Skip to comments.
Liberal talker Thom Hartmann wonders: Should 'Union' forces reoccupy the South?
The Examiner ^
| July 12, 2015
| Joe Newby, Spokane Conservative
Posted on 07/25/2015 8:32:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-116 next last
To: demshateGod
Indeed
Those states would have remained in the fold baring northern invasion
61
posted on
07/26/2015 12:47:58 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(Mark Levin.....I love him...but he is ignorant of Dixie)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Here's another smarmy little fag I'd like to get in a room alone with for five minutes. I won't even use a club. Howsabout we just kick New England and the Left Coast out of the Union and call it even?
62
posted on
07/26/2015 12:51:09 AM PDT
by
Viking2002
(The Avatar is back by popular request.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
I’m all in favor of divorcing the Left on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, and allowing them to continue their failed Utopian experiment on their own.
To: X-spurt
64
posted on
07/26/2015 1:31:47 AM PDT
by
wastoute
(Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
NOt too sure those Yankee soldiers would be too welcome here.
65
posted on
07/26/2015 3:05:41 AM PDT
by
Joe Boucher
( Obammy is a lie, a mooselimb and pond scum.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Come on down Thom - Y’All will be treated to some real Southern hostility and maybe change your mind....
66
posted on
07/26/2015 4:16:05 AM PDT
by
trebb
(Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
I think the label “liberal” doesn’t really fit Thom Hartman. Near as I can tell, he’s a hard-core leftist. That is, he’s way beyond mere liberalism.
Moreover, his main claim to fame these days seems to be his daily show on Vladimir Putin’s “RT” television network. Given these credentials, it may not be an exaggeration to call him a neo-Soviet apologist.
67
posted on
07/26/2015 4:31:01 AM PDT
by
Hawthorn
To: Crim
Don’t project the Ohio point of view on the South. You don’t get it.
68
posted on
07/26/2015 4:36:41 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
The entire debate is a moot point anyway. The divide isn't south vs. north anymore, it's conservative vs. liberal, and to a much lesser extent, rural vs. urban. The situation is a hybrid, I can see ENTIRE states seceding and some other unionist states going into anarchy. The state is the logical building block of the republic not the city or county. You need a civics lesson.
69
posted on
07/26/2015 4:40:06 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Crim
Libertarians anarchist that cannot acknowledge state rights and the primary right to secession are full of < expletive deleted >
70
posted on
07/26/2015 4:43:10 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: rikkir
“War breaks out we cut off the Norths food. We can do it easily as they raise and grow very little of their own food.”
You’re joking, right?
71
posted on
07/26/2015 4:58:10 AM PDT
by
ought-six
(1u)
To: windsorknot
Lets talk about libtards moving into Red States to spread the noxious disease of liberalism. You uncovered the secret. Reconstruction II has been going on for decades now.
To: ChildOfThe60s
73
posted on
07/26/2015 5:01:29 AM PDT
by
Rome2000
(SMASH THE CPUSA)
To: central_va
But you can't have a secession movement without people. And every state now has thousands or millions of people that would ideologically identify with a state's rights movement, and thousands or millions that wouldn't. In Texas there are millions of people who wouldn't want anything to do with secession. Same in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama...Conversely, you'd have millions of Michiganders, Ohioans, even plenty of New Englanders, who would sympathize with secession. I understand that Southerners still like to identify as the rebel element, but you no longer have a monopoly on disgust with federal overreach.
The days of "South vs. North" are over. You wouldn't have discrete geographical areas of ideological sympathy, you'd have a national population of totally mixed sympathy (albeit some areas would have more of one sympathy over the other, but not enough to for an entire state, not even Texas I'd wager, to have unity of purpose). You wouldn't have a regional conflict. You'd have bloody anarchy. You'd have a confused, mixed-up version of '71 Belfast on a national level.
But I digress; this entire debate is an academic exercise in pointless conjecture over an event that will not ever happen.
74
posted on
07/26/2015 5:02:58 AM PDT
by
Wyrd bið ful aræd
(Exsurge, Domine, et judica causam tuam)
To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
If session is put to a state referendum and the people vote for it then it is a done deal bucko.
An anti secession individual has three choices; start a mini war inside of the newly formed country, leave, or STHU. Most leftist a libertarians being pansies will probably go for option 3. Again you need a history lesson and a civic lesson. States rights is real and the secession is real, and it is done on a state level.
75
posted on
07/26/2015 5:09:41 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
Comment #76 Removed by Moderator
To: central_va
Again, if your premise is that it will require entire states to act, then secession most assuredly won't be happening, ever.
You are talking pure theory, and it's pure wishful thinking to believe that a referendum would accomplish anything. We are living in a very, very different country than the US of 1861. If you want to talk history lessons...I mean, you do know what happened last time this was tried, right? Do you suppose it would work out better in round two, with a population that dines on a steady diet of apathy and "Dancing with the Stars"?
77
posted on
07/26/2015 5:21:45 AM PDT
by
Wyrd bið ful aræd
(Exsurge, Domine, et judica causam tuam)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
idiots like him should take to heart the admonishment of little children..
"Speak when only spoken too"
78
posted on
07/26/2015 5:25:27 AM PDT
by
Popman
(Christ Alone: My Cornerstone...)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
"Now listen to this in the context of my question -- should we, a) reoccupy the South with Union forces and restart Reconstruction which came to a screeching halt in 187- whatever it was, '74 I think, the election of Rutherford B. Hayes," One would think that he at least should know the correct date if he is to speak with authority on this topic.
To: zeestephen
Why dont we pay Southern Blacks to move into affluent Democrat white neighborhoods in New England, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington state? Don't forget Vermont. The "whitest" state in the Union is solidly "blue"--Bernie Sanders country.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-116 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson