, it was a much less wealthy economy than that of the North. At the time, the South had a system where white males tended to want to get rich (like anywhere else), but being at the top of the social totem pole in the South meant becoming a plantation owner and owning a bunch of black people, as opposed to (say) starting factories or other complex economic systems like in the North like textile manufacturing. This worked as well as it did because there were in fact industrial areas who were glad for the raw materials such as fabric, which was obtained through slave labor in the South.

After the civil war, the South was a complete mess. It was broken, destroyed institutionally and economically, and the population was humiliated (both through the crushing defeat and vicious Yankee propaganda). Many white southerners had no power in terms of social status, and the highest status for most of them was "not black." A common trend in psychology is that people in general are petty and vindictive when the social order had been uprooted for them (see: Germany post WWI). The Southern institutions clung to racism rabidly, which defined their social order. The start of the modern prison system was largely designed to supplant the role of slavery in the south. The American south is a caste society, and if honestly think racism ended with the Civil War and it isn't prevalent in the South, you really need to pull your head out of your ass.

If you think that this hasn't spilled into the modern era, you're terribly deluded, as racism and bigotry throughout the past century and a half has been codified via "states rights". This is the picture of what happens when entire states decided they're not going to allow a certain race or ethic group to join in the rights and services they are entitled to through citizenship. It wasn't until the Federal government cracked down sent the US Army 101st Airborne Division in to ensure that American Citizens had equal access to the fucking public schools they paid for like everyone else.

At 11/13/12 09:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/13/12 03:51 AM, fmn335 wrote: Actually the only reason why it was a close race was because people could not figure out which was the lesser of the two evils. Think about that... they both are terrible i mean Mitt wanted the rich to have more money, Obama wanted to do the right thing but he could not keep his promises due to him being a figure head and not standing up for himself.

Mitt Romney did not "want the rich to have more money". He stated several times, the taxes on the rich were largely irrelevant at this point in time...he was against the middle class paying more.

Stop letting the media form your decisions in politics.

LOL, the idiots watched ABC, CBS, NBC and that is where they get their news from. The same Channels that make more money when a Democrat is elected while the rest of us go broke.

At 11/14/12 12:59 AM, TheKlown wrote:

At 11/13/12 09:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/13/12 03:51 AM, fmn335 wrote: Actually the only reason why it was a close race was because people could not figure out which was the lesser of the two evils. Think about that... they both are terrible i mean Mitt wanted the rich to have more money, Obama wanted to do the right thing but he could not keep his promises due to him being a figure head and not standing up for himself.

Mitt Romney did not "want the rich to have more money". He stated several times, the taxes on the rich were largely irrelevant at this point in time...he was against the middle class paying more.

Stop letting the media form your decisions in politics.

LOL, the idiots watched ABC, CBS, NBC and that is where they get their news from. The same Channels that make more money when a Democrat is elected while the rest of us go broke.

Easy now as you are getting very close to reality here and the naysayers, sheep and upholders of the status quo will start to brand pejorative labels upon your forehead such as Terrorist, Communist, Socialist, Truther, and Conspiracy theorist.

At 11/11/12 09:43 PM, Feoric wrote: Insane racists file petitions for this kind of shit all the time. This Michael E shithead does not represent those 15 states in question and it's completely meaningless.

as much as I too believe this is just more melodramatic baby boomer gloom and doom, and that people are probably only taking this lightly because they think they are signing another piece of paper that says "FU Obama!", I can't say I wouldn't sign it myself.

I think smaller countries with strong diplomatic ties and similar goals and interests can work together better than one giant nation swollen with inefficiency and Beaurocracy and can't even keep more than 50% of the population anywhere close to content at any given point and time. I say this knowing that Romney would have been no different than Obama either, but that's just another reason eh?

Now I'm not *sure* if the people who signed the texas petition actually read it. Though I noticed that unlike the other petitions it's not a re-run of the declaration of independence.

The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government's neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

So the petition Neglects to mention the president by name but includes the NDAA.

hmm petitioning the white house to peaceably seceed... Obama's response? what do you think? It'll probably "uhh, hell no. you're my bitches."

of course, he could pull one hell of a power play and grant it, given that it would solidify, permanently, 1 party rule over what's left of the USA (democrat party rule that is)

he could always cherry pick a couple of reds states to drop out like Texas and Louisiana.

but then you got the problem with military bases and equipment.

on the other hand, Obama could let a few drop out then declare war on them, occupy them, force them back into the union under VERY unfavorable circumstances, such as dividing Texas up into small states and carve it up in such a way that it gives Democrats more seats in the house and senate. Or, better yet, make it into a non voting territory and still tax the shit out of it.

we'll see.

WHile this link is a bit off topic , it is a revelant in how it runs against Federal Policy .
This person wants his pay as a politician to be as per the Constitution of the United States.
http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-pay-me-in-go ld-lawmaker-requests-compensation-in-money-that-has-intrinsi c-value-.aspx?article=4127208080G10020&redirect=false&contri butor=Mac+Slavo

This elected Rep, from Montana, quotes the Constitution, his view that continuing to follow the present course will bankrupt the present system, & gives his views on the financial mess That the Federal Government along with the Fed Bank are doing to the USA's Federal Reserve Note .

All of this coming at a time when States are lookin ginto coining their own currencies, lookin gfor ways to help their people when a collapse in the present system comes. Which IMO is a good sign that people are really starting to take notice on how bad things have been allowed to get under the present Federally (Presidentially) controlled system.
A dictator by any other name is still a dictatorship !

At 11/14/12 12:43 AM, Feoric wrote: The reasons of the Civil War are, obviously, immensely complex, but the largest contributing factor was, imo, the economy. The economy in the south based around relatively poor whites who, at most, might have one slave, and just as often none. Comparatively, it was a much less wealthy economy than that of the North. At the time, the South had a system where white males tended to want to get rich (like anywhere else), but being at the top of the social totem pole in the South meant becoming a plantation owner and owning a bunch of black people, as opposed to (say) starting factories or other complex economic systems like in the North like textile manufacturing. This worked as well as it did because there were in fact industrial areas who were glad for the raw materials such as fabric, which was obtained through slave labor in the South.

So, we're in basic agreement.

You also have to understand, slavery had been a vital role in economics since....forever up to that point. There are many cases of slave owners question the morality of it, but did not find/understand economics without free/slave labor. And how could they? In most societies, slave labor was just part of the game of economics.

After the civil war, the South was a complete mess. It was broken, destroyed institutionally and economically, and the population was humiliated (both through the crushing defeat and vicious Yankee propaganda). Many white southerners had no power in terms of social status, and the highest status for most of them was "not black." A common trend in psychology is that people in general are petty and vindictive when the social order had been uprooted for them (see: Germany post WWI). The Southern institutions clung to racism rabidly, which defined their social order. The start of the modern prison system was largely designed to supplant the role of slavery in the south. The American south is a caste society, and if honestly think racism ended with the Civil War and it isn't prevalent in the South, you really need to pull your head out of your ass.

I didn't say racism didn't exist. Nor did I even...imply that. My whole point was that the civil war and the current talks of seccession have nothing to do (or very little at best) with race. Of course, radical democrats, like Al Sharpton, or democrat controlled media sources, being the racists they are, try to paint EVERYTHING as a race issue.

Don't support Obama? You must be a racist. Oppose Obama's busing minorities to polling locations (a racist act in itself)? You must be racist. Think people should be required to show ID at polling places? You must be racist.

If you think that this hasn't spilled into the modern era, you're terribly deluded, as racism and bigotry throughout the past century and a half has been codified via "states rights". This is the picture of what happens when entire states decided they're not going to allow a certain race or ethic group to join in the rights and services they are entitled to through citizenship. It wasn't until the Federal government cracked down sent the US Army 101st Airborne Division in to ensure that American Citizens had equal access to the fucking public schools they paid for like everyone else.

No, you have it backwards. "State's Rights" or standing up for them, has somehow been twisted into a race issue.

At 11/14/12 01:09 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I didn't say racism didn't exist. Nor did I even...imply that. My whole point was that the civil war and the current talks of seccession have nothing to do (or very little at best) with race.

To say the Civil War had, at the most, "very little at best" to do with race is quite odious, because how do you explain social policy directly after the war and during reconstruction?

Of course, radical democrats, like Al Sharpton, or democrat controlled media sources, being the racists they are, try to paint EVERYTHING as a race issue.

Democrats: the REAL racists!

Don't support Obama? You must be a racist.

You're just inventing strawman arguments for the hell of it. You're not even trying anymore. You can do better than this.

No, you have it backwards. "State's Rights" or standing up for them, has somehow been twisted into a race issue.

No, actually. You have it backwards. It was always a race issue.

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."

That's a quote from Lee Atwater. He was an adviser to Reagan and H. W. Bush. He was also the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Just saying.

At 11/14/12 07:08 PM, Feoric wrote: To say the Civil War had, at the most, "very little at best" to do with race is quite odious, because how do you explain social policy directly after the war and during reconstruction?

What do you mean, how do I explain it? There are dumb people everywhere. Just because the south was painted in a "racist" fashion doesn't mean they were, or were the only ones. Read about racism in the North sometime.

Democrats: the REAL racists!

You got it dude. You know how many democrats I've had flat out say they voted for Obama because he was black? Guess all that MLK "Judge a man on content of his character, not the color of his skin" stuff goes out the window when it's convenient huh? Do you think it's happen stance that Obama got in the 90's regarding percentage of the black vote?

Or how about democrats who voted against Romney because of his financial status?

You're just inventing strawman arguments for the hell of it. You're not even trying anymore. You can do better than this.

No, there are actual democrats in the media who have called Obama critics/opposers racist. Morgan Freeman as well as many Hollywood "entertainers". Are you denying that NBC and similar democrat-controlled media like Bill Mahar and Rachel Maddow accuse Republicans of being racist? Do they not paint the party as a party of "wealthy white men, for wealthy white men"?

Again, I look to guys like Al Sharpton who tries to make EVERYTHING that involves a minority, into a race related issue.

No, actually. You have it backwards. It was always a race issue.

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."

State's rights does not equate to racism, and never has. No racist politician (IE David Duke, or whoever) has hidden behind states rights to justify their racism, and those who have, don't know what the Tenth Amendment actually means anyway.

That's a quote from Lee Atwater. He was an adviser to Reagan and H. W. Bush. He was also the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Just saying.

"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n*gger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America."

That's a quote from Harry S. Truman. DEMOCRATIC president of the United States

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."

That's a quote from Joe Biden. Current Vice President of the United States.

Just sayin'

Isn't it amazing how all these 'anti-redneck' liberal bitch and moan about 'tea-baggers' and how much better america would be without them...

...and then when the 'tea-baggers' actually talk about leaving america, there's such a gnashing of teeth and hurting of butt by these same liberals.

At 11/13/12 09:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote: OK, Alex Jones. Seriously. This is Cleveland. Let me repeat that for you:

CLEVELAND.

Segementing Cleveland, a huge Democrat stronghold and a city with a 53% black population. Its extremely likely that there will be some pockets, likely specific neighborhoods, where there entire voting population of the neighborhood will vote one way. If this were broken down into chunks of 10,000 votes, then yes, you would have a legitimate worry. But several (heck, even 10 or more) separated groups of a few hundred out of a City of 400,000 is hardly evidence of voter fraud on any scale large enough to tip the election.

Better to just go "lol nope" to anything suggesting voter fraud?

No, just to stupid theories that wouldn't make a difference if they were 10x larger than you claim.

It's weird why you are so adamant about rejecting the possibility that yes, voter fraud did occur. I cannot think of any specific neighborhood that would have several hundred people voting, would not have even 1 person supporting Romney. No old grandparents who are still living in the days when the Democrats in name only opposed civil rights? No hugely conservative religious black people at all who think gay marriage would be the end of the world? I find that extremely hard to believe with a sample population in the hundreds, let alone multiple occurrences of this.

At 11/14/12 07:29 PM, LemonCrush wrote: What do you mean, how do I explain it? There are dumb people everywhere. Just because the south was painted in a "racist" fashion doesn't mean they were, or were the only ones. Read about racism in the North sometime.

So the South was unjustly painted racist, according to you? The Black Codes were, what, exactly? The South's role in the civil rights movement was, what?

You got it dude. You know how many democrats I've had flat out say they voted for Obama because he was black? Guess all that MLK "Judge a man on content of his character, not the color of his skin" stuff goes out the window when it's convenient huh?

Sure, low information voters cast their vote based on really stupid things. If you think that is commensurate with racism I don't know what to tell you.

Do you think it's happen stance that Obama got in the 90's regarding percentage of the black vote?

Do you think it's happen stance that 88% of the people that voted for Romney were white?

Or how about democrats who voted against Romney because of his financial status?

lmao. That's racism to you? Classism, sure, but I don't see how it's particularly difficult to understand that people thought it was a bit preposterous that Romney was going to be a champion of the middle class when he was worth over 250 million dollars and had everything handed to him on a silver platter. Right?

You're just inventing strawman arguments for the hell of it. You're not even trying anymore. You can do better than this.

No, there are actual democrats in the media who have called Obama critics/opposers racist. Morgan Freeman as well as many Hollywood "entertainers". Are you denying that NBC and similar democrat-controlled media like Bill Mahar and Rachel Maddow accuse Republicans of being racist? Do they not paint the party as a party of "wealthy white men, for wealthy white men"?

Again, I look to guys like Al Sharpton who tries to make EVERYTHING that involves a minority, into a race related issue.

I think there are very few people that don't think Al Sharpton is an annoying MLK wanna-be.

State's rights does not equate to racism, and never has. No racist politician (IE David Duke, or whoever) has hidden behind states rights to justify their racism, and those who have, don't know what the Tenth Amendment actually means anyway.

So you think that the states rights issue is not used to disguise an agenda of (not limited to) implementing institutional racism at the state level, unimpeded by any moderating influence from above? Even though actual real events that occurred in the 60s demonstrated this very clearly?

That's a quote from Harry S. Truman. DEMOCRATIC president of the United States

Truman. The biggest racist of them all.

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."

That's a quote from Joe Biden. Current Vice President of the United States.

Just sayin'

To be fair, it's Joe 'Fucking' Biden.

At 11/14/12 07:38 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Isn't it amazing how all these 'anti-redneck' liberal bitch and moan about 'tea-baggers' and how much better america would be without them...

...and then when the 'tea-baggers' actually talk about leaving america, there's such a gnashing of teeth and hurting of butt by these same liberals.

Sure, ya'll fuck off to Oklahoma and we'll take Puerto Rico. That way we don't have to change our flag.

At 11/14/12 08:16 PM, Feoric wrote: So the South was unjustly painted racist, according to you? The Black Codes were, what, exactly? The South's role in the civil rights movement was, what?

WOOOOSH. Try again.

Sure, low information voters cast their vote based on really stupid things. If you think that is commensurate with racism I don't know what to tell you.

Black people voting for a (half) black president is racist. That all there is to it.

Do you think it's happen stance that 88% of the people that voted for Romney were white?

Yes. Difference is, NEW voters and/or first time voters.

lmao. That's racism to you? Classism, sure, but I don't see how it's particularly difficult to understand that people thought it was a bit preposterous that Romney was going to be a champion of the middle class when he was worth over 250 million dollars and had everything handed to him on a silver platter. Right?

I didn't say it was racism, I meant it was prejudicial. And yeah, the rich don't work for what they have right?

I think there are very few people that don't think Al Sharpton is an annoying MLK wanna-be.

And yet, he is still a mouthpiece for the democratic party.

So you think that the states rights issue is not used to disguise an agenda of (not limited to) implementing institutional racism at the state level, unimpeded by any moderating influence from above? Even though actual real events that occurred in the 60s demonstrated this very clearly?

No I don't. You've been duped.

Truman. The biggest racist of them all.

Yep. read the quote.

At 11/14/12 08:26 PM, LemonCrush wrote: WOOOOSH. Try again.

...sooooooo, are you going to answer my question?

Black people voting for a (half) black president is racist. That all there is to it.

lmao

Do you think it's happen stance that 88% of the people that voted for Romney were white?

Yes. Difference is, NEW voters and/or first time voters.

What the fuck does that matter?

I didn't say it was racism, I meant it was prejudicial. And yeah, the rich don't work for what they have right?

Are you suggesting all wealthy people worked hard for their money, and none (including Romney) are simply born into it? Not to mention how he made his millions.

And yet, he is still a mouthpiece for the democratic party.

No, he isn't. There are plenty of liberals who rolls their eyes every time he opens his mouth,

Truman. The biggest racist of them all.

Yep. read the quote.

Oh, I did, but did you ever take the time to see what Truman actually did as president? Truman was never a fan of segregation, especially since he was responsible for desegregating the military after World War II. The other part about African-Americans going in droves toward the Democrats does happen with LBJ, of course. But I suppose you've never heard of the political realignment with the advent of the Dixiecrats and the civil rights movement, as long as you see a (D) next to a politicians name. All in the name of trying to get around the prevalent racism in Republican policy since when Atwater pioneered it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/secession-petitions-now-
filed-50-states-183500440.html

People in all 50 states have filed these now. Texas has over 99,000 signatures, and altogether over 700,000 people have signed these.
Not surprisingly the socialist supporting libtards have made their own saying the people who sign these should be deported. This is turning into the biggest clusterfuck ever.

I just thought of something: The socialist supporters are bitching about the people making these petitions. Not long ago they were the ones getting bitched at for their occupy Wall Street shit. Guess they're just taking revenge for that (most of the comments on that story are from Socialists).

At 11/15/12 06:43 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: wanna sign your states petition? go here now! links to all 50 of the state petitions!

Now that I think about it: How would that work? How do 50 states secede from the Union? The only thing I can think of is something like Japan during the warring states period.