You want to secede from the U.S. but it’s the liberals who are unpatriotic?

It’s tough to be on the losing side of an election. I know. I’ve been there. But if you really love the Constitution as much as you claim you would know that we have something called elections and elections are often between two sides that disagree with each other. One side is not more American or more patriotic than the other side. Those who disagree with you are not evil. At the end you have to accept the will of the people no matter how much you disagree until the next election.

The election hasn’t even taken place yet. Your guy could still win. But if he doesn’t, I hope you love this country enough to respect our system of democracy.

You might want to read this article by Rick Moran of The Right-Wing Nuthouse:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/10/13/if-elected-obama-will-be-our-president/

“IF ELECTED, OBAMA WILL BE MY PRESIDENT
You can talk about “voter fraud” and “stealing elections” all you want but the fact remains that if Obama is certified by the electoral college and the House of Representatives as President of the United States, that ends the discussion in our republic. There is no more important aspect of democracy than the minority accepting the will of the majority. The constitution gives the minority certain protections against getting steamrolled by the majority. But it doesn’t give the minority the right to torpedo the legitimacy of the winner.”

I’ve been adhering to it for eight years. You don’t see me advocating secession or armed rebellion.

Here’s some more advice for ACTivist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oof60kDFqAc

So you are actually saying, Jack, that if you disagree with the results of the election secession, armed insurrection and treason are fine by you. You’re right, that’s not a democracy, that’s a banana republic.

And you wonder why you’re losing…

Wait for the next election.

“Oh, and secession does not require armed rebellion, either.”

By definition, no it doesn’t. In practice, yes, it does.

Jacob,
You never said anything about secession-you wouldn’t abide with that. Yes, I was alluding to staying home since the “fix” is in. The guy that coined the phrase “cheaters never win” was speaking of a moral victory. We all know that cheaters DEFINITELY do win (except at high stakes poker. When you are caught cheating there you are appropriately shot.)

Act,

Old farts like us know that “almost” only counts in horseshoes.. There are various historical perspectives on the North/South conflict. One I read recently was that the initial reaction of the North was ok, let them go. This was the peaceful succession part.

This lasted until they remembered that southern ports were tariff free, unlike their New England counterparts. This was a problem, we can’t let them go. This began the armed rebellion part.

The Constitution defines how autonomous states will unify and peacefully coexist, with each other, and a new central government.

But I agree in principle with you act, up until the succession part.

Damn man, you’re starting to sound like Alec Baldwin !

Act, this sums up my problem with succession rather nicely..

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. “

Act, I would not categorize it as bitch-slapped. The north’s concern was also with the political power the 3/5s clause gave the south.

Also, I respectfully submit to your consideration, that were it not for the death of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson at Chancellorsville, you and I would be living in the CSA.

That’s an interesting question, and I would have to answer that by saying it depends upon several things, most importantly how far the Constitution is overstepped, and the effect of this upon the citizens. When you say a socialist government, do you mean increased taxes, or 10s of millions slaughtered in the street ?