Biblically Speaking, Would You Vote to Secede from the Union?

[HeirofSalvation]

Zaac..........I know you don't mean to do so, but you are consistently speaking out of both sides of your mouth on this board. You fail to distinguish in any way what the appropriate use of governmental power is, and the appropriate place for Christian Principles in said Government.

You have (I don't doubt) an opinion about the interrelation or "intersect" between government and faith or, rather, "Separation of Church and State"...but lemme put it this way:

Thomas Jefferson...(in no way a Baptist) correctly understood what the appropriate relationship between "government" and "Church and State" was.....and You don't.
No Evangelical supported Romney's Theology...but what they DID support was the "Judeo-Christian Worldview". In Every sense in which Religious Faith and Government should intersect: Romney agreed (because of his world-view) 100% with all Bible-Believing Evangelicals. It is NOT a governments job to decree the "Trinity" per-se....In all senses in which a "Government" SHOULD, however, enforce moral Principle....a Mormon is, in fact, equally as appropriate as a Baptist is.

Lemme list where "Faith" and Government should rightly intersect:

Gay-Marriage: Romney and God-fearing-Baptists agree.....Obama doesn't
Abortion: I disagree with the "rape and incest" caveats...but Romney and God-fearing Baptists agree.....Obama doesn't
Death-Penalty: Romney and any Biblical God-fearing Baptists agree....Obama Doesn't
He who doth not Work Doth not Eat: Essentially, both the average Baptist and Romney are not Purist enough for my insanely "right-wing" taste...but the basic notion is agreed upon........Obama does not agree.

You need to understand something SUPER-DUPER CRITICAL....and it is the source of all major Government/Theological differences....

Moral Absolute Truth exists, and is non-negotiable as it comes from a "Higher Power"...

Or, as our Founders stated so eloquently:
We are "created equal" and "endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights"..... (T. Jefferson again, and no, he wasn't a Baptist)
What he understood was the appropriate "intersect" (I call it) between "Faith" and "Government" or...as our parlance goes: "Church and State"....and in EVERY way in which it is APPROPRIATE for "Faith" and "Government" to intersect....Romney is in complete agreement with all Bible-Believing Baptists (generally).
Obama is an obvious "Moral-Relativist" and he does NOT agree.....

IF...the ideology you espouse were followed, it would result in the same form of Theological Tyrrany of Dark-Ages Catholicism....and you would not ultimately be permitted to speak your mind on a forum called a "Baptist Board"...You are one of two things:

Someone who is an actual Baptist;
Or
Someone who would LOVE to utilize the threat of violent Government force to enforce the particulars of Theology that you adhere to: or said differently: a Dark-Ages Catholic Inquisitor.

 

[Arbo]

Taking a sidestep from the Zaac Says Romney's a False-god Worshipper Show, which has been rerun more times than I Love Lucy, here's a question: With regard to an individual voting to allow his state to seceede, bearing in mind the phrase "one nation under God"; given the moral direction the U.S. is headed, is it justifiable to cast a vote in favor after having said the Pledge of Allegiance, or is it a moral breach of that pledge?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

One last thought for those who would secede. Obama would not blink at attacking his own countrymen with weapons, as he has already done it with stomping on the Constitution. I can understand Texas, though, as their GDP is more than that of Canada, and they have enough oil to exist on their own. Obama will never let that happen. But if it did, they could boot out all the illegals, secure their borders as they already have a militia. They will need to do that, as Mexico might have designs on them as well. I can't see it happening, but just sends a message to a President that does not care.

MMMM....One problem exists for Obama. Obama could NOT, I mean COULD not...."attack" his own countrymen "In Force"...Yes, Reno could use the ATF against a negligibly defended compound in No-where Texas...But The U.S. Military would NOT attack it's own people. Nor, IMO would the U.S. military even take up arms against a State which seceeded.....

The correlations we are drawing between the War between the States in the 19th Century and any possible State's seccession today are in-accurate....

Just try, folks, to get a military 80% composed of guys from Geeojja, South Carolina, Nawth Carolina, Fla rida, Oklahoma, Texxess, Vaginnia, West Vaginnia, Alllla Bammma, Loozianna, AR kansaw, Tennessee, Kaanntuckky, and kaynsus to invade the South....

There are legitimate American war-fighters from Pennsylvania and Ohio too...only, the problem with the Pennsylvannians is, they are all "Copper-heads" so, they won't help Obama's slaughter of his own people (which I don't question his desire to do).

And the guys from Ohio are guys with enough sense to not think that anyone should "preserve" the "UNITED States's" integrity by slaughtering their own countrymen... So, litterally, every single remaining state comprises about 20% (IF THAT) of our remaining military.

So, Obama is now left with those hard-core war-fighters remaining from those "States" of Taxa-choosettes, Jersey, New Yawk <----but no-one Up-State...'cause they would not kill Americans for him.... New-Hampshire, Maine, and Oregon....

Good luck with that one...please try it.....just give me front-row tickets.

Are there any fellow U.S. Marine infantry who can back me up on the idea that the Marine Corps (at least)...is (the best, yes) but, also the most potentially treasonous branch of military service we have??? U.S. Marines, folks...will NEVER fight a war against Americans for Obama...trust me....Marines are quite "treasonous" folks....In know it sounds NASTY, but, they really are. You can only push them so far... I doubt the Army will either...What does that leave Obambi with????

Oh, yeah, it leaves him with gays and pregnant women...that's what it leaves him with. Don't fear any attack by the U.S. Military....They would NOT fight for him....Period...

Look at the demographics of the U.S. Military folks...and then re-compensate in terms of those guys in the Infantry, Artillery, Armour, Combat-Engineering divisions <----or "war-fighters" I call them....
and see if Obama has anything coming...He has NOTHING...He would have to appeal to the blue-helmet U.N.<---who can't fight anyway, to get anything.

 

[saturneptune]

This is an un-fairly mis-construed solution...."Secession" isn't the same thing as a "Take-my-ball-and-go-home"....I am as much a "patriot" as anyone here...but I understand the notion of the FREE ASSOCIATION of SOVEREIGN STATES. Just listen to the name of the Nation "United States"....They are "States"...they are sufficient and legitimate Governments unto themselves...They have chosen either to ratify or not to ratify that free association of Sovereign States or not to. The question of "secession" is merely one of whether said Sovereign Governments have a right to freely choose to disassociate with a "Union" which they feel is no longer truly representative of the "consent of the governed". If those states (which are Sovereign Governmental entities) no longer feel want to "consent" to the Union Government with which they associate...then they may "secede" or "resign" their participation.....That is the question. The question isn't whether you are a God-'fearin 'Red-blooded 'Merican......it's a more complicated issue than that. We are all happy that you are a: God-'fearin 'Red-blooded 'Merican...... .......But if Sovereign State of say..........."Kalifornia" has become so godlessly and insanely influential in the "Union" or "Federalized" Government of said United States...then why should the good people of Oklahoma suffer? They haven't once voted for a Democrat in the last 80-gazillion years....What if they simply feel like they should peace-fully move along???? That is what secession is.....

It isn't a question of "Alec Baldwin hates G.W. and therefore threatens to personally move to France if Kerry doesn't win...."

Rather, It's: "Our Sovereign STATE <---a meaningful word actually.... or Government no longer feels as though we should consent to obeying edicts we utterly can't control by a Governmental Power over which we have ZERO influence, and said 'Union' is in no way any longer in our best interest therefore we no longer wish to consent to a free association therein"

Kentucky, my state, is not suffering because of California, New York, or any other state. Each states casts its electoral votes based on the laws of that state and the will of the people in that state. My state cast its eight electoral votes for Romney. In fact, Obama received 36% of the vote. Each state has the right to vote its will, and the states collectively elect a President.

The reason we lost is because Christians, conservatives, and those who believe in limited government did not choose a decent candidate. We had four years warning after the McCain defeat four years ago. It never gets through our thick skulls that liberal, big government spending, wishy washy candidates on the Republican side very seldom win. So now the cycle will repeat. We will either do nothing or sit around and complain about Obama for four years, then, in 2016 nominate another McCain-Romney type candidate. On and on it goes.

The Costitution is quite clear about the division of power between the federal government, state government, and the people. There are certain areas states have the right to oppose the federal government. Working within that framework is fine. There is no provision in the Constitution for seceeding from the union. Why is so hard for everyone to follow the Constitution?

Leaving the United States in not an option as a state. As mentioned, any Americian citizen that hates the situation that much has a vast array of countries to choose from to become a citizen.

Even if it was legal, how many of the fifty states do you think could independently sustain themselves. Maybe Texas, California, and New York could for a time. I would say Florida, but they cannot even count their ballots. Why is it the same state every election?

This is not about Obama, the Congress, or politicians. This is about the Constitution and the preservation of our union. By the way, that question was settled 150 years ago.

 

[Bronconagurski]

MMMM....One problem exists for Obama. Obama could NOT, I mean COULD not...."attack" his own countrymen "In Force"...Yes, Reno could use the ATF against a negligibly defended compound in No-where Texas...But The U.S. Military would NOT attack it's own people. Nor, IMO would the U.S. military even take up arms against a State which seceeded.....

The correlations we are drawing between the War between the States in the 19th Century and any possible State's seccession today are in-accurate....

Just try, folks, to get a military 80% composed of guys from Geeojja, South Carolina, Nawth Carolina, Fla rida, Oklahoma, Texxess, Vaginnia, West Vaginnia, Alllla Bammma, Loozianna, AR kansaw, Tennessee, Kaanntuckky, and kaynsus to invade the South....

There are legitimate American war-fighters from Pennsylvania and Ohio too...only, the problem with the Pennsylvannians is, they are all "Copper-heads" so, they won't help Obama's slaughter of his own people (which I don't question his desire to do).

And the guys from Ohio are guys with enough sense to not think that anyone should "preserve" the "UNITED States's" integrity by slaughtering their own countrymen... So, litterally, every single remaining state comprises about 20% (IF THAT) of our remaining military.

So, Obama is now left with those hard-core war-fighters remaining from those "States" of Taxa-choosettes, Jersey, New Yawk <----but no-one Up-State...'cause they would not kill Americans for him.... New-Hampshire, Maine, and Oregon....

Good luck with that one...please try it.....just give me front-row tickets.

Are there any fellow U.S. Marine infantry who can back me up on the idea that the Marine Corps (at least)...is (the best, yes) but, also the most potentially treasonous branch of military service we have??? U.S. Marines, folks...will NEVER fight a war against Americans for Obama...trust me....Marines are quite "treasonous" folks....In know it sounds NASTY, but, they really are. You can only push them so far... I doubt the Army will either...What does that leave Obambi with????

Oh, yeah, it leaves him with gays and pregnant women...that's what it leaves him with. Don't fear any attack by the U.S. Military....They would NOT fight for him....Period...

Look at the demographics of the U.S. Military folks...and then re-compensate in terms of those guys in the Infantry, Artillery, Armour, Combat-Engineering divisions <----or "war-fighters" I call them....
and see if Obama has anything coming...He has NOTHING...He would have to appeal to the blue-helmet U.N.<---who can't fight anyway, to get anything.

You have a point, but if Texas, which holds most of our oil reserves, tries to secede, the President will declare marshall law citing a threat to national security. Besides, it's the state governors and legislators that would have to push secession, and they are not going to do it. So the first battle would be against them. I don't see it happening.

 

[Zaac]

Zaac..........I know you don't mean to do so, but you are consistently speaking out of both sides of your mouth on this board. You fail to distinguish in any way what the appropriate use of governmental power is,

It's outlined in the Constitution.

and the appropriate place for Christian Principles in said Government.

It's outlined in God's word.

You have (I don't doubt) an opinion about the interrelation or "intersect" between government and faith or, rather, "Separation of Church and State"...but lemme put it this way:

Sure do. Folks can try to separate God and state. But He says to acknowledge HIM in ALL our ways.

Thomas Jefferson...(in no way a Baptist) correctly understood what the appropriate relationship between "government" and "Church and State" was.....and You don't.

You feel free to your opinion which I'm sure you're about to give.

No Evangelical supported Romney's Theology...but what they DID support was the "Judeo-Christian Worldview". In Every sense in which Religious Faith and Government should intersect: Romney agreed (because of his world-view) 100% with all Bible-Believing Evangelicals. It is NOT a governments job to decree the "Trinity" per-se....In all senses in which a "Government" SHOULD, however, enforce moral Principle....a Mormon is, in fact, equally as appropriate as a Baptist is.

I didn't speak to what it's the "government's job to do". I spoke to what Christians did by endorsing that which is against Christ.

You like so many others are stuck on what the President is supposed to do. I'm talking about what God has called HIS PEOPLE to do. And He HAS NOT called us to endorse that which is against Him.

Lemme list where "Faith" and Government should rightly intersect:

Gay-Marriage: Romney and God-fearing-Baptists agree.....Obama doesn't
Abortion: I disagree with the "rape and incest" caveats...but Romney and God-fearing Baptists agree.....Obama doesn't
Death-Penalty: Romney and any Biblical God-fearing Baptists agree....Obama Doesn't
He who doth not Work Doth not Eat: Essentially, both the average Baptist and Romney are not Purist enough for my insanely "right-wing" taste...but the basic notion is agreed upon........Obama does not agree.

You need to understand something SUPER-DUPER CRITICAL....and it is the source of all major Government/Theological differences....

Moral Absolute Truth exists, and is non-negotiable as it comes from a "Higher Power"...

Or, as our Founders stated so eloquently:
We are "created equal" and "endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights"..... (T. Jefferson again, and no, he wasn't a Baptist)
What he understood was the appropriate "intersect" (I call it) between "Faith" and "Government" or...as our parlance goes: "Church and State"....and in EVERY way in which it is APPROPRIATE for "Faith" and "Government" to intersect....Romney is in complete agreement with all Bible-Believing Baptists (generally).
Obama is an obvious "Moral-Relativist" and he does NOT agree.....

And you need to understand something super duper critical too. Nobody asked you or anyone else what Romney was in complete agreement with. The devil has a way of making himself look like he's with the right. The Anti-Christ will do the same thing. Wicked is just wicked and there is no getting around it.

I'm talking about CHRISTIANS, not ROMNEY. God has called us to live our lives in alignment with HIM , doing the things that bring glory to HIS name, not Romney's.

And endorsing that which is against Him in no way, shape or form brings glory to His name and you and every one else can continue to try to justify it and I'm gonna continue to call it what it is: a bunch of baloney.

Yall wanted to win an election and completely decided to ignore that this man worships a false god, and wanted everyone else to forget it too so that it wouldn't reflect poorly on him and keep people from voting for him. And that's why no one was talking about it and that's why the Billy Graham Org. took it down as a cult.

IF...the ideology you espouse were followed, it would result in the same form of Theological Tyrrany of Dark-Ages Catholicism....and you would not ultimately be permitted to speak your mind on a forum called a "Baptist Board"...You are one of two things:

Someone who is an actual Baptist;
Or
Someone who would LOVE to utilize the threat of violent Government force to enforce the particulars of Theology that you adhere to: or said differently: a Dark-Ages Catholic Inquisitor.

The latest excuse from someone who endorses a man who is against God. I need to start keeping a running list of all the wonderful excuses evangelicals have come up with this election cycle for spitting in God's face.

 

[Winman]

Zaac voted for Obama whether he admits it or not. There were nearly two million folks who voted for McCain who did not vote for Romney. It is VERY LIKELY that nearly all of these were evangelicals who did not vote for Romney simply because he was Mormon like Zaac.

When Zaac voted for Johnson (or whoever he voted for), he voted for Obama. The only real person who could take godless Obama the baby killer out of office was Romney. Romney may not be a Christian, but he would probably pick justices that would overthrow Roe vs. Wade, Romney was also against same sex marriage.

Zaac thinks he is OK, because he did not vote for a Mormon, but in effect he voted for both abortion and same sex marriage. He can make any excuse he wants, those who failed to vote for Romney because he was Mormon reelected Obama.

You are trying to walk the fence, it can't be done. You have already fallen off onto Obama's side.

 

[Zaac]

Zaac voted for Obama whether he admits it or not.

You speaking it doesn't make it so.

There were nearly two million folks who voted for McCain who did not vote for Romney. It is VERY LIKELY that nearly all of these were evangelicals who did not vote for Romney simply because he was Mormon like Zaac.

Good for them. I was hoping a lot of folks either wrote someone in or stayed home.

When Zaac voted for Johnson (or whoever he voted for), he voted for Obama.

Again, so what? You and 78% of evangelicals voted for a man who is against God so where do you now have a platform for speaking against anyone else who voted for the other man who was against God?

The only real person who could take godless Obama the baby killer out of office was Romney.

Right. Let's take the godless , baby killing Obama out of office and replace him with a godless, lead men to eternal lake of fire with his false Mormon teachings Romney. That sure makes a lot of sense.

Romney may not be a Christian, but he would probably pick justices that would overthrow Roe vs. Wade, Romney was also against same sex marriage.

Enough of this constant feigning to be for life while endorsing a man whose teaching and witnessing leads men to an eternal lake of fire.

Zaac thinks he is OK, because he did not vote for a Mormon, but in effect he voted for both abortion and same sex marriage.

And by voting for Romney, you voted to send all those folks to an eternal lake of fire.

He can make any excuse he wants, those who failed to vote for Romney because he was Mormon reelected Obama.

And you can make all the excuses that you want, but all those who voted for Romney, a man against God, have made themselves complicit in his false teachings and testimony that leads people accepting the false god of Mormonism and going to an eternal lake of fire.

You are trying to walk the fence, it can't be done. You have already fallen off onto Obama's side.

Ain't no need for me to walk a fence. My allegiance is clearly with God as I didn't vote for either anti-Christ.

Your allegiance appears to be with who you think can stop abortion and same-sex marriage.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

SATURN......You and I are Not so very apart on these issues....I agree with you politically (for the most part)....but, I guess, I am debating your political theory, at least as it regards the Unites States Government specifically.....There are SERIOUS legitimacy issues involved in a "seccessionist" movement that you need (IMO) to be aware of.

Kentucky, my state, is not suffering because of California, New York, or any other state. Each states casts its electoral votes based on the laws of that state and the will of the people in that state. My state cast its eight electoral votes for Romney. In fact, Obama received 36% of the vote. Each state has the right to vote its will, and the states collectively elect a President.

NO sir.... Your state's "electoral votes" were simply NOT considered in this election....

Neither Romney nor Obama tried to convince you beautiful people of Kentucky to vote for them...guess what???? Neither Romney nor Obama cared about Kalifornia, Oregon, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Montana, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, or.......My apologies if I skipped any States who are also immaterial... YOUR president had NOTHING to do with Kentucky...I am sorry, It had to do with an Algebraic equation between MY State and some others...and they are:
Florida: (My State)
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
Colorado
Virginia
North Carolina <--- kinda

No-sir: We "SWING-STATES" decide EVERYTHING...literally EVERYTHING... and I hate it actually. How much time did Obama or Romney spend kissing up to the good people of Kentucky????
Your Sovereign State, Sir, was simply not represented AT ALL!!!

As a Floridian, I know that BOTH PARTIES spent gazillions kissing-up to:

1.) Real Floridians (who are Conservative)
2.) Transplanted and God-less Yankees.........who merely now live here
3.) Greedy Old-People...who actually LOVE the idea of stealing from their own children in the form of preserving their own "Medicare" and "Social Security".....Who NEVER spent more than 10 years in my State, but LOVE the lack of an income tax, and therefore transplant from somewhere up North and "Carpet-bag" into nice real-estate here....

Obama and Romney also kissed the bums of:
Ohio
Virginia
Colorado
Michigan
Pennsylvania

And guess what??
between us few....we Happy few....we elite "swing-states" were the sole arbiters of who would or would not be the next President of the "United" States...
Kentucky, sir, was assummed....you were a mere statistic in a state that BOTH Obama and Romney "checked-off" in the "Romney" column, and your 8 electoral votes were calculated (as Republican) prior to the 1994 elections...sir....let-alone 2012 and they remain in that column today......Guess what??? No one will ask Kentucky what it thinks in 2016, 2020, 2024.....and so-on either...because they already know....This is a PROBLEM!!!!!!! I am defending your signifigance in a way you cannot know...As a Floridian...I, and not you, decide the next President along with my compatriots in other "swing-states".

The reason we lost is because Christians, conservatives, and those who believe in limited government did not choose a decent candidate. We had four years warning after the McCain defeat four years ago. It never gets through our thick skulls that liberal, big government spending, wishy washy candidates on the Republican side very seldom win. So now the cycle will repeat. We will either do nothing or sit around and complain about Obama for four years, then, in 2016 nominate another McCain-Romney type candidate. On and on it goes.

Politically...(In the sense of Primaries and tactics, as an obvious fellow Republican)....I agree with you on all points you express here...But, sir....every single voter in the State of Kentucky, might be reached by you personally, and every single inhabitant of your State might become Bible-Believing Baptists in love with the Lord...and you know what???? You will have 8 electoral votes.

You had eight before...(They were correctly assummed for Romney)
And you will have eight more in 2016 when your entire State is comprised of Christ-honoring and Christ-loving Christians....and you will still be glued to your tele drooling over how Us "swing-states" vote:..........Talk about "Taxation without Representation!!!!!".........It's all ME BABY!!!!! Florida chooses cat!, that and our homies in Ohio Colorado Penn and Wisconsin Viginia and North Carolina<----(which has finally figured out how the rackett works)
BTW......This is not said because I do not believe in the "electoral college" either...I do....It was designed specifically to insure that each State had a "say"....removing it would be foolish.

The Costitution is quite clear about the division of power between the federal government, state government, and the people. There are certain areas states have the right to oppose the federal government. Working within that framework is fine. There is no provision in the Constitution for seceeding from the union. Why is so hard for everyone to follow the Constitution?

When it comes to the issue of "seccession" specifically...I honestly don't think you have the Political and Historical knowledge available to argue like this....When my State, Florida, seceeded, they did so a mere 50 years after signing onto the "Constitution"......they defied that when they seceeded in 1860......Soon after the Appomatox Surrender (which was actually only the surrender of the Northern Army of Virginia, and not a Peace-Treaty by the C.S.A. Florida remained the only seceeded State Capitol NOT controlled by the Union States....and they REFUSED to re-ratify the U.S. Constitution...

Guess what.....the Seminole Indians have a temporary "cease-fire" with the "United-States" too!! And if they elect to claim lands in Florida and choose to defy U.S. authority in so doing.....they are neither wrong, nor "Un-Constitutional" to do so....they are officially "at war" with the U.S. Government...and if your "U.S. Government" has yet to make my state re-ratify your Constitution or to make the Seminoles sign a Peace Treaty...Than, well,.................Your "Constitution" is of no effect here.

Leaving the United States in not an option as a state.

That is PRECISELY the un-proven and (IMO un-provable) point you are already assumming...and I tell you that you are wrong....now prove this statement of yours, because we dis-agree with it on it's face.

As mentioned, any Americian citizen that hates the situation that much has a vast array of countries to choose from to become a citizen.

The "Situation" is not, specifically, the argument I make....I would have made these same arguments 25 years ago...They exist on their own merits alone.

Even if it was legal,

I believe it is........and un-reservedly, and without question, and it is also COMPLETELY in keeping with the Spirit of this great Nation to think so.

how many of the fifty states do you think could independently sustain themselves. Maybe Texas, California, and New York could for a time. I would say Florida, but they cannot even count their ballots.

Question 1:

They ALL could...minus, naturally California and New York...How do you not get this??? Neither of those two States would actually secceed either though...so, its the wrong question

Also...They would not exist on their own for long as they would eventually "Confederate" themselves with one another most likey as before...I am assumming that you simply don't understand the Political nature of MOST of this....States "seceeded" individually before...and they most likely would "Confederate" collectively again...God-Bless your obviously "Constitutionally" decreed understanding of such particulars that the Federal Government taught you in your "Constitutional" Schools.

Why is it the same state every election?

Generally, you are killing me S.N...I would agree with you about 95.5% on the individual issues...You are simply WRONG on my State's ability to "ballot-count"...We CAN count S.N.....In 2000.....George Bush won in Florida as we stated on election night.....guess what???? after Gore's hissy-fit....Bush was still ahead...at NO POINT!!!!! was Gore ever ahead in Florida...and our counts were ALWAYS essentially accurate....You didn't pay attention. You are simply ignoring the power of the Judicial systems capacity to make a media-only mess of things...........The count was pretty good then, and it is good now.....There is not a signifigant problem with our ballot counting....even if there was, as you think there is...Does that make YOU REALLY CONFIDENT that your precious 8 electoral votes matter???? Or, is it, (as I contend) MY States decision (along with my homies in Ohio, Penn, et. al) who Rules you with an iron fist????

Continued further....

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This is not about Obama, the Congress, or politicians.

Agreed about THIS half of the sentence......

This is about the Constitution and the preservation of our union.

Dis-agreed about THIS HALF of the Sentence...All words have meaning, and they cannot be hap-hazardly strung-together in a sequence in order to prove something not explicitly contained in the proposition you are proposing...It is a shameless equivocation, and I don't fall for it.

By the way, that question was settled 150 years ago.

Was it???? And if so...in what way??? Because the initial War was "Won" by the Federal Government??? Does that make them "right"?....Does might make right S.N.???? Obviously it does.....by this thinking, if Germany had won in WWII they would be morally justified in exterminiating all Jews.

It wasn't "settled"...it was "forced" and apparently...not forever..
Will you be consistent S.N???

If the British had Won the "Revolutionary War" than the Constitution of the U.S. would not even exist.....Than would the issue of "Declaring Independence" be "settled" in your mind??? because the British Army "settled" it in 1776? This is a horrid (yet unfortunatley common) vapid statement made by those who don't know how fallacious an "argumentum ad baccullum" is.
I hope you understand that I am merely point/counter-point debating your conclusions Saturn....No dis-respect as I want the same things you do....Much Love Brother!!!:wavey:

 

[Winman]

You speaking it doesn't make it so.



Good for them. I was hoping a lot of folks either wrote someone in or stayed home.



Again, so what? You and 78% of evangelicals voted for a man who is against God so where do you now have a platform for speaking against anyone else who voted for the other man who was against God?




Right. Let's take the godless , baby killing Obama out of office and replace him with a godless, lead men to eternal lake of fire with his false Mormon teachings Romney. That sure makes a lot of sense.




Enough of this constant feigning to be for life while endorsing a man whose teaching and witnessing leads men to an eternal lake of fire.



And by voting for Romney, you voted to send all those folks to an eternal lake of fire.




And you can make all the excuses that you want, but all those who voted for Romney, a man against God, have made themselves complicit in his false teachings and testimony that leads people accepting the false god of Mormonism and going to an eternal lake of fire.



Ain't no need for me to walk a fence. My allegiance is clearly with God as I didn't vote for either anti-Christ.

Your allegiance appears to be with who you think can stop abortion and same-sex marriage.

You can say what you want. You are like a person who sees someone assaulting a neighbor and stands by and does nothing. You are trying to shirk your responsibility to your fellow human being. An unborn baby cannot defend itself and depends on others (like YOU) to defend it. You let the most pro-abortion President EVER get reelected. You did nothing to stop it, in fact you discouraged those who would vote for Romney.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You have a point, but if Texas, which holds most of our oil reserves, tries to secede, the President will declare marshall law citing a threat to national security. Besides, it's the state governors and legislators that would have to push secession, and they are not going to do it. So the first battle would be against them. I don't see it happening.

You have a good point....but, I don't honestly think that declaring "marshall law" will do him any good at that point...."Marshall Law" requires the force of the military....My contention is that at least 8% of the Military is comprised of Texans...and the next 72% are comprised of guys from my previoussly listed States...

In effect, I think he would suffer a Military Coup more than anything...

I was a U.S. Marine Infantry-man and counter-terrorism instructor....they are insanely treasonous.
Really, I mean that. They are actually 20 years into direct defiance of a Department of Defence directive to integrate their Basic Training....they have simply ignored it for 20+ years...and they don't pretend other-wise...they simply refuse to do so publically...No-one has the stones to make them do otherwise.

One national media pundit asked the (then) Commandant Charles Krulak about it, in the late 1990's I think and he said something like:

You are striking me as a Neo-Confederate...Ultra-Conservative, Right-Wing fanatic....

I believe Krulak's response was:
"Thank-You"

You are right about the necessity though of State Governor's and (presumably) their legislators to be involved in the process. It goes no-where without them IMO. Great points
Bron????

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You can say what you want. You are like a person who sees someone assaulting a neighbor and stands by and does nothing. You are trying to shirk your responsibility to your fellow human being. An unborn baby cannot defend itself and depends on others (like YOU) to defend it. You let the most pro-abortion President EVER get reelected. You did nothing to stop it, in fact you discouraged those who would vote for Romney.

Don't debate with that one....you cannot possibly win.......It's like arguing with Gumby.....Zaac will morph himself into any concievable position to avoid the meaning of words....Just ignore it.

 

[Arbo]

You guys do know Zaac's a troll, right?

 

[mont974x4]

There is a huge legal issue. At this point there are petitions from all 50 states. These have been signed by at least 750,000 people.


"It turns out Americans wanting their states to secede weren’t just whistling Dixie.

The White House has received petitions from all 50 states – signed by nearly 750,000 citizens asking permission to secede from the United States. A White House spokesman did not return calls seeking comment."

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/secession-petitioners-aint-whistling-dixie.html


It is true that any move will require the backing and full involvement of the states governments. I don't see that happening. I honestly wish it would, but I don't believe it will.

However, the numbers cannot be ignored and Obama has to respond. That response has to be very carefully worded and very carefully delivered.

There is legal precedent against secession already, as is pointed out in the article I linked too. That means that people can, and some will, push hard for a legal and peaceful separation. Read through the petitions on whitehouse.gov and you will see some are better worded than others. There is nothing to stop people from pursuing their cause through the courts.

The only option left is not secession but revolution. Do you think people are angry enough too push that? You can bet some are. Will that get any traction? Not much today. However, if Obama pushes his agenda as hard as he did in the last 3 1/2 years it won't take long to really anger the masses. The economy is going to collapse. Hungry people are angry people. They are desperate people. Obama will push gay marriage, abortion, and amnesty for illegal aliens. That will only anger people.

So then think about the probable revolution to come. One hopes it would be peaceful and through the ballot box. The odds of that are getting less and less.

Texas has military community. It has oil. It has people willing to work hard and fight hard. It is not the only place. Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas also have a great deal of natural resources. Think about where America keeps her nuclear weapons. It is a slim chance that the military will obey Obama in a civil war. He did not get many of their votes. There is a huge movement among veterans and law enforcement personnel to consider any order from Obama to act against or disarm US citizens as being an unlawful order.

Japan was smart enough to avoid a war on the American mainland. Is Obama?



Now, consider this, if America is not a player in end times prophecy and if Israel has to come to a place where she truly stands alone under heavy attack what ways could God get America out of the way?

An economic collapse? A peaceful dissolving of the union? A civil war?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You guys do know Zaac's a troll, right?

Not "Specifically".......I just know that little or nothing he says makes sense or is even relevant to the conversation:

One is incapable of intelligently responding to inane statements....that is how I would define them... You are right, I don't doubt.

 

[InTheLight]

Enough of this constant feigning to be for life while endorsing a man whose teaching and witnessing leads men to an eternal lake of fire.

And by voting for Romney, you voted to send all those folks to an eternal lake of fire.

You still banging on about this? Sheesh.

People are going to Hell because they are sinners. They are going to Hell because it is the default condition for being sinners. Voting for a political candidate does not send people to Hell.

Furthermore, if Romney teaches and witnesses a person that was already going to Hell to become a Mormon, guess what? They're still going to Hell!!! Their eternal address has not changed. Hell bound sinner before; Hell bound Mormon afterwards.

And Romney's religion cannot turn a true born again Christian going to Heaven into a savior-less Mormon going to Hell.

So drop it with the false premise that "we're voting to send people to Hell".

 

[Zaac]

You can say what you want. You are like a person who sees someone assaulting a neighbor and stands by and does nothing. You are trying to shirk your responsibility to your fellow human being.

My responsibility to my fellow human beings does not make me disobey God. If I'm loving HIM in obedience FIRST, then I'll love my neighbor just fine thank you very much.

An unborn baby cannot defend itself and depends on others (like YOU) to defend it. You let the most pro-abortion President EVER get reelected. You did nothing to stop it, in fact you discouraged those who would vote for Romney.

All I hear is a bunch of rhetoric. Unborn babies go to heaven. Where are all those folks going that Mitt Romney's teachings and witness have drawn into Mormonism?

You helped give a worldwide platform to a man who is leading folks into an eternal lake of fire with his teachings and testimony for Mormonism and you did nothing but encourage folks to vote for such a man.


He and his dad lead his wife down this path that leads to destruction.. They led his children there. They led his wife's brothers, Jim and Roderick there. They have led thousands there.

And you gave this man a worldwide platform to spread more of his Mormon death to the masses.

 

[Zaac]

You still banging on about this? Sheesh.

People are going to Hell because they are sinners. They are going to Hell because it is the default condition for being sinners. Voting for a political candidate does not send people to Hell.

Furthermore, if Romney teaches and witnesses a person that was already going to Hell to become a Mormon, guess what? They're still going to Hell!!! Their eternal address has not changed. Hell bound sinner before; Hell bound Mormon afterwards.

And Romney's religion cannot turn a true born again Christian going to Heaven into a savior-less Mormon going to Hell.

So drop it with the false premise that "we're voting to send people to Hell".

I'll drop it the same time y'all drop this mess about the President being a baby murderer.:thumbsup:

 

[InTheLight]

I'll drop it the same time y'all drop this mess about the President being a baby murderer.:thumbsup:

I've not gone on about Obama being pro-abortion. I challenge you to find a post where I called him a baby murderer. "Let your fingers do the walking."