why?

Killing innocence people

You mean innocent people like the head of Hamas' military wing?

oh come off it, mate. You must realize authorizing white phosphorus bomb strikes on an entire city is wrong.

I hadn't read that they used white phosphorus in the attack.

The IDF launched white phosphorus bombs over gaza in 2009. Here is one link:
www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes
it's a monstrous disregard of basic human rights.

But not in this attack.

I don't support the use of white phosphorus and I do think Israel sometimes uses excessive force. However, ultimately Israel's basic motive is to defend itself and its people, and it doesn't intentionally target innocent civilians. I can sympathize with them.

I have no sympathy for groups like Hamas and their supporters which fire rockets into Israel and intentionally seek out civilian targets like school buses. They are the primary obstacle to peace and deserve most of the blame for the conflict.

This is an excellent compromise.

But is there a recent incident in particular?because the palestinian genocide is old news

Drone strike in Gaza

I liked Herman Cain.

Little do they know, secession is illegal. Do they not learn about the Civil War down south?

Bro, there aren't any states with serious petitions to secede. The petitions on whitehouse.gov are made by individuals who do not represent their state's government or populace. Literally anyone can make a petition and get people on the Internet to sign it.
(see example: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/endorse-johnny-manziel-also-known-johnny-football-2012-heisman-memorial-trophy-award/yJRHMzzB )
You don't have to live in the state (maybe not even in the country) to sign the petition. The majority of the signatures are from people out-of-state who just don't like the state in the petition, or from Internet trolls doing it for the lulz.
These petitions have no chance of changing anything and shouldn't be taken seriously.

In every election there are sore losers who threaten to leave the country. If they're conservatives they threaten to secede, and if they're liberals they threaten to move to Canada.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SQMD5S7Ai4&list=HL1352857653&feature=mh_lolz

Sigh, wtf man.

u luv coc? we all do

It's a joke satirizing the extremeness of those stupid secession petition. It's meant to be jokingly extreme, lighten up a bit.

This is why I never like the Idea of online petitions. It gives any person the ability to get thousands of signatures they would never get if they went door to door. I think anyone with sense wont take them seriously

It's an extreme example of the ridiculousness of all these petitions. Sorta like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in regards to religion. I believe the phrase goes "you got trolled"

Actually California is the highest with new york at second then texas.
but think about who processes the nations oil into gas.
We would charge The US out the ass to have us process gas and oil.

While that is true, Texas would have to compete with every other oil outlet, so they couldn't really charge much more than they already do. You can't have monopoly price control if you don't have anything close to a monopoly

Texas has the number one port in America. They have the largest oil processing plants. They have the ability to produce its own food and goods It produce the most cotton.

That is all true, but isn't really relevant or making any type of statement.

If texas Seceded we would be the only state to last on its own. We have the population and the resources to do it. The problem is if we did Obama would send troops and try to scare us back in and then a revolution would start. Im not for secession because Im in college and I dont want to fight a war with the US

The real problem is restructuring your entire system of government. And you would lose a large amount of people, the US would gladly let the Texans who wanted to come back to the rest of America. Obama wouldn't invade, the smart thing is to cut of exports and imports to Texas, depriving them of income in the short term.

Source

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/state-debt-report_n_1836603.html

www.texaswatchdog.org/2012/08/texas-third-in-total-state-debt-low-by-per- capita-measure-underfunded-pension-liabilities/1346172574.column

Sorry, *3rd

NO BECAUSE DEY LYED!!11

Partly yes, however there are people that can seem trusty and well adjusted, that turns out to be assholes.

Just googled it, and it is a Sales and Income Tax increase.

i hoped in something more accurate... i read a blog about it... it says it's like the beginning of a new era, that "rich people self taxed for the wealth of who's not rich"...
here's the link, try to translate it... www.you-ng .it/blog/4026-ecco-il-futuro-che-avanza-arriva-dalla-california-la-rivoluzione-e sistenziale-nel-sociale.html

seclusion?

The Texas breaking away from the US thing,

secession? Texas is gaining votes on the regular, and more and more states have populations voting for secession, so if it dies down, its gonna take some sort of Federal/Presidential interference.

This honestly pisses me off. I feel bad for anybody in Uganda, especially the gays now. I sincerely hope they can get out of that country quickly.

If you are a homosexual in Uganda I advise moving.

Democracy at work.

Funny how people don't understand how harmful to a country rule by majority is. We're doing the same thing here in the America almost, with politicians buying votes and such, just economically and obviously not as harsh.

It's a big problem...

A lot of people are just plain stupid and will vote as such and a lot of people are heavily religious and vote as such, forcing their religious ethics on other people. (Not that anything is wrong with being religious.)

But yet, we can't really have a system where only some people are allowed to vote, it wouldn't be a true democracy or free country and who decides who can vote and who can't?

If we actually followed our constitution, things would work out a lot better. Unfortunately our constitution has been being shit on ever since the early 1900s.

Our Constitution is set up to prevent the disaster of Democracy, and a lot of people don't understand that. We're not a free country the second we become a true democracy, and we're steadily shifting towards that.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
-Thomas Jefferson

I don't think you understand what your constitution is. Aside from the Patriot Act, the US government hasn't really done anything "unconstitutional".

If you have a problem with your democratic system, then take issue with the fact that your system of government hasn't ever changed (and as such is broken), as well as the current SCOTUS which believes corporations are people.

It has changed though. The Federal Government used to have a minimal role, and now it is shifting towards a large role. The Federal Government by Constitutional standards is meant only for National Defense, and all else is meant to be run by State governments.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Federal Government has broken this so many times. Say all you want, but by the Constitution the only jobs the Federal Government has are Foreign Affairs and National Defense. The Federal Government is not there to provide welfare, medicare, social security, job programs, subsidies, etc. This is meant to be done at the state level as stated in the 10th amendment. The only way a Federal Policy should be put in place is if every single state adopts the policy on their own.

I don't think you understand what our Constitution is. It might be outdated, but its intention is to protect the rights of citizens, which has been undermined as of recent.

The system was not meant to be set up as a two party system

The system was not meant to give the government a strong power over its people

The system was not meant for majority rules in every case.

Say all you want, but it is not your job to interpret the constitution. It is the role of the courts. Additionally, the reason the federal government has intervened so much in state affairs is because states were unable to humanely govern themselves. e.g. black civil rights.

It's a two party system because the voters have allowed it to happen. There's no way you can prevent the creation of a two party system if two parties have such strong support.

There are safeguards in place for the people to void passed legislation.

Majority rule is the fairest practical option available. Do you have any alternatives?

That's not what system of government means. It refers to your executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it state that each individual state is to be its own autonomous republic.

There are 27 amendments to the US constitution. The US adds amendments when it needs to. If the US just went by the original 10 amendments from the Bill of Rights, then black people would still only be considered 3/5 of a person.

The US has always been a two-party system. It started out with the Federalist party and the Democratic-Republican party. The US system has never functioned in a way that would allow a third party to have significance.

What your saying isn't true. You're just hoping it is because it would vindicate your beliefs and fit your political narrative.

Nowhere in the original Constitution does it say that African Americans are 3/5 of a person. Forcing African American votes to count as 3/5 of a person is unconstitutional, as it infringes on their rights as citizens, however this didn't only effect African Americans, it effected all servants and slaves, including white indentured servants. Also with the abolition of slavery and indentured servitude, this section was rendered useless anyways, as the law was only meant to effect those that were "not free" and the enforcement of it on African American citizens was unconstitutional.

I only said it was never intended to run off of a 2 party system. Don't get my words mixed up.

I can say the same thing to you. Everybody has their own views on something, and you seem to be twisting it to your advantage as well. Bias always exists.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the Constitution is perfect, I'm simply saying that if we followed the Constitution we'd be better off than we are now. I think you're misunderstanding that.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It was overruled with the 13th amendment, which was adopted in 1865.

It doesn't state any race but Native Americans. It only effects non-free men. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify voting eligibility; the Amendments (14, 15, and 19) were put in place to override state legislation. The 13th amendment did not directly cancel out the clause you stated, but the clause became useless because slavery and servitude were abolished. If for whatever reason there was some kind of Indentured Servitude Act, where criminals become indentured servants, they would only count as 3/5 a person by our constitution, regardless of race.

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove there. White servants were counted too as part of the clause. Or did you think slavery only applied to African Americans?

Considering only Blacks were slaves, and every Black person in nearly every slave state was a slave...

I don't know where you're getting the indentured servitude from. Indentured servants were still free men, but contracted to work for a set period of time. They were not property.

Yeah I was wrong about the indentured servants relation to the 3/5 clause. I don't even know how we got to arguing about this though.

Completely agreed.

Te same thing that happened last time states tried to secede. A Civil War.

There aren't 30 states that want secession, there are 30 states where a group of people who are butthurt over losing the election has created petitions and things too secess, they are hardly the state.

umm so whats the deal with the secession stuff? I'm only 16 with limited knowledge on politics. Any chance of it actually happening, and what would be the consequences if it were to pass?

It's just to make a point. Im sure SOME of the people actually want secession, but for the most part, it's just to voice a grievance

Civil War. Again. But with the Union obliterating the rebels.

Kittens or puppies?

dogs are SO much better its not even a contest...

but I cant lie, kitten get to me. love em.

What are your views on private owned prisons?

They can be very effective if done correctly. Save states some money.
BUT precautions have to be taken to make sure the private prisons have the same standards as the federal/state funded ones. I know that sometimes the cost saving does come at the expense of better security.

Just the answer I was looking for. Good for you.

with social issues like that, it's always hard to get a concrete opinion or answer since it's so two-sided... so everything I say is always liable to change :P

Do you understand that you are probably normal? And just a little arrogant?

oh god yes. I know I'm kind of arrogant, yeah
but I promise you, it's NOT without real reasons <3

Despite President Obama's controversial stance on foreign policy, can you see why kids love of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

right?

THERS SWURLZ OFF CIMANIN SUGR ON EVRY BITE

Damn, you do understand basic economics. But I have another question for someone as qualified as you: what gets wetter and wetter the more it dries?

heard it before, a towel yeah?

What's your favorite flavor of popsicle?

ya know I really like pink lemonade popsicles. it's a frozen taste sensation

it's a statement
most people understand it's not actually going to happen (hopefully they do)

Not just red states. Some blue as well.

Yes, but it seems that its mostly conservatives making them this time around (y'know, Obama and such) no matter what state they live in. Of course red states like Texas have more petitioners.

Oh yea yea of course. Its all foolish. I voted for Romney, you won't see me petitioning for secession. Happens every election year.

The same reasons no Southern Democrats left the country instead of having a Civil War.