Do you think Mississippi should secede from the Union

[obake]

Vermont is wanting to secede from the Union. You know with all that ya'lls president have been doing I don't blame them. Wanting to make healthcare like it is in China, Cuba and all of those other lovely places. Now with this Cap and Tax bill that has just passed in the house, that is going to put 100's of thousands of people out of work to add just a few jobs and raise our gas, energy and natual gas bills out the roof. I'm forming my own party. For now on out I am a "Patriot", of the Thomas Pane form.

[Celtichooligan]

obake wrote:

Vermont is wanting to secede from the Union. You know with all that ya'lls president have been doing I don't blame them. Wanting to make healthcare like it is in China, Cuba and all of those other lovely places. Now with this Cap and Tax bill that has just passed in the house, that is going to put 100's of thousands of people out of work to add just a few jobs and raise our gas, energy and natual gas bills out the roof. I'm forming my own party. For now on out I am a "Patriot", of the Thomas Pane form.

A "new" party is laughable. The Government and ALL political figures on that governmental level are bought and paid for by the time they reach office. Where we are at this point in time has been a hundred years in the making. They have bankrupted California to see how the people will act, it's a series of test that "they" are orchestrating, martial law is on it's way.....WATCH and SEE!!! False flags are flying...

[happypioneer]

Celtichooligan wrote:

<quoted text>
A "new" party is laughable. The Government and ALL political figures on that governmental level are bought and paid for by the time they reach office. Where we are at this point in time has been a hundred years in the making. They have bankrupted California to see how the people will act, it's a series of test that "they" are orchestrating, martial law is on it's way.....WATCH and SEE!!! False flags are flying...

Do you think mankind can solve the problems? What do you think is the answer?

[Celtichooligan]

Solved? Not sure, but to me it's a scenerio of who ploices the police? This isn't just an Obama administration problem. It's been a problem for years. "we the people" have blindly trusted our officials to do right, during the decacdes of lobbyist and special interset groups corruption has runamuck. In short or politicians have NOT been held accountable. Morals in this country are on the skids and those elected to power positions are merley perpetuating the problem.

[happypioneer]

Celtichooligan wrote:

Solved? Not sure, but to me it's a scenerio of who ploices the police? This isn't just an Obama administration problem. It's been a problem for years. "we the people" have blindly trusted our officials to do right, during the decacdes of lobbyist and special interset groups corruption has runamuck. In short or politicians have NOT been held accountable. Morals in this country are on the skids and those elected to power positions are merley perpetuating the problem.

I agree! What do you think the solution is?

[Celtichooligan]

happypioneer wrote:

<quoted text>I agree! What do you think the solution is?

Less moving parts in the "engine". Each state should be allowed only one senators, and one congressmen w/ each party being represented. It's like population discremination. If California sends 54 Reps. to Washington and Deleware sends 1 it's like California telling Deleware, shutup, sit down you have any say so in the matter. I'd like to see a smaller government, that would be a lot easier to hold accountable. Level the playing field so to speak. I mean after all there is one president for 305 million americans. Explain to me why lobbyist are needed? I believe it may be as simple as to let the right hand know what the left hand is doing...

[happypioneer]

Celtichooligan wrote:

<quoted text>
Less moving parts in the "engine". Each state should be allowed only one senators, and one congressmen w/ each party being represented. It's like population discremination. If California sends 54 Reps. to Washington and Deleware sends 1 it's like California telling Deleware, shutup, sit down you have any say so in the matter. I'd like to see a smaller government, that would be a lot easier to hold accountable. Level the playing field so to speak. I mean after all there is one president for 305 million americans. Explain to me why lobbyist are needed? I believe it may be as simple as to let the right hand know what the left hand is doing...

What you say is interesting; but, do you think the problems facing mankind today can really be solved by just one nation? I don't. For these problems to be solved lastingly they require complete international cooperation But selfish interests prevent that and also seriouly hinder any real cooperation among the various organizations wihtin nations. And actually God never authorized his human creation to chart its oun path. Jer. 10:23 says:"I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthlig man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Are you familiar with what the Bible says about God's Kingdom with Christ Jesus as king.

[LillyG]

If Mississippi does secede with or without any other states joining in, there will undoubtedly be trouble. Although the South is better equipped this time than last time. And a large portion of America's military forces are from the south, so it would be an extremely difficult decision for a lot of people, I expect.

I am very much hoping this socialist healthcare plan does not succeed, so that we won't have to worry about a second War Between the States. I have no desire to live in a Socialist country, but also no desire to live in a war zone.

And yes, I think the government would attempt to hold any states that seceded by force, if necessary. They did it before, and I can see little reason they would not attempt to do so again. Whether the federal government would succeed or the states would become independent, only time will tell. If any states do actually secede instead of just talking about it.

[Fredo]

Each state should determine it's laws and regulations...the 'influence' by the Feds into everything was, IMHO, not the intention of the constitution....most in MS don't want trouble but they also don't want to be governed like citizens from california, new York, Vermont, etc. I feel that if our voices are silenced there will be trouble...

[LaVerne Reynolds-Lane]

This state never succeeded in anything! No success.

[Celtichooligan]

LaVerne Reynolds-Lane wrote:

This state never succeeded in anything! No success.

I guess we have succeeded in keeping the confederate flag w/in the state flag...

[james townsend]

I whish mississippi would succeed from the union. The federal Government has been broken, and by the constitution we have the right and duty to fix it. When our politicians tell their constituants we don't care what you think we are voting are way as one did about healthcare the system is obliviously broken the only way to fix it will be another civil war and succeession from the union would bring that about. But the succeesion needs to be done with the aim of reinstating the original constituion as it was before the civil war with the exception of minority, and woman rights. the federal government has gotten to big for it to opperate efficently and justly.

[james townsend]

happypioneer wrote:

<quoted text>
What you say is interesting; but, do you think the problems facing mankind today can really be solved by just one nation? I don't. For these problems to be solved lastingly they require complete international cooperation But selfish interests prevent that and also seriouly hinder any real cooperation among the various organizations wihtin nations. And actually God never authorized his human creation to chart its oun path. Jer. 10:23 says:"I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthlig man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Are you familiar with what the Bible says about God's Kingdom with Christ Jesus as king.

\
I agree with your christian views being a christian myself, but as most of this country only plays at religion now, and very few live in HIS ways day in and day out we need a government, I would love to see this government go back to being stepped in the christianity of our forfathers, but for that to happen we would have to change so many laws that currently exist for the perverse in this country that, that in itself would cause a civil up roar. I agree only GOD is in control completly, but until Jesus returns we need government.

[happypioneer]

james townsend wrote:

<quoted text>
\
I agree with your christian views being a christian myself, but as most of this country only plays at religion now, and very few live in HIS ways day in and day out we need a government, I would love to see this government go back to being stepped in the christianity of our forfathers, but for that to happen we would have to change so many laws that currently exist for the perverse in this country that, that in itself would cause a civil up roar. I agree only GOD is in control completly, but until Jesus returns we need government.

He who fails to be "in subjection to the superior authorities" cannot expect to have God’s backing. Because "the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God." (Romans 13:1, 2) However, Jesus recognized the possibility of a conflict of interests when he said: "Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God." (Mark 12:17) Those desiring to have God’s backing must "keep on . . . seeking first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness," while at the same time obeying the laws of the land that are compatible with their higher responsibilities to God.(Matthew 6:33; Acts 5:29) Jesus stressed neutrality when he said of his disciples: "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world." He later added: "My kingdom is no part of this world."—John 17:16; 18:36.

[ccrider]

Learning from history, I don't think there would be mass acceptance of Miississippi seceding from the Union......unless things get a whole lot worse than they are right now.

However, if MS did secede, how many states would go with it? Would it be the "bible belt"? Would it be the same states as during the War for Southern Independence? What about the border states like MO and KY, which had governments in both the Union and Confederacy during the War? There are so many yankees in Fl now that I'm not sure what it would do. All this makes for interesting conversation, but I seriously doubt secession will happen.

[Ray]

Go ahead, it will raise the IQ of America.

[Mississippian]

Happypioneer said:

"He who fails to be "in subjection to the superior authorities" cannot expect to have God’s backing. Because "the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God." (Romans 13:1, 2) However, Jesus recognized the possibility of a conflict of interests when he said: "Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God." (Mark 12:17) Those desiring to have God’s backing must "keep on ... seeking first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness," while at the same time obeying the laws of the land that are compatible with their higher responsibilities to God.(Matthew 6:33; Acts 5:29) Jesus stressed neutrality when he said of his disciples: "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world." He later added: "My kingdom is no part of this world."—John 17:16; 18:36"

I guess God put Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. into office to kill and control their citizens also. If this is your belief, then believe as you will it will not change much. The Feds are WWWWAAAAYYYY out of control. The time is coming for them to pay the piper. Just not right now!