Secessionists and the like.

Sisyphus · Post by **Sisyphus** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:18 am

It's kind of like a pendulum. Liberal ideals are getting less liberal. Conservative ideals are getting to be like right wing extremism. Every time the pendulum swings left it's never as far left as it was because the point from where it swings is moving further to the right.

If you look at Obama's foriegn policies they aren't that different from any of the past four presidents. His domestic polices, while not in any sense "leftist," are actually more in line with moderate republicans from the 80's or 90's. While the average American hasn't done so hot over the last four years, banks and oil companies have posted record profits. Wall Street isn't hurting, either. While you can't blame this sqarely on the sitting president, you could use it as an argument that if you're going to blame the president for unemployment, you have to give him credit for the recent successes of big business.

stiles · Post by **stiles** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:16 pm

happycommuter wrote:
rolly wrote:They believe America has already been destroyed in all but name.
Wait, seriously, y'all don't think this? Like for at least the last decade* or two? Are you all that young or just not paying attention?

I live in a country where there are traffic cameras, porno scanners or gropings at the airport, political prisoners in Guantanamo, warrantless searches, and 30% of the workforce are government employees... Exactly what connection do you still see to the ideals that this country was founded on and enjoyed for about two centuries?

* Bush Jr. was at least as bad as Obama, IMHO the 2nd worst President the country ever had.

Which ideals would those be? Black people and women not having the right to vote? People of different races not being allowed to marry? Gay people staying in the closet? Separate drinking fountains?

goose · Post by **goose** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:00 pm

Nah Stiles, howzabout no vote for the "unlanded" gentry, slavery, genocide, imperialism, indentured servitude, union busting, the pinkertons, tammany hall type politics, cointelpro and all those other fun filled and colorful events which shaped this lovely country of ours.

Sing it with me . . . God Bless America, Land that I love,
Stand beside her . . . .

yep.

happycommuter · Post by **happycommuter** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:20 pm

stiles wrote:Which ideals would those be? Black people and women not having the right to vote? People of different races not being allowed to marry? Gay people staying in the closet? Separate drinking fountains?

I enjoy debates here because most of the comments are very intelligent. Then there is this lazy calumny (well, except for the fact that I'm not so hot on women voting and I really wish everybody could leave their private sexuality at home... oh, yeah and miscegenation is unkosher too, but I'm cool with blacks voting and sharing public facilities. Anyway, those are preferences, not ideals). The freedoms the Founding Fathers had are substantially greater that what we have left. Stop being an automaton that sees only race, gender and sex. Think of human rights, the stuff in the Bill of Rights.

12ci wrote:slightly confusing sentence structure...do you mean that Obama is the second worst President, or that Shub is the second worst ?

Ooh, bad syntax on my part. Clearer if rearranged to read "* Bush Jr., IMHO the 2nd worst President the country ever had, was at least as bad as Obama." Only Lincoln managed to do more damage to the nation.

Sisyphus · Post by **Sisyphus** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:31 pm

By... doing what, exactly? Was it freeing the slaves, or keeping the Union together by kicking the south's ass into line again?

Pintgudge · Post by **Pintgudge** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:03 pm

O.K., like,

I'm sorry to be angered to responce by the troll,

But,

Fuck You Commuter, just, FUCK YOU!

Pintgudge · Post by **Pintgudge** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:06 pm

Yeah, like "miscegenation being uncool"

We don't do that.

100% racist free, right?

WE DON'T DO THAT!

thrasherbill · Post by **thrasherbill** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:10 pm

happycommuter wrote: Stop being an automaton that sees only race, gender and sex. Think of human rights,

Generally it takes a lot to piss me off enough to respond to drivel but really? Are you fucking serious?

happycommuter · Post by **happycommuter** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:16 pm

Sisyphus wrote:By... doing what, exactly? Was it freeing the slaves, or keeping the Union together by kicking the south's ass into line again?

You're smarter than this. The Confederacy, outmanned and outgunned, was a stunning military force that valiantly surrendered a remarkably close war. Lincoln, properly hated in his day, was all about regaining lost property and slavery was a distant secondary issue at best. If you like a strong federal government and a huge military demanding high taxes, then Lincoln is your man. And the founders of our nation spit at you for what you for destroying their noble dream, as so I.

Pintgudge wrote:Yeah, like "miscegenation being uncool"

You subliterate, I said unkosher. If you think unkosher is uncool, that's your issue. Ask a black woman how she feels about the issue and get back to me on the racism charge.

thrasherbill wrote:Generally it takes a lot to piss me off enough to respond to drivel but really? Are you fucking serious?

Some people fight for fashionable causes that will be meaningless and forgotten the instant that they are realized. Other issues affect all of mankind, are universal and eternal.
Here, let's compare.
It is crucial that I be able to marry a person of the same gender and a different race, even though I disdain religion and a civil union gives me equivalent legal protections. I will fight to the death for this incredibly important human right! We bought a house together a few years ago and the nobody really minds, but this is about acceptance and um equality something you know we're victims or whatever. And we get to throw a party.
Sounds as ridiculous as it is, doesn't it? Specific, selfish, meaningless noise.
States have the right to peacefully leave representative government that they no longer feel represented by. Territorial monopoly by government, particularly distant and alienated government, shall not be permanent or involuntarily thrust upon the masses.
Timeless truth for everyone.
Anyone that can't see the forest for the trees should realize that the grand scheme of things trumps their petty instant desires. Make the government weaker and you won't have to care what the government thinks or says. Strengthen the fickle beast and see how long you stay in its favor.

thrasherbill · Post by **thrasherbill** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:59 am

How the fuck do you breathe with your head so far up your ass?

UndertheGun · Post by **UndertheGun** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:45 am

thrasherbill wrote:
calamari kid wrote:
There's some jinglepants roads in Utah I'd be sad to never ride again.
I'd be willing to give up Utah to not have to marry Zach in order to move to Seattle.

You two would have the cutest babies!

Post by **DerGolgo** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:00 am

hc, you constantly make the point that the government should stay out of people's business, that the government has no right to get involved in people's private affairs.
And yet, when it comes to gay marriage, you argue that the gays should take their civil unions and shut up.
So the government gets to decide who may get married, whom the law may recognize as being married. The government gets to decide who gets to enter into the contract of marriage and who may not, effectively deciding whose love and devotion the state will recognize, and whose it won't. Regardless of religion or church, the government is recognizing marriages, even performing the weddings, and they get to decide which pair of consenting adults may get married.
As long as gays can only get a civil union and not get recognized by the government as being married, as being in the same legal situation as a married hetero couple, as long as the government presumes to reserve marriage for hetero couples, they are saying that the love and devotion of gay couples is "less than", isn't worth the recognition that hetero couples get thrown at them.
This is nothing short of telling gay people "YOU are less than", because the definition of why someone is gay or not is who they love.
This is discrimination and as long as it keeps going on, gays are shown every day that this state and society doesn't consider them to be equal to their fellow citizens. It is therefore an issue absolutely worth fighting over.
It's also something that doesn't really concern you. If gays get the option of getting married, of the government recognizing their marriage, it doesn't influence your life any more than a lot of additional hetero couples getting married. Yet that would be okay, would it? Why does the government, and why do you, get to decide whose love and devotion is worth legal recognition?
Why is this not a matter of personal liberty you are up in arms about?
I could understand if you demanded that government get out of the marriage business entirely, that it's agents perform no weddings, that no marriages are recognized by law anymore. I could understand if you demanded that the government only hand out and recognize civil unions for gays or heteros equally, utterly ignoring any "marriage" that a church may or may not have given it's blessing to. But the position that civil unions are enough and the gays shouldn't fight for the right to have their marriage recognized doesn't really compute considering what you usually seem to stand for ideologically.

Pintgudge · Post by **Pintgudge** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:32 am

You can play with words all you like, describing the difference between unkosher and uncool.

Pretending that I am subliterate because I see things differently than you does not make you more literate, or me less, it just goes to prove that ,

Yep! Fuckin Idiot!

How the fuck do you breath with your head so far up your ass?

Are you fucking serious?

These are just a few of the long list of comments about you, and they aren't getting any more friendly.

You like being the king troll, but I think fewer and fewer folks are going to want to listen much longer.

JoJoLesh · Post by **JoJoLesh** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:32 am

So I see some new posts on this topic, and say to myself, "Cool people talking, I'll go check out what they are saying."
Clickety click to get me to the 2nd page, and a quick scroll down to the bottom and I see this.

Pintgudge wrote:You can play with words all you like, describing the difference between unkosher and uncool. .....(other words)...
You like being the king troll, but I think fewer and fewer folks are going to want to listen much longer.

I haven't even looked at the previous reply yet, but I'd be willing to put $ on who this is aimed at. Happy, are you being an ass again? I am going to post this 1st and then check to see if my assumptions are correct. If not I will have an apology to make.

thack · Post by **thack** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:03 am

DerGolgo wrote:Interesting note: When the going gets tough and the country is run and run again by someone they don't like, red staters want to drop out. I don't recall much secession hoopla from the blue states when the shrub got reelected, or later when his popularity got worse still. Your blue state liberals don't run away but prefer tp tough it out, it seems.

i think it's more about tolerance and flexibility. liberals are more likely to be tolerant of virews they disagree with, and they're more likely to simply work around things they don't like. progress, innovation, forward thinking are all psychological marks of libleral folks.

happycommuter · Post by **happycommuter** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:11 am

What extra liberty is gained by governmental recognition? It's all symbolic as opposed to anything about real rights. IMHO, they are just troublemakers upset that they are failing to shock anyone anymore. They've become mainstream and tolerated but they still have some void in their lives and they seek to blame others for it. Personally, I'm sort of for it because it will cause a major class schism between the responsible affluent and the reckless lowbrow. Divide and conquer! Assimilate the best and alienate the rest.
My thesis is that the big right of secession paves the way for littler freedoms like gay marriage, which is a non-issue under an unintrusive government (presuming that I'm wrong about the same-sex marriage fad just being a big ego trip). DerGolgo's stance on the government having no place in marriage whatsoever is perfectly correct.

Anyhow, it dawns on me that slavery is merely the inability to secede on a personal level. The government has already infringed on our personal mobility, we have electronic foremen overseeing our movements. If the government can limit one from leaving it's control, how is this different than being chained to a plantation? Secession, freedom to vote with your feet, is about as fundamental a freedom as there is. Yes, the reasoning behind this secession movement is asinine, but the secession right is extremely valid and essential to freedom of any kind.

JoJoLesh · Post by **JoJoLesh** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:35 am

I try not to get angered by you. I believe it only feeds you. But,

happycommuter wrote: Anyhow, it dawns on me that slavery is merely the inability to secede on a personal level.

Wow, just wow.

happycommuter wrote: The government has already infringed on our personal mobility, we have electronic foremen overseeing our movements. If the government can limit one from leaving it's control, how is this different than being chained to a plantation? Secession, freedom to vote with your feet, is about as fundamental a freedom as there is. Yes, the reasoning behind this secession movement is asinine, but the secession right is extremely valid and essential to freedom of any kind.

I would like to remind you that this Gov. can only hold you where you let them. If you feel overly overseen, why don't you to go off the grid. As you say, "vote with your feet". Put the rising sun on your right and march north. In about a month you should be able to reach somewhere fairly remote. I invite you to exercise your personal secession right.

happycommuter · Post by **happycommuter** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:11 pm

JoJoLesh wrote:I would like to remind you that this Gov. can only hold you where you let them. If you feel overly overseen, why don't you to go off the grid. As you say, "vote with your feet". Put the rising sun on your right and march north. In about a month you should be able to reach somewhere fairly remote. I invite you to exercise your personal secession right.

Trust me, I am as off the grid as possible while maintaining a somewhat modern lifestyle. As this thread is about states, I can assure you that New Jersey has no unincorporated land at all.
Anyway, the fact that one must live a rather dire life of primitive seclusion to avoid being infringed upon by the government is a sure sign of how bad things have gotten.

Pintgudge · Post by **Pintgudge** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:52 pm

I want to go back here. This is really bothering me.

The U.T.M.C. website at blackletter.org is missing half of its content, yes,, but the half that remains has a picture with words underneath.

The picture is of a person tossing a swastika into a trashcan.

The words are "100% cerified racism free"

Now I want everybody to put on their thinking caps and please chime in here,

When someone says,

"I'm not so hot on women voting and I really wish everybody could leave their private sexuality at home... oh, yeah and miscegenation is unkosher too, but I'm cool with blacks voting and sharing public facilities.",

is this, or is this not an instance of racism?

Maybe I'm not clear thinking enough here, but,

This makes me sick,

I have felt that this wasn't tolerated here,

and that is why I come here.

Please people, chime in and tell me what's the deal, cause I might just leave this cardgame.

thrasherbill · Post by **thrasherbill** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:14 pm

Pintgudge wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear thinking enough here,

Perfectly clear.

rolly · Post by **rolly** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:36 pm

thrasherbill wrote:
Pintgudge wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear thinking enough here,
Perfectly clear.

Yep.

Sisyphus · Post by **Sisyphus** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:41 pm

Not the first time this has come up. *cough, cough*

calamari kid · Post by **calamari kid** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:19 pm

I think you're pretty spot on Pintgudge.

Happy, you may be trolling or you may be an actual bigot. In either case you've pushed folks here about as far as they're willing to be pushed. You might want to reconsider your approach. If you're capable of, or interested in, doing so.

thrasherbill · Post by **thrasherbill** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:33 pm

calamari kid wrote:I think you're pretty spot on Pintgudge.

Happy, you are an actual bigot. You've pushed folks here about as far as they're willing to be pushed. You might want to reconsider your approach. If you're capable of, or interested in, doing so.

Fixed.

Sisyphus · Post by **Sisyphus** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:55 pm

happycommuter wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:By... doing what, exactly? Was it freeing the slaves, or keeping the Union together by kicking the south's ass into line again?
You're smarter than this. The Confederacy, outmanned and outgunned, was a stunning military force that valiantly surrendered a remarkably close war. Lincoln, properly hated in his day, was all about regaining lost property and slavery was a distant secondary issue at best. If you like a strong federal government and a huge military demanding high taxes, then Lincoln is your man. And the founders of our nation spit at you for what you for destroying their noble dream, as so I.

Actually, come to think of it yes. I am smarter than this. If the confederacy was outmanned AND outgunned, I'd hardly place it into the category of "stunning." More like, stunned.
Nearly every major city burned or bombed into rubble. Hardly a close war after '62.
Framing the war as Lincoln "regaining lost property" rather than the South refusing to convert their economic power over to paid labor is complete bullshit on your part.
If that's your view on the Civil War you need to read up on history, bub. And don't presume to put yourself into any kind of position to interpret what our founding fathers thought, because you obviously lack any understanding of history.

JoJoLesh · Post by **JoJoLesh** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:45 pm

Not that I think H.C. is right in any way, or not an asshat, or to imply in any way that I agree with him. But I think he may be using semantics to make asses of us...

Kosher
1.Judaism
a. Conforming to dietary laws; ritually pure: kosher meat.
b. Selling or serving food prepared in accordance with dietary laws: a kosher restaurant.

but....

2. Slang
a. Legitimate; permissible: "consolidating noneditorial functions of the papers, which is kosher" (Christian Science Monitor).
b. Genuine; authentic.
tr.v. ko·shered also ka·shered, ko·sher·ing also ka·sher·ing, ko·shers also ka·shers
To make proper or ritually pure.

Also,
Tomorrow, when my sobriety has reached a higher level, I will voice an opinion on Pintgudge's other concerns.

They are valid, and warrant our full concerderations.

BillyName99 · Post by **BillyName99** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:31 pm

Well, H.C. seems to be at it again...

I read through this thread, and the issue that H.C. seems to babbling about is the Government infringing on our rights.
He mentioned a bunch of stuff about States' Rights, Liberalism, etc, and how the evil government has us under surveillance.

I would like to point out a couple of things, Aside from traffic cams and ticket cams, most of the cameras that are watching you at any given time are Privately Owned.

The grocery store, gas station, casinos, banks, department stores, motorcycle dealerships, restaurants, theaters, parking garages- ALL have 'security' cameras. They will also hand over the video to local, state, or federal LEOS for the asking.

I am not so worried about the Government, I do not believe that any bureaucracy that large is capable of running and maintaining that type of conspiracy.

What worries me are Corporate lobbyists buying our elected officials.

Am I alone in finding it very disturbing that a fucking marketing agency has the technology to track my web browsing so they can put ads in my face to sell me something? A law enforcement agency needs a warrant to do that, at least

In the past 15 years I've had my Constitutional rights violated, disregarded, and trampled by my former employers more times than any LEO or government agency ever has. I was once threatened with termination because someone said I made offensive comments(I didn't), But I was not allowed to know who accused me.

If I was accused of murder, I'd have the RIGHT to face my accuser in court. In that manager's office, I had no rights or recourse. (Yeah, I could have said "fuck you, I quit", But I had rent to pay and I needed groceries.)

How about having your employer state that if a certain candidate wins, he will cut your benefits? (1)
What about getting fired for voicing your opinion in a blog? (it has happened)(2)

If that isn't a direct violation of the First Amendment, what is?
Oh yeah, you also have no recourse.!
(Yes, you can sue, if you can afford it. You might even win, but good luck collecting on it.)

The government can always be remade through the vote, but a corporate board of directors has NO accountability to anyone or anything except their investors; who don't give a crap as long as their stock goes up.

So yeah. Happy Commuter is being a douchebag troll. Big surprise.
Maybe if we quit feeding him, he'll go away.

1: Papa John's Pizza
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Ar ... 2Dooced.22

roadmissile · Post by **roadmissile** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:08 am

The UTMC has almost never handed out a ban, we didn't need to because this board is in fact a shining microcosmic example of a society that successfully and organically marginalizes fuckwits out of existence. I welcome the majority to prove this true yet again.

/RM

Post by **DerGolgo** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:38 am

hc,

I had forgotten the meaning of miscegenation and had hence remained quiet on this thus far. Now I've looked it up. Yep, you're a racist bigot. Judging someone on the color of their skin rather than who they are and what they do, how the heck can you make that chime with your usual position of individual merit and individual rights over non-individual application of rules and laws?

happycommuter · Post by **happycommuter** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:21 am

happycommuter wrote:...Ask a black woman how she feels about the issue and get back to me on the racism charge.

As you are pursuing this racism charge, please let us know what the black woman you talked to said.

On a side note, as I type this, Breakin' II: Electric Bugaloo is playing behind me. The women of color in this movie were not too keen on the rich white girl, Kelly, coming to town as a romantic prospect. I didn't consider them racist.

But seriously, tell us what the black woman you asked about interracial dating said, because you will be mocked as a prejudicial simpleton till you do.

Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

got a motor mount to replace- brb

Re: Secessionists and the like.

See, JoJoLesh is clever, and often correct

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Re:

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Re: Secessionists and the like.

Attn: Pintgrudge