Ron Paul: Secession Is A Deeply Held American Principle

[FaninAma]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84058.html

Without the threat of secession there is nowhere left to go but down.

[TUSooner]

I'd say it wasn't all that "deeply" held after, say 1865.


But seriously, it's a pretty crazy deal unless you have a reeeeeeeeeeally good reason.

[diverdog]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84058.html

Without the threat of secession there is nowhere left to go but down.

One man's opinion.....nothing more.

[TUSooner]

I remember when the leftist radicals of the 60s used to cite this, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," and pizs off all the "Establishment" who (supposedly) didn't even know where those words came from.

All armchair revolutionaries ought to remember this part: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."

[FaninAma]

One man's opinion.....nothing more.

Get back to me.....say in 2016. Economic cycles must play out but our reserve banking system has leveraged up the pain.

[TUSooner]

Get back to me.....say in 2016.

This from the wannabe Irishman.

[FaninAma]

This from the wannabe Irishman.

No wannabe about it. Although I will also be a US citizen. Once again it's about options.....especially for my kids.

[Ton Loc]

No wannabe about it. Although I will also be a US citizen. Once again it's about options.....especially for my kids.

Secession is a dumb idea held by a few people; the majority of which have no idea what it means or the implications. Its not an option today and it won't be in 2016.

Funny, that one person or state would think secession is an option granted by our government that shouldn't be taken away. In reality - who needs permission. I imagine it would play out in much the same way. (Poorly)

[FaninAma]

Secession is a dumb idea held by a few people; the majority of which have no idea what it means or the implications. Its not an option today and it won't be in 2016.

Funny, that one person or state would think secession is an option granted by our government that shouldn't be taken away. In reality - who needs permission. I imagine it would play out in much the same way. (Poorly)

I don't disagree. Lincoln made certain of that. So unless
you are the ultimate optimist and think that the US is going to buck the trend of every other world power that has told across the world stage you have to face the fact that we are bound to ride this ship as it heads towards the reefs without any real power to force our leaders to change course.

Personally I highly doubt that the Founding Fathers, having just recently seceeded from England, intended for future generations to not have this same recourse. Do you really think they would not provide this option for the people of the country?

That's why Lincoln is the antithesis of the Founding Fathers and why I think John Wilkes Booth was 3 years too late.

[StoopTroup]

No wannabe about it. Although I will also be a US citizen. Once again it's about options.....especially for my kids.

So you think....

[East Coast Bias]

My whole concern in this is wondering- Is this whole line of conversation just more angst from the red states as a result of the election results? Haven't heard any complaints from New York and New Hampshire. And we have all seen the charts and graphs on which states receive more benefits than they pay in, so its not about "gifts".

We need to come together in compromise and work this out. I am pretty sure the RWNJ's and the LWNJ's on here could work this all out over an afternoon, Congress needs to go to work....

[JohnnyMack]

This whole ultra right and left wing angst over losing an election and allowing it to manifest itself in crackpot ideas like seccession never cease to amuse me. It's the exact reason the nation is so divided. The losing side can't accept the loss and would rather seceed, move to Ireland or just crawl into a cave and mumble like a crazy person than truly working towards policy that would move the country forward and *gasp* compromising. No Fan, it's not just the right that does this, but the fringe elements of both sides who manage to hijack the political process.

And the southern states deserved to get their collective asses kicked. They carried on like a crack-whore avoiding an intervention for the better part of 50 years.

[FaninAma]

Without secession....no recourse thus both political parties are corrupted and the electorate hooked on more and more government spending. Lets see how it plays out.

[Midtowner]

Personally I highly doubt that the Founding Fathers, having just recently seceeded from England, intended for future generations to not have this same recourse. Do you really think they would not provide this option for the people of the country?

The founding fathers had a ton of reasons for seceding from England and were certainly not monolithic in their thinking on that matter. Some wanted to establish a new landed nobility with a new Monarch at its head, Washington as King and the founding fathers as the permanent aristocracy. Some were fans of the notion of a Republic.

Remember, the founding fathers only intended for the landed aristocracy's vote to determine who would be at the helm of the government, may not have actually believed in judicial review as that didn't come around until Marbury v. Madison. Many of these men (no women) believed slavery was hunky dory, some believed it to be evil.

A cynic might just view the founding fathers as a group which wanted to establish them and their issue as the permanent lords of the New World. As far as secession goes, after they tossed the Articles of Confederation out the door and established a more strong federal system with no constitutional options for taksie backsies for the states, and states not even singularly being able to resist a constitutional amendment which could be imposed on them by other states against their will, I'd say no, the founding fathers probably intended that they and their descendants, or at least their class would rule this land indefinitely.

[LiveLaughLove]

A cynic might just view the founding fathers as a group which wanted to establish them and their issue as the permanent lords of the New World. As far as secession goes, after they tossed the Articles of Confederation out the door and established a more strong federal system with no constitutional options for taksie backsies for the states, and states not even singularly being able to resist a constitutional amendment which could be imposed on them by other states against their will, I'd say no, the founding fathers probably intended that they and their descendants, or at least their class would rule this land indefinitely.

Yeah, a really stupid cynic might view it that way.

If that's what they wanted they sure were stupid about it. They did everything in their power to ensure that the powers were divided and very limited and that the people had the final say.

You've drank way too much of the liberal professor koolaid.

The fact is they established the most free nation man has ever seen. That's just a fact.

Washington had people that wanted him to be King, but he said no and didn't even entertain it. He left office voluntarily, something all of the European aristocrats were betting against. He set a president that no country had seen. A peaceful voluntary exchange of power.

What a moron he and the others were.

[SoonerorLater]

The founding fathers had a ton of reasons for seceding from England and were certainly not monolithic in their thinking on that matter. Some wanted to establish a new landed nobility with a new Monarch at its head, Washington as King and the founding fathers as the permanent aristocracy. Some were fans of the notion of a Republic.

Remember, the founding fathers only intended for the landed aristocracy's vote to determine who would be at the helm of the government, may not have actually believed in judicial review as that didn't come around until Marbury v. Madison. Many of these men (no women) believed slavery was hunky dory, some believed it to be evil.

A cynic might just view the founding fathers as a group which wanted to establish them and their issue as the permanent lords of the New World. As far as secession goes, after they tossed the Articles of Confederation out the door and established a more strong federal system with no constitutional options for taksie backsies for the states, and states not even singularly being able to resist a constitutional amendment which could be imposed on them by other states against their will, I'd say no, the founding fathers probably intended that they and their descendants, or at least their class would rule this land indefinitely.

States are sovereign. No right was granted the federal government to prevent states from leaving the union. If power isn't specifically granted then it falls to the states. I don't see where the discussion comes from on this. States should be able to leave if they feel their self-interest dictates.

[yermom]

Yeah, a really stupid cynic might view it that way.

If that's what they wanted they sure were stupid about it. They did everything in their power to ensure that the powers were divided and very limited and that the people had the final say.

You've drank way too much of the liberal professor koolaid.

The fact is they established the most free nation man has ever seen. That's just a fact.

Washington had people that wanted him to be King, but he said no and didn't even entertain it. He left office voluntarily, something all of the European aristocrats were betting against. He set a president that no country had seen. A peaceful voluntary exchange of power.

What a moron he and the others were.

the President set a precedent

[yermom]

States are sovereign. No right was granted the federal government to prevent states from leaving the union. If power isn't specifically granted then it falls to the states. I don't see where the discussion comes from on this. States should be able to leave if they feel their self-interest dictates.

someone tell this to Abraham Lincoln

[FaninAma]

So you think....

No, I know. And I do plan on helping my children who are older than 18 do the same thing.....if they wish. The one still living at home won't have a choice.

Like I said.....no down side.

[FaninAma]

someone tell this to Abraham Lincoln

They tried, he either killed them, impoverished them, conscripted them or simply had them thrown in jail.

[SoonerorLater]

someone tell this to Abraham Lincoln

I never said that any given tyrant wouldn't try to impose their will by whatever force they may deem necessary to achieve their goals. There was no constitutional basis for what Lincoln did. Bottom line he killed U.S. citizens because he thought his goals and ideas justified it. History is filled with such men.

[JohnnyMack]

I love that southern apologists frame this whole argument as Abe Lincoln and his affront on civil liberties and at no time do you hear them accept responsibility for the south's inability to do what they said they'd do and end slavery on their own.

[SoonerorLater]

I love that southern apologists frame this whole argument as Abe Lincoln and his affront on civil liberties and at no time do you hear them accept responsibility for the south's inability to do what they said they'd do and end slavery on their own.

With respect to slavery that was a state issue. The Federal government had no standing to intervene in the issue. Even though slavery was a tangential issue, the appropriate action would have been, prior to killing U.S Citizens, to pass the amendment that was eventually passed anyway. This is what gripes me. People that think the Federal Government should be the righter of wrongs. The Federal government should only be involved in that which is constitutionally mandated no matter how great the wrong is perceived to be. States need to handle their own affairs. Federal Gov needs to butt out. If it is an important enough matter than amend the Constitution.

[kevpks]

Wow. Growing up in Ohio, I had a much different perspective on the Civil War than what I'm seeing here. I guess I'm a Yankee.

[FaninAma]

Wow. Growing up in Ohio, I had a much different perspective on the Civil War than what I'm seeing here. I guess I'm a Yankee.
No, just the victim of years of public school brainwashing.

Basically I balk at the idea of being forced to blinddly follow the dictates of an entrenxhed plutocracy. I have no doubt that the Founding Fathers began this nation with peaceful ways to prevent the Federal government to grow to the proportions it has.

I think the resistance several states are showing regarding the establishment of insurance exchanges for Obamacare is just the start of a new states' rights discussion.

[diverdog]

With respect to slavery that was a state issue. The Federal government had no standing to intervene in the issue. Even though slavery was a tangential issue, the appropriate action would have been, prior to killing U.S Citizens, to pass the amendment that was eventually passed anyway. This is what gripes me. People that think the Federal Government should be the righter of wrongs. The Federal government should only be involved in that which is constitutionally mandated no matter how great the wrong is perceived to be. States need to handle their own affairs. Federal Gov needs to butt out. If it is an important enough matter than amend the Constitution.

Good lord you are out there.....way out there.

[diverdog]

Wow. Growing up in Ohio, I had a much different perspective on the Civil War than what I'm seeing here. I guess I'm a Yankee.

I have lived in the deep South and the North. The bottom line is that the North beat the ever living **** out of the South and they are still angry about it to this day.

[kevpks]

I have lived in the deep South and the North. The bottom line is that the North beat the ever living **** out of the South and they are still angry about it to this day.

Unfortunately, the south is getting their revenge through SEC football.

[JohnnyMack]

With respect to slavery that was a state issue. The Federal government had no standing to intervene in the issue. Even though slavery was a tangential issue, the appropriate action would have been, prior to killing U.S Citizens, to pass the amendment that was eventually passed anyway. This is what gripes me. People that think the Federal Government should be the righter of wrongs. The Federal government should only be involved in that which is constitutionally mandated no matter how great the wrong is perceived to be. States need to handle their own affairs. Federal Gov needs to butt out. If it is an important enough matter than amend the Constitution.

The southern states agreed to ratify the constitution if they were given 20 years to work out an end to it. FIFTY years after that, they still hadn't done it. Don't give me your states rights revisionist bull****.

[jk the sooner fan]

it bothers me that johnnymack of all people is the voice of reason in this thread

makes me feel dirty

[JohnnyMack]

it bothers me that johnnymack of all people is the voice of reason in this thread

makes me feel dirty

I love your face.

Happy Turkey Day.

[Sooner5030]

secession is a very dated view and/or method/attempt.

What a lot of progressives and libertarian leaning pubs want is to not live under the authoritarian rule of the majority......especially the majority of such a large and diverse country as the US. If we could decentralize a great deal of our intervention then it would make the divisiveness disappear or at least remain at the local level. This way people like Diver and I could live in different areas of the country and be governed in slightly different ways.

Merica is addicted to intervention and low taxes....so I do not believe we will ever decentralize unless a reset forces it upon us.

Right now the only realistic options are to go galt/opt out/starve the beast, become an expat (not recommended unless you know what you are doing), or play the game.

[SoonerorLater]

The southern states agreed to ratify the constitution if they were given 20 years to work out an end to it. FIFTY years after that, they still hadn't done it. Don't give me your states rights revisionist bull****.


That still doesn't allow for attacking and killing U.S. citizens. More US citizens were killed /died in the Civil War than all other US wars combined. Put another way Lincoln killed more Americans than King George III, Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm II and the various other bad guys we've had to fight through history. It's not a small thing. People like yourself have just come to accept this murder of US citizens as OK.

Lincoln took it upon himself to do that because he thought preserving the union justified it. It wasn't that the Constitution granted the rights, it was a deliberate, calculated overstep of his authority and the US Congress. They knew it at the time. This was a 10th amendment issue plain and simple. Secession is not covered in the Constitution so it was a state issue. Where can there be debate? The constitution is clear. They had every right to secede. States still do

[SoonerorLater]

secession is a very dated view and/or method/attempt.

What a lot of progressives and libertarian leaning pubs want is to not live under the authoritarian rule of the majority......especially the majority of such a large and diverse country as the US. If we could decentralize a great deal of our intervention then it would make the divisiveness disappear or at least remain at the local level. This way people like Diver and I could live in different areas of the country and be governed in slightly different ways.

Merica is addicted to intervention and low taxes....so I do not believe we will ever decentralize unless a reset forces it upon us.

Right now the only realistic options are to go galt/opt out/starve the beast, become an expat (not recommended unless you know what you are doing), or play the game.

Yes, exactly. Very limited but but rigid and immutable rights. At this point I think that is going to be impossible unless we can roll back about 200 years of bad decisions.

[jk the sooner fan]

this notion that Lincoln is on par with the likes of Hitler, et al is just pure bull****

the people of the south took up arms - and engaged in a war - by choice.....let's not forget who fired the first shot.

acknowledging all of America's faults today - it still is the greatest nation on earth - it still is the one place in the world that the rest of the world looks too for leadership and/or action

i think its safe to say that the history of the world would have looked quite differently had America remained divided. for all the "states rights" crowd that say "slavery wasn't the issue" - i say again - pure bull****

it was THE issue that the states wanted to have rights over.....find and read the record from the South Carolina state legislature before Lincoln was ever sworn in as POTUS - it's quite clear what their issue was

Lincoln did what he believed necessary to maintain the Union......you can put on whatever history colored glasses/filters you wish and look at him as some evil potentate - or the man that took drastic measures in drastic times

but lets not pretend that the millions killed in the civil war were all lined up and summarily executed, as hapless victims because that is some serious revisionist history

those states seceded knowing full well what the likely outcome was - they formed Armies for a reason

[JohnnyMack]

That still doesn't allow for attacking and killing U.S. citizens. More US citizens were killed /died in the Civil War than all other US wars combined. Put another way Lincoln killed more Americans than King George III, Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm II and the various other bad guys we've had to fight through history. It's not a small thing. People like yourself have just come to accept this murder of US citizens as OK.

Lincoln took it upon himself to do that because he thought preserving the union justified it. It wasn't that the Constitution granted the rights, it was a deliberate, calculated overstep of his authority and the US Congress. They knew it at the time. This was a 10th amendment issue plain and simple. Secession is not covered in the Constitution so it was a state issue. Where can there be debate? The constitution is clear. They had every right to secede. States still do

And people like you have come to accept that owning and enslaving people in order to make a buck was OK. They was just poor dumb black folk. They didn't really count as people, they was just chattel.

The south's lack of accountability in this whole mess is always appalling. The South started it. How can you argue it any other way?

And secession isn't a state issue, it's a constitutional issue that was so thoroughly smacked down by the SCOTUS in Texas v White 140 years ago that it's barely made waves since.

[SoonerorLater]

this notion that Lincoln is on par with the likes of Hitler, et al is just pure bull****

the people of the south took up arms - and engaged in a war - by choice.....let's not forget who fired the first shot.

acknowledging all of America's faults today - it still is the greatest nation on earth - it still is the one place in the world that the rest of the world looks too for leadership and/or action

i think its safe to say that the history of the world would have looked quite differently had America remained divided. for all the "states rights" crowd that say "slavery wasn't the issue" - i say again - pure bull****

it was THE issue that the states wanted to have rights over.....find and read the record from the South Carolina state legislature before Lincoln was ever sworn in as POTUS - it's quite clear what their issue was

Lincoln did what he believed necessary to maintain the Union......you can put on whatever history colored glasses/filters you wish and look at him as some evil potentate - or the man that took drastic measures in drastic times

but lets not pretend that the millions killed in the civil war were all lined up and summarily executed, as hapless victims because that is some serious revisionist history

those states seceded knowing full well what the likely outcome was - they formed Armies for a reason


What I am saying is presidents don't have the right to instigate attacks on their citizens because they think what they are doing is right. The states had a right to secede. They exercised that right. They were attacked. People died. You might have a different opinion if the same thing were happening today.

You are also wrong about the issue of slavery. It was interrelated but not the primary reason. The Dred Scott Decision put that issue to rest (legally speaking). The Supreme Court decided in 1857 that the Federal Government had no standing in the issue of slavery. It was a state issue. So before anybody else here tells me that I'm revisionist or "out there" read Dred Scott.

The reason for the attack on the Southern states was economically driven. The agricultural states, chiefly in the South were slapped with punitive tariffs that functionally only affected them and transferred wealth to the industrial north. This was further fanned by the abolitionists who hated slavery and applauded any efforts to stick it to the Southern states. Lincoln unnecessarily needled the Southern States by moving troops into their regions further fanning the flames. It was Lincoln's equivalent of "knock this off my shoulder I dare you".

[Turd_Ferguson]

http://tightrope.cc/catalog/images/Flag-TheSouthWillRiseAgain.jpg

[JohnnyMack]

What I am saying is presidents don't have the right to instigate attacks on their citizens because they think what they are doing is right. The states had a right to secede. They exercised that right. They were attacked. People died. You might have a different opinion if the same thing were happening today.

You are also wrong about the issue of slavery. It was interrelated but not the primary reason. The Dred Scott Decision put that issue to rest (legally speaking). The Supreme Court decided in 1857 that the Federal Government had no standing in the issue of slavery. It was a state issue. So before anybody else here tells me that I'm revisionist or "out there" read Dred Scott.

The reason for the attack on the Southern states was economically driven. The agricultural states, chiefly in the South were slapped with punitive tariffs that functionally only affected them and transferred wealth to the industrial north. This was further fanned by the abolitionists who hated slavery and applauded any efforts to stick it to the Southern states. Lincoln unnecessarily needled the Southern States by moving troops into their regions further fanning the flames. It was Lincoln's equivalent of "knock this off my shoulder I dare you".

And the 14th Amendment put Dred Scott to rest. What's your point?

[SoonerorLater]

And people like you have come to accept that owning and enslaving people in order to make a buck was OK. They was just poor dumb black folk. They didn't really count as people, they was just chattel.

The south's lack of accountability in this whole mess is always appalling. The South started it. How can you argue it any other way?

And secession isn't a state issue, it's a constitutional issue that was so thoroughly smacked down by the SCOTUS in Texas v White 140 years ago that it's barely made waves since.

That is a completely dishonest Strawman argument. Show me where I ever said slavery was OK. What you presenting is just a guttural, non-sequitur argument that slavery is bad so the Civil War was OK. Wrong.

[Skysooner]

That is a completely dishonest Strawman argument. Show me where I ever said slavery was OK. What you presenting is just a guttural, non-sequitur argument that slavery is bad so the Civil War was OK. Wrong.

Who fired first in the Civil War? Yes, the South.

[JohnnyMack]

That is a completely dishonest Strawman argument. Show me where I ever said slavery was OK. What you presenting is just a guttural, non-sequitur argument that slavery is bad so the Civil War was OK. Wrong.

No, it goes back to you and other southern apologists showing no accountability for actions that were at best, reprehensible.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Who fired first in the Civil War? Yes, the South.

Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes. - Robert the Bruce

[C&CDean]

I secede from all y'all bickering bitches.

[SoonerorLater]

And the 14th Amendment put Dred Scott to rest. What's your point?

More ignorant crap from you. Yes the 14th amendment did. Dred Scott is not currently a precedent case but that was irrelevant to secession in 1860. Dred Scott was the rule of law at that time. Since the 14th amendment was passed as part of reconstruction in 1868 it has zilch to with this.

[SoonerorLater]

No, it goes back to you and other southern apologists showing no accountability for actions that were at best, reprehensible.

Let me make it clear. I'm not apoligizing for the Southern States. You're right I'm not showing accountability since I wasn't alive in 1860, I'm not a proponent of slavery, I've never owned slaves but neither did the vast majority of the people killed in the Civil War but they were robbed of their lives because of Lincoln.

[SoonerorLater]

Who fired first in the Civil War? Yes, the South.

Yes. Where at? In South Carolina who seceded in 1860. The Federal Government had no right to even be there.

[Skysooner]

Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes. - Robert the Bruce


There is real truth in that quote.

[JohnnyMack]

Let me make it clear. I'm not apoligizing for the Southern States. You're right I'm not showing accountability since I wasn't alive in 1860, I'm not a proponent of slavery, I've never owned slaves but neither did the vast majority of the people killed in the Civil War but they were robbed of their lives because of Lincoln.

Again, you blame Lincoln and fail to accept that the southern land owners had more to do with this than anyone else. They had 70+ years to eliminate slavery and didn't do it because it would have cost them too much.

[JohnnyMack]

Yes. Where at? In South Carolina who seceded in 1860. The Federal Government had no right to even be there.

Of course they had a right to be there. Again you fail to accept the precedent set by Texas v White.

Look, you can't just keep saying, "the sky is purple" and expect everyone to believe it.

[FaninAma]

I secede from all y'all bickering bitches.
You can't . Honest Abe said you're stuck with us bitches.

[SoonerorLater]

Texas v White was was a reconstruction argument heard by the court well AFTER the Civil War. You keep bringing up these after the fact issues. Even if you believe Texas v White is a legitimate decision (it isn't just the workings of a corrupt capetbagging court) It had no bearing on secession in 1860. It didn't exist. 14th amendment in 1860 has no bearing. It didn't exist either. Your lack of logic is amazing. It would be like expecting people today to abide by a Supreme Court Decision that is going to be made in 2020.

Every argument you make is just that the South was wrong therefore what the federal government did was justified. So what is your take? How many deaths are reasonable to keep states from seceding? How many US citizens would you sacrifice because of your vision of right and wrong?

[FaninAma]

I am guessing that JohnnyMack just keeps staggering into SoonerorLater's haymakers.

If it were a boxing match the referee would have stopped it already.

[diverdog]

Texas v White was was a reconstruction argument heard by the court well AFTER the Civil War. You keep bringing up these after the fact issues. Even if you believe Texas v White is a legitimate decision (it isn't just the workings of a corrupt capetbagging court) It had no bearing on secession in 1860. It didn't exist. 14th amendment in 1860 has no bearing. It didn't exist either. Your lack of logic is amazing. It would be like expecting people today to abide by a Supreme Court Decision that is going to be made in 2020.

Every argument you make is just that the South was wrong therefore what the federal government did was justified. So what is your take? How many deaths are reasonable to keep states from seceding? How many US citizens would you sacrifice because of your vision of right and wrong?

Where is the provision in the Constitution that allow states to secede?

[JohnnyMack]

Texas v White was was a reconstruction argument heard by the court well AFTER the Civil War. You keep bringing up these after the fact issues. Even if you believe Texas v White is a legitimate decision (it isn't just the workings of a corrupt capetbagging court) It had no bearing on secession in 1860. It didn't exist. 14th amendment in 1860 has no bearing. It didn't exist either. Your lack of logic is amazing. It would be like expecting people today to abide by a Supreme Court Decision that is going to be made in 2020.

Every argument you make is just that the South was wrong therefore what the federal government did was justified. So what is your take? How many deaths are reasonable to keep states from seceding? How many US citizens would you sacrifice because of your vision of right and wrong?

I guess you have a different interpretation of the US constitution than I do.

Of course I keep bringing up "after the fact" issues. That's the way an organic government works. It's constantly being molded and shifted. You support Dred Scott and chide Texas v White. No surprise there, it helps frame your narrative. But if you were right, we wouldn't be the United States anymore, now would we?

[SoonerorLater]

Where is the provision in the Constitution that allow states to secede?

Diver you don't need a provision in the Constitution to allow states to secede. You would need a provision to prevent them from seceding. The entire gist of the 10th amendment. The 10th is something that progressives want to ignore because it doesn't fit their agenda.

[jk the sooner fan]

what if Norman decided to secede from Oklahoma?

[SoonerorLater]

what if Norman decided to secede from Oklahoma?

Different thing. Still a 10th amendment issue but in reverse. This is authority that resides with the state(s)

[SoonerorLater]

I guess you have a different interpretation of the US constitution than I do.

Of course I keep bringing up "after the fact" issues. That's the way an organic government works. It's constantly being molded and shifted. You support Dred Scott and chide Texas v White. No surprise there, it helps frame your narrative. But if you were right, we wouldn't be the United States anymore, now would we?

I guess I do have a different interpretation but for purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant. Once again you have not characterized what I said correctly. No where did I say I "supported" Dred Scott. What I did say was that in 1860 when SC first seceded from the union Dred Scott was in play. It was the rule of law. The 14th amendment didn't exist, Texas v White didn't exist. These people weren't psychics they couldn't look into the future.

Against that backdrop (Dred Scott) abolitionists were dealt a huge below. The legal system had spoke and declared slavery a state issue. At that point not being able to legally prevent slavery abolitionist forces and sympathizers set other courses. The strategy was clear, going forward the North was going to needle and provoke the South into conflict. They levied punitive tariffs. They progressively moved armed troops into Southern states. After a few years the South had enough. At that point Lincoln had a populist issue he could sell to a Constitutionally illiterate base.

[JohnnyMack]

So the south lied when they said in 1791 that they'd give up the proverbial crack pipe that is slavery. And then attempted to hide behind Dred Scott or the 10th amendment and acted surprised when they were called out on it. Got it.

[SoonerorLater]

So the south lied when they said in 1791 that they'd give up the proverbial crack pipe that is slavery. And then attempted to hide behind Dred Scott or the 10th amendment and acted surprised when they were called out on it. Got it.

What do you mean "attempted to hide behind Dred Scott or the 10th amendment"? Since when is exercising your constitutional rights or following Supreme Court rulings (like them or not) considered hiding? And yes, we should live in a country where violation of our actual rights as defined by the Constitution is surprising as well as being intolerable and unacceptable.

That is what the Dred Scott did. Declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Dred Scott was a backdoor route to try outflank the Southern States to end slavery by sheer numbers of new states coming online where slavery would be illegal.

Like it or not this country was formed as a coalition of individual states with completely different customs and laws. It was never conceived as one big homogenous society. Before it started trying to acquire more power almost out of the starting gate, the Federal Government had a defined but limited role in peoples lives.

[FaninAma]

Later, I think we are about to see the consequences of Lincoln destroying the voluntary association of states that tbe FFs intended. As horribly governed states like California and Illinois implode the federal government will step in and make sure all the other states share their pain and help them cover the stupid spending excesses they engaged in.

[Breadburner]

As if we haven't donated enough to those armpits as it is......!!!!

[JohnnyMack]

What do you mean "attempted to hide behind Dred Scott or the 10th amendment"? Since when is exercising your constitutional rights or following Supreme Court rulings (like them or not) considered hiding? And yes, we should live in a country where violation of our actual rights as defined by the Constitution is surprising as well as being intolerable and unacceptable.

That is what the Dred Scott did. Declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Dred Scott was a backdoor route to try outflank the Southern States to end slavery by sheer numbers of new states coming online where slavery would be illegal.

Like it or not this country was formed as a coalition of individual states with completely different customs and laws. It was never conceived as one big homogenous society. Before it started trying to acquire more power almost out of the starting gate, the Federal Government had a defined but limited role in peoples lives.

You continue to ignore the southern states agreement to eliminate slavery within 20 years of the signing of the constitution. You just pretend like it never happened and screech about Abraham Lincoln being a baby killer.

[SoonerorLater]

Later, I think we are about to see the consequences of Lincoln destroying the voluntary association of states that tbe FFs intended. As horribly governed states like California and Illinois implode the federal government will step in and make sure all the other states share their pain and help them cover the stupid spending excesses they engaged in.

and you can bet that is coming.

[Skysooner]

Where is the provision in the Constitution that allow states to secede?

Diver you don't need a provision in the Constitution to allow states to secede. You would need a provision to prevent them from seceding. The entire gist of the 10th amendment. The 10th is something that progressives want to ignore because it doesn't fit their agenda.
BS. Obviously you have no clue about progressives. Also you never answered about the first shots being fired by the Confederacy.

[SoonerorLater]

You continue to ignore the southern states agreement to eliminate slavery within 20 years of the signing of the constitution. You just pretend like it never happened and screech about Abraham Lincoln being a baby killer.

You're confused. There was never any agreement to end slavery. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 there was an agreement to end the slave trade but that was to end importation of slaves not to end slavery itself and 20 years later they passed the Slave Importation Act.

[SoonerorLater]

Yes. Where at? In South Carolina who seceded in 1860. The Federal Government had no right to even be there.


BS. Obviously you have no clue about progressives. Also you never answered about the first shots being fired by the Confederacy.


What do you mean didn't answer you? What about the answer YES is there that is ambiguous? SC seceded from the union in 1860. The federal troops were told in repeated attempts to vacate the fort which is in SC. They didn't.

[diverdog]

What do you mean didn't answer you? What about the answer YES is there that is ambiguous? SC seceded from the union in 1860. The federal troops were told in repeated attempts to vacate the fort which is in SC. They didn't.

They did not have the right to tell them to leave. Once they fired on federal troops it became treason.

[JohnnyMack]

You're confused. There was never any agreement to end slavery. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 there was an agreement to end the slave trade but that was to end importation of slaves not to end slavery itself and 20 years later they passed the Slave Importation Act.

You're right. "End slavery" wasn't the proper choice of words. I should have said, "phased out". The south certainly insuated it was going to work towards eradicating slavery yet over and over profits were more important than human beings. The darkest stain on this nations history wasn't its civil war, it was the inability of slave states to demonetize slaves and free them. But I'm sure that's Lincoln's fault too.

[Skysooner]

What do you mean didn't answer you? What about the answer YES is there that is ambiguous? SC seceded from the union in 1860. The federal troops were told in repeated attempts to vacate the fort which is in SC. They didn't.

Once you fire, be prepared to back it up. That land was Federal land. We hold bases in foreign countries now. If they fired on us, hell would come down on them. Same thing.

[cleller]

Once you fire, be prepared to back it up. That land was Federal land. We hold bases in foreign countries now. If they fired on us, hell would come down on them. Same thing.

Is that what is happening now in Benghazi? Yippee! Finally!

[diverdog]

Diver you don't need a provision in the Constitution to allow states to secede. You would need a provision to prevent them from seceding. The entire gist of the 10th amendment. The 10th is something that progressives want to ignore because it doesn't fit their agenda.

Read article 1 section 10.

[kevpks]

What do you mean "attempted to hide behind Dred Scott or the 10th amendment"? Since when is exercising your constitutional rights or following Supreme Court rulings (like them or not) considered hiding?


Does this mean today that states would have to follow Texas vs. White? I know you question the validity of the ruling but would states need to challenge this today before proceeding with secession?


In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White Normally, I'm not a Wikipedia guy but I think it's pretty accurate for this particular case.

[C&CDean]

You're right. "End slavery" wasn't the proper choice of words. I should have said, "phased out". The south certainly insuated it was going to work towards eradicating slavery yet over and over profits were more important than human beings. The darkest stain on this nations history wasn't its civil war, it was the inability of slave states to demonetize slaves and free them. But I'm sure that's Lincoln's fault too.

STFU John. We've got a lot darker stains on our history than that. Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor and doing nothing? Politicians fighting the Vietnam war from a board room? JFK assasination? MLK assasination? Monica and a cigar?

[FaninAma]

My whole concern in this is wondering- Is this whole line of conversation just more angst from the red states as a result of the election results? Haven't heard any complaints from New York and New Hampshire. And we have all seen the charts and graphs on which states receive more benefits than they pay in, so its not about "gifts".

We need to come together in compromise and work this out. I am pretty sure the RWNJ's and the LWNJ's on here could work this all out over an afternoon, Congress needs to go to work....

The whole "blue states pay more to the Feds than they get back and the Red states get more back" is a fallacy. The blue states send more to the Feds because they tend to have more corporations that pay the world's highest corporate income tax ....not because individuals in those states pay more than those who live in red states. And we all know who the corporations pass their tax burden on to....everybody who buys their products or services.

I do find it highly entertaining that the 5 bluest states will be hit the hardest by Obama's tax increases he is proposing and by the new tax increases in Obama Care.

[SoonerorLater]

Does this mean today that states would have to follow Texas vs. White? I know you question the validity of the ruling but would states need to challenge this today before proceeding with secession?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White Normally, I'm not a Wikipedia guy but I think it's pretty accurate for this particular case.

That depends and this another reason this is such a bad ruling. At least theoretically Supreme Court rulings don't in and of themselves create new law, that is within the purview of Congress. It is however the prevailing legal theory on secession. The geniuses of the Chase Court did however state in their ruling that secession would be possible through consent of the states or revolution.


It is pretty accurate. Read the dissenting opinion on this.

[diverdog]

As if we haven't donated enough to those armpits as it is......!!!!
Who donated......okies? Ha. Check your facts. It is the other way around.

[Skysooner]

Is that what is happening now in Benghazi? Yippee! Finally!

I wish it would.

[diverdog]

The whole "blue states pay more to the Feds than they get back and the Red states get more back" is a fallacy. The blue states send more to the Feds because they tend to have more corporations that pay the world's highest corporate income tax ....not because individuals in those states pay more than those who live in red states. And we all know who the corporations pass their tax burden on to....everybody who buys their products or services.

I do find it highly entertaining that the 5 bluest states will be hit the hardest by Obama's tax increases he is proposing and by the new tax increases in Obama Care.

Wrong. The red suck heavily off the federal government. That is the issue.

[FaninAma]

diverdog, reread the post. You are smarter than that. Quit regurgitating talking points and look beneath the raw numbers. Individuals in blue states do not pay more to the federal government....corporations in blue states do. Red states tend to have a large amount of agricultural industry based in their states which do get huge government subsidies. But I bet if those subsidies were removed it would be the voters in the blue states who were screaming the loudest.

And according to this Wall Street Article, 4 of the top 5 biggest recipients of federal aid v. federal taxes paid on a per capita basis were blue states.
http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states-that-get-the-most-federal-money/3/

[JohnnyMack]

STFU John. We've got a lot darker stains on our history than that. Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor and doing nothing? Politicians fighting the Vietnam war from a board room? JFK assasination? MLK assasination? Monica and a cigar?

Well, now that Mr. Blutarski's chimed in...

[FaninAma]

Here is another set of statistics that just warms the cockles of my heart:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/10/2013-business.html

The progressives in the right hand column(worst) should be proud....after all it is a goal they have been trying to achieve for decades. Take that you nasty, eveil rich businessmen.

[yermom]

i hope Wall Street and Silicon Valley don't see that website

[diverdog]

diverdog, reread the post. You are smarter than that. Quit regurgitating talking points and look beneath the raw numbers. Individuals in blue states do not pay more to the federal government....corporations in blue states do. Red states tend to have a large amount of agricultural industry based in their states which do get huge government subsidies. But I bet if those subsidies were removed it would be the voters in the blue states who were screaming the loudest.

And according to this Wall Street Article, 4 of the top 5 biggest recipients of federal aid v. federal taxes paid on a per capita basis were blue states.
http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states-that-get-the-most-federal-money/3/.

Are you sure you met to type this?

[Sooner5030]

The last time a respectable debtor/lender state study was done was like 2007......and it used older data. I had to replicate the study in one of my grad school classes (research methods).

Anyway, just because a state is a debtor state does not mean it receives more amounts of gubment cheese. It's primarily driven by progressive tax rates and FICA gaps. Incomes for the same jobs are lower in lower cost of living areas.....so those areas pay a lower effective tax rate for the same job.

But to somehow infer that red states are more likely to be on cheese is simply false. Diver and his minions always use the debtor state study but they never dig into the data. Always remember that each study has a sponsor and each sponsor has a purpose to fund the study.

Below is some more recent data on gubment cheese rates.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Unemployment 10/2012:

41 NEW YORK 8.7 --- Blue state
43 ILLINOIS 8.8 --- Blue state
44 MISSISSIPPI 8.9 --- Red state
45 CONNECTICUT 9.0 --- Blue state
46 MICHIGAN 9.1 --- Blue state
47 NORTH CAROLINA 9.3 --- Red Stae
48 NEW JERSEY 9.7 --- Blue state
49 CALIFORNIA 10.1 --- Blue state
50 RHODE ISLAND 10.4 --- Blue state
51 NEVADA 11.5 --- Blue state

That's 8-2 blue for shiaty UE

1 NORTH DAKOTA 3.1 --- Red
2 NEBRASKA 3.8 --- Red
3 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.5 --- Red
4 IOWA 5.1 --- blue
5 UTAH 5.2 --- Red
5 WYOMING 5.2 --- Red
7 OKLAHOMA 5.3 --- Red
8 HAWAII 5.5 --- Blue
8 VERMONT 5.5 --- Blue
10 KANSAS 5.7 --- Red

That's 7-3 Red for good UE

I would infer that red states are better for employment.

SNAP participation rates 2011(pg 85 of link)

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/Participation/2011Characteristics.pdf

state/total SNAP $/total pop/per capita amt

1.Wyoming ................................ $4,178.00 564 $7.41 --- red
2.New Hampshire ..................... $13,129.00 1316 $9.98 --- blue
3.Minnesota ............................... $56,445.00 5304 $10.64 --- blue
4.New Jersey ............................. $97,886.00 8792 $11.13 --- blue
5.North Dakota .......................... $7,679.00 673 $11.41 --- red
6.Nebraska ................................ $20,931.00 1826 $11.46 --- red
7.Utah ........................................ $32,978.00 2764 $11.93 --- red
8.Colorado ................................. $62,368.00 5029 $12.40 --- blue
9.Kansas .................................... $36,725.00 2853 $12.87 --- red
10.Virginia .................................. $107,992.00 8001 $13.50 --- blue

That's 5 – 5 for a tie in the lowest SNAP rate by $

41.Maine ..................................... $31,141.00 1328 $23.45 --- blue
42.South Carolina ....................... $108,651.00 4625 $23.49 --- red
43.Georgia ................................... $237,574.00 9688 $24.52 --- red
44.Louisiana ................................ $111,590.00 4533 $24.62 --- red
45.Hawaii .................................... $33,796.00 1360 $24.85 --- blue
46.New Mexico ........................... $51,223.00 2059 $24.88 --- blue
47.Oregon .................................... $95,834.00 3831 $25.02 --- blue
48.Mississippi ............................. $75,018.00 2967 $25.28 --- red
49.Tennessee ............................... $162,976.00 6346 $25.68 --- red
50.Michigan ................................ $258,634.00 9884 $26.17 --- blue

Thats 5 – 5 tie in the highest SNAP rate by $

I guess there is much of an inference we can make about SNAP.

Welfare (TANF) Rates by State Pg 13 of link:

http://www.cbpp.org/files/1-25-11tanf.pdf

State/total TANF/pop/per capita

1.Wyoming $355.00 564 $0.63 --- red
2.Idaho $1,770.00 1568 $1.13 --- red
3.Texas $49,764.00 25146 $1.98 --- red
4.Georgia $21,444.00 9688 $2.21 --- red
5.Illinois $29,582.00 12831 $2.31 --- blue
6.Louisiana $11,740.00 4533 $2.59 --- red
7.Utah $7,397.00 2764 $2.68 --- red
8.Oklahoma $10,179.00 3751 $2.71 --- red
9.Colorado $13,681.00 5029 $2.72 --- blue
10.Arkansas $7,957.00 2916 $2.73 --- red

That's 8-2 Red for lowest rates of TANF

41.Massachusetts $50,822.00 6548 $7.76 --- blue
42.Michigan $79,203.00 9884 $8.01 --- blue
43.New York $161,179.00 19378 $8.32 --- blue
44.Ohio $102,489.00 11537 $8.88 --- blue
45.Vermont $5,759.00 626 $9.20 --- blue
46.Washington $65,421.00 6725 $9.73 --- blue
47.New Mexico $20,103.00 2059 $9.76 --- blue
48.Tennessee $62,760.00 6346 $9.89 --- red
49.Maine $14,302.00 1328 $10.77 --- blue
50.California $561,909.00 37254 $15.08 --- blue

That's 9-1 blues that have the highest TANF rates.

So i'd say that blue states tend to have higher UE and welfare while both red/blue states like them some SNAP.

[yermom]

the top and bottom 10 don't seem like they would paint the whole picture there.

also, the top of NY and California are a bit better than the top of North Dakota and Nebraska, i'm thinking

[Sooner5030]

the top and bottom 10 don't seem like they would paint the whole picture there.

also, the top of NY and California are a bit better than the top of North Dakota and Nebraska, i'm thinking

Yes but the people who use the debtor state claim also used the "no-income tax paying - red state" claim.......they used top/bottom ten for that so I thought I'd keep it the same for them.

[yermom]

so, lets take Oklahoma.

this state votes overwhelmingly pub, but takes in more federal money than it pays out.

how do you think we would fare if we were to secede?

[Sooner5030]

so, lets take Oklahoma.

this state votes overwhelmingly pub, but takes in more federal money than it pays out.

how do you think we would fare if we were to secede?

Secession is not a real option.........I'm more for reset after collapse.

okie has low wages and (like new mexico) it is a retirement state for lower income folks. More lower income folks move to okie to retire than move out. That hurts your debtor state calc with FICA and medicare. They paid in while living in other states but now they are taking out of FICA.


It's not like the state of oklahoma is giving the US treasury a $1 billion check and getting a $1.5 billion check in return.

Also....dont forget that OKIE is a net exporter of energy, food & water. That will become alot more important in the next 20 years.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

No wannabe about it. Although I will also be a US citizen. Once again it's about options.....especially for my kids.
You'd send your kids to a country where there is a public option for healthcare? Won't they end up in front of a death panel or something?

[LiveLaughLove]

You'd send your kids to a country where there is a public option for healthcare? Won't they end up in front of a death panel or something?

Reading comprehension isn't a strong suit for you is it?

Are they actually teaching Blithering Idiot 101 in college these days? just curious.

[LiveLaughLove]

so, lets take Oklahoma.

this state votes overwhelmingly pub, but takes in more federal money than it pays out.

how do you think we would fare if we were to secede?

It won't happen but Oklahoma would do excellently if it controlled it's own resources and got to keep it's own tax monies in state.

We aren't as beholden to blue states as you seem to think.

California is borrowing money from all of us to the tune of billions and billions to keep their welfare state afloat. Yet they keep right on spending.

Nah, Oklahoma and Texas would have cooperation stuff going and would survive about better than any other states through a split.

The main thing is our leadership tends to be the adults in the room. That alone would be worth billions of dollars.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Reading comprehension isn't a strong suit for you is it?

Are they actually teaching Blithering Idiot 101 in college these days? just curious.
You're pretty witty for a sky fundie. Go back to sacrificing your kids or whatever its is yahweh has ordered you to do today

[LiveLaughLove]

You're pretty witty for a sky fundie. Go back to sacrificing your kids or whatever its is yahweh has ordered you to do today

Wow, that's rich from a lib that supports the Infanticide Prez. LOL. You made me almost spit Mt Dew on my keyboard with that one.

Could you possibly be any more daft?

Survey says, no.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Wow, that's rich from a lib that supports the Infanticide Prez. LOL. You made me almost spit Mt Dew on my keyboard with that one.

Could you possibly be any more daft?

Survey says, no.
Yeah I was there in in Chicago throwing aborted fetuses on the stage as Obama won re-election

[LiveLaughLove]

Yeah I was there in in Chicago throwing aborted fetuses on the stage as Obama won re-election

Nah, these are live babies successfully born that are stuck in cloak rooms to die from hypothermia that he approves of. Aborted fetuses are so passe for him.

But yeah, we "sky fundies" are child sacrificers. Right.

I like that sky fundies thing. It has a certain panache. Much better than neanderthal or zealot or flat Earther.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Nah, these are live babies successfully born that are stuck in cloak rooms to die from hypothermia that he approves of. Aborted fetuses are so passe for him.

But yeah, we "sky fundies" are child sacrificers. Right.

I like that sky fundies thing. It has a certain panache. Much better than neanderthal or zealot or flat Earther.
Fwiw I've said multiple times on here I'm pro life, and I'm glad you like sky fundie, because I'm quite fond of it as well. Those other ones are much harsher and quite unfair, sky fundie hits it right on the head

[JohnnyMack]

What's a sky-fundie?

[LiveLaughLove]

What's a sky-fundie?

Christian. He's saying I believe in a sky fairy and am a fundamentalist about it. It's cute.

It's what passes for an education these days.

[JohnnyMack]

Christian. He's saying I believe in a sky fairy and am a fundamentalist about it. It's cute.

It's what passes for an education these days.

Ahhh. Gotcha.

I wonder what the religious folks take will be when NASA announces in the next few weeks their big find on Mars. I'm sure it will be denounced.

[LiveLaughLove]

Ahhh. Gotcha.

I wonder what the religious folks take will be when NASA announces in the next few weeks their big find on Mars. I'm sure it will be denounced.

Yeah I'm sure too. :rolleyes:

It will probably be something along the lines of other "great" finds in astrophysics.

Headline: Life Found in a Meteor!

Then you read it and it says a building block for life was found. Not actual life itself. Big stretch.

A building block of computers is found in my backyard. I could bring it in pile it on the floor and wait for about a bazillion years, and it would still just be a building block of a computer.

That kind of thing. But we'll see. I'm not opposed to actual science contrary to popular belief. Finding a life form out there would not shake my faith in the Bible, since the Bible doesn't make a claim about it one way or the other.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Then you read it and it says a building block for life was found. Not actual life itself. Big stretch.

A building block of computers is found in my backyard. I could bring it in pile it on the floor and wait for about a bazillion years, and it would still just be a building block of a computer.

That kind of thing. But we'll see. I'm not opposed to actual science contrary to popular belief. Finding a life form out there would not shake my faith in the Bible, since the Bible doesn't make a claim about it one way or the other.
That would depend what exactly that building block is, say a cell v something less complex. A cell would obviously be massive news for science.

[JohnnyMack]

Yeah I'm sure too. :rolleyes:

It will probably be something along the lines of other "great" finds in astrophysics.

Headline: Life Found in a Meteor!

Then you read it and it says a building block for life was found. Not actual life itself. Big stretch.

A building block of computers is found in my backyard. I could bring it in pile it on the floor and wait for about a bazillion years, and it would still just be a building block of a computer.

That kind of thing. But we'll see. I'm not opposed to actual science contrary to popular belief. Finding a life form out there would not shake my faith in the Bible, since the Bible doesn't make a claim about it one way or the other.

Sounds like you're pre-renouncing it. Good jorb.

[LiveLaughLove]

Sounds like you're pre-renouncing it. Good jorb.

Well, I think I did say "probably", so I'm not making any final claims for or against it, since I have no clue what "it" is.

I have simply seen so many of these supposedly big Earth shattering finds, and they just have never quite panned out to be all of that and a bag of chips. That's all.

In just the past few months, we have supposedly found the "God Particle" that turned out to be a particle that we have known existed since the 1960's. We just didn't have the technology until now to actually show it.

Is it God's particle? Well, only if every other particle in the Universe is also.

So usually the hype is exponentially greater than the reality. We'll see.

[JohnnyMack]

So usually the hype is exponentially greater than the reality. We'll see.

Sounds like religion. :D

[LiveLaughLove]

Sounds like religion. :D
Good one. Very edgy.

[yermom]

Well, I think I did say "probably", so I'm not making any final claims for or against it, since I have no clue what "it" is.

I have simply seen so many of these supposedly big Earth shattering finds, and they just have never quite panned out to be all of that and a bag of chips. That's all.

In just the past few months, we have supposedly found the "God Particle" that turned out to be a particle that we have known existed since the 1960's. We just didn't have the technology until now to actually show it.

Is it God's particle? Well, only if every other particle in the Universe is also.

So usually the hype is exponentially greater than the reality. We'll see.

i see you have a great understanding of science.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

God particle killed five hookers.