SECESSION!. . in STATES SECEDE Foam NEW COUNTRY - "i,,, -, channel GLENN BECK ELECTED FIRST PRESIDENT tlf iill, ( '..-. I like how all democrats make fun of republicans for being rednecks. Sure, there are a whole lot of rednecks in the republican party, but I don't think democrat
x
Click to expand

Comments(144):

[ 144 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #8 - mahjimmiesarusslin (11/13/2012) [-]
Just because they petition for it does not mean they will get it, each states has a few million and only a few thousand want to secede, Texas has tried this every election year for the past 9 elections
User avatar #10 - blacksmithgu (11/13/2012) [-]
Not sure why you'd name the country ************* , but okay.
#19 - blueghost (11/14/2012) [-]
My favorite petition
User avatar #90 to #19 - batmanwest (11/14/2012) [-]
If the petition reaches 25,000 in 30 days, the president or his kim jongistration offices will have to respond.
User avatar #18 - gpinks (11/14/2012) [-]
I like how all democrats make fun of republicans for being rednecks. Sure, there are a whole lot of rednecks in the republican party, but I don't think democrats have room to talk when 92% of the black vote and 60% of the Hispanic voted for Obama. Random thoughts.
User avatar #36 to #18 - secretlywheatbread (11/14/2012) [-]
Was gunna say something
Then I realized I'm Hispanic.
User avatar #46 to #36 - fortyfourmagnum (11/14/2012) [-]
Was gunna respond
Then I realized you were a Hispanic.
#116 - yumyumtittysucker ONLINE (11/14/2012) [-]
so much butthurt in the comments
User avatar #109 - vivapinatapro (11/14/2012) [-]
You realize the states that want to secede are states like New York and Texas, right? Let's see how "America" does without those states.
#110 to #109 - John Cena (11/14/2012) [-]
let's be honest, we don't need texas
User avatar #122 to #110 - mynameisgeorge (11/14/2012) [-]
Except it's one of the only states that has a growing economy, so we do need it.

Good job sucking MSNBC's dick tough, be sure to work the pipes.
#119 to #110 - John Cena (11/14/2012) [-]
Really? You don't? Because the Port of Houston is one of the largest in the world. And one of the busiest. And it's getting busier. We are the world's fifteenth largest economy. Facts>Idiocracy
#124 to #119 - noschool (11/14/2012) [-]
not to mention they also have a lot of oil
0
#118 to #110 - vikingprincejoe **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #113 to #109 - The Old Hotness (11/14/2012) [-]
Honestly, the west and east coast could secede from the nation and be fine. Almost every state between them would be ****** though.
User avatar #153 to #113 - payneiac (11/27/2012) [-]
You're joking right. The Midwest would be fine without the coasts. Both coasts are screwed without the Midwest. Sure they Florida and California for part of their food, but all of their other resources such as helium, salt, coal, soybeans, wheat, iron, oil, sand, gravel, wind energy, limestone,other metals, etc. Will all have to be imported, and they sure as hell won't be getting them from the Midwest. How are they supposed to manufacture anything without raw materials. The price to import these items would slash the profits from selling the goods, and it would force businesses to move to where they could afford to build their goods, and the closest place would be the Midwest. The Midwest would become rich, because all the industry that was on the coasts is now in the Midwest. The coasts would be able to support themselves for a while, but they would eventually devolve to a traditional economy, and either become a third world nation, or come crawling back to the Midwest, and honestly I'm not sure the Midwest would let them come back.
#102 - hankpym (11/14/2012) [-]
they're not called truck balls OP, the name is truck nuts.

It is one of the most american things you can own, it sweats freedom, liberty, pride and oil.
User avatar #105 to #102 - icandividebyzero (11/14/2012) [-]
It also sweats ball sweat.
#107 to #105 - hankpym (11/14/2012) [-]
that too
User avatar #85 - Fgner (11/14/2012) [-]
Am I the only one who will admit that these states have a right to do this. The government was created to serve and represent the people of these United States, and act in OUR best interests. And when it comes a time where men feel that the government no longer serves it's purpose, it is our duty to correct, demolish, or take leave from the government at hand. This is a time where democracy had failed us. Corruption and greed run rampant, and no longer is the general good of the public the prime topic of debate. Now it's political correctness, how to get the most votes, how to get the most money. Don't call these people ********* just because you are to ignorant and blind to perceive their mindsets. Take Texas, they have been all but begging to sucede. The have their own military, they have their own economy, they are completely independant. They are one of th emost powerful states, however, they are also one of the least important states to this country. And even if every person in that state agreed with succession, how likly is it that their governmental representations would actively produce a document and cause it to actually happen. It won't, for a country to sucede, it would take a military uprising and forcefully overthrowing their government.

/rant over.
User avatar #96 to #85 - batmanwest (11/14/2012) [-]
I agree with your statements of how governments and countries for that matter should be run by the people. But to succeed in the United States is improbable. Look at the Civil War, "The Union must be preserved" even though it was to maintain the economy of the US back in the 1800's, the North prevented the South from succeeding.
Also, Texas does not have their own military, only the Federal Government controls the military. Not the states, otherwise you'd have States going to war with each other or even other Countries. Such as Texas and Mexico.
Furthermore, succession in the United States is impossible, it would need to take more then just the upset population of a lost election to bring an uprising to a country.
Just my thoughts though. Thank you for your time.
User avatar #114 to #96 - Fgner (11/14/2012) [-]
1) You forgot the fact that the South suceded and they had to fight in a war to prevent the South from suceding. The South didn't come back to the North saying "The Union must be preserved", they fought saying "to Hell with your Union!"

2) I could be entirely wrong, but I thought I remembered hearing somewhere that Texas required the ability to have their own standing military at some point. But other than that they are a huge backbone of America and are almost entirely self-dependant. But, if I'm wrong about that military thing, I apologize, that's my own ignorance for not checking my facts before I use them.

3) It's impossible. That's the problem at hand isn't it? Democracy broke a long time ago, the people themselves have lost their say in anything, really. So how do we maintain our rights? I'm not saying I would agree that people should take up arms and attack the government, I'm just saying that now is a time where diplomacy is gone, and that if men feel that the only way to restore the world is civil war, then so be it.

4) It's not just a lost election, it's the general state of the country. We used to be great, but all that muscle has fallen away and all that's left are the bones.

And they are wonderful thoughts, have a great day!
User avatar #120 to #114 - batmanwest (11/14/2012) [-]
1) It is true that the South weren't happy about joining back into the Union, but then again, winners write history.

2) Texas does have very plentiful military bases, but those are in control of the federal government. It is also true that if Texas had an uprising that they could take over those bases, but that's improbable with today's technology, transportation of supplies, and military leadership.

3) I agree that America's democracy has been long gone within the midst of corruption, bribery, and power hungry politicians. But the government won't take away our rights, it's unconstitutional, that's why the Judicial Branch is apart of the Checks and Balances.

4) America is a world superpower... for now. It's true that it could change very quickly, with the increasing federal debt and economy changes. But for now, America as a whole can stand on it's feet, as long as the supports don't give out.

I appreciate your feedback, this was enjoyable. Farewell.
User avatar #133 to #120 - Fgner (11/14/2012) [-]
I agree with everything except the government not taking away our rights. But that's just an argument of how corrupt we view things as they currently stand. So have a great life!
User avatar #108 to #96 - Jackimole (11/14/2012) [-]
You're not the first person I've seen make this mistake, but it's secession, not succession. Good points though.
User avatar #112 to #108 - batmanwest (11/14/2012) [-]
Sorry about the mistake. Thank you.
User avatar #87 to #85 - Schwarzenegger (11/14/2012) [-]
Gave you a green thumb before the angry liberals give you red ones.
User avatar #92 to #87 - Fgner (11/14/2012) [-]
And I returned the favor, my good sir.

To those people giving me red, I'd prefer if we could discuss this like gentlemen, not hide behind thumbs and anonymity. If I'm wrong, I want to be corrected.
#91 - pyrothermal (11/14/2012) [-]
I used to be proud to be a native Texan.
I used to be proud to be a native Texan.
#111 - HARMONYHARMONY (11/14/2012) [-]
Personally, I like certain aspects of Glenn Beck's logic. He has a great outlook on certain things.   
Maybe I could actually take him seriously if he didn't go on a butthurt rampage every 5 minutes.
Personally, I like certain aspects of Glenn Beck's logic. He has a great outlook on certain things.
Maybe I could actually take him seriously if he didn't go on a butthurt rampage every 5 minutes.
#151 - John Cena (11/16/2012) [-]
FYI Glen Beck was against secession...
User avatar #64 - duudegladiator (11/14/2012) [-]
He'd do better than Obama...
#93 to #64 - knightdavid (11/14/2012) [-]
HAHA I think the republican is mad... Anyone who said anything negative to him automatically received a red thumb. Guess he knows he is wrong and doesn't have anything to say back to fact and logic.
#98 to #93 - fact (11/14/2012) [-]
Damn right he doesn't have any comebacks for me.

U tink ur touf?
u faget pussys
com fite me irl
#103 to #98 - knightdavid (11/14/2012) [-]
Well played... Thumb for you good sir
#104 to #103 - fact (11/14/2012) [-]
I'd reciprocate, but my IP is thumbbanned.
User avatar #72 to #64 - theaccountofjeremy (11/14/2012) [-]
go ahead and move to ************* right now, you'll fit in perfectly
#73 to #72 - duudegladiator (11/14/2012) [-]
I'd rather have rights, then lose it day after day under a Federal Government which is overstating its bounds.
I'd rather have rights, then lose it day after day under a Federal Government which is overstating its bounds.
User avatar #79 to #73 - ImFrumAija (11/14/2012) [-]
ehem... than*
User avatar #78 to #73 - willdabeast (11/14/2012) [-]
Please....just shut the **** up. There's a difference in the federal government having a bigger influence and the federal government taking control. We are ****** no matter what. With Romney, we would have 4 more Bush years, with Obama, we might see some positive things coming from the changes he's putting forth.
#77 to #73 - knightdavid (11/14/2012) [-]
Oh you mean by republicans? Yep, them taking away womens rights like the right to choose between having a kid or an abortion, or the right to have medical services provided even if you aren't wealthy... Those Republicans just try and take away rights, claiming its against the bible... But hey, good thing our country doesn't have SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE or anything like that...
User avatar #125 to #77 - SgtObvious (11/14/2012) [-]
Not every Republican dislikes abortion for religious reasons. A lot of us don't like it because we don't support killing babies. Sorry I don't believe that a woman has a right to kill someone.

Universal Healthcare would bankrupt the country. Don't get me wrong, Obamacare will too, but it'll just take some more time. And there's no money to pay for Obamacare, and even if there was, it would be gone pretty fast. The minor benefits Obamacare provides don't equate to the consequences. It's inevitably going to make the economy worse, and a bad economy hurts everyone (especially the lower classes). Democrats want to directly help a little right away and waste the government's money. Republicans want to help a lot gradually and indirectly while still earning money and reducing the national debt.
#127 to #125 - knightdavid (11/14/2012) [-]
Who makes the decision if something is a living being? As far as I am concerned, if it can't feel, and can't move, its not living. Obamacare is helping those who can't help themselves. It requires the majority of the nation to pay into it to provide for the sick. Same with Social Security, you pay into it your whole life, then when you need it, it's there.

Anything the Government does costs money, so any kind of plans Romney would have put into place, would cost us with taxes. It just depends on how it should be spent. I believe we need to take care of the poor more than we need to increase the pocketbook of the rich.
User avatar #129 to #127 - SgtObvious (11/14/2012) [-]
Look at it this way:
When the economy is bad we "take care of the poor," which uses money. Using too money will make the economy bad. Whenthe economy is bad we "take care of the poor," which uses money.

Do you see a cycle? Lower class people will benefit more from a good economy than wasteful handouts. Yes, there should be some sort of safety net, but it should be small and not nearly as big and wasteful as it is now. Obamacare will not help in a signifigant way, and it will harm the economy. People only look at it superficially and that makes it seem like a good idea. When you actually analyze it and look at the fine print and how it's going to be implemented you can see that it's not good at all. The reason Democrats have any power today is because people look at things too superficially. Our country was founded on freedom and small governement. Most presidents that have had a policy of small government with a small social safety net have been successful ( such as Coolidge, Eisenhower, Reagan).
#134 to #129 - knightdavid (11/14/2012) [-]
Okay, but if you look at it in a way where you actually see how it affects the people, not just the cash flow... It may not help them a TON, but if it helps someone get to the doctors for a check up when they are sick, they get a prescription that helps them fight whatever they are sick with, they get back on their feet sooner, and back to work. Now that doctor check up may only cost $150, but an average poor person couldn't afford that.

However, if they get back to work two days earlier, making the federal minimum wage of $7.64 then that's $122.24 they make instead of being sick and not being able to work. Thats the cycle I see...
User avatar #136 to #134 - SgtObvious (11/15/2012) [-]
The worst health insurance on Obamacare isn't going to be free or particularly cheaper than before. That insurance also isn't gonna pay for like cancer treatment. It'll pay for regular doctor check ups and maybe some basic treatment for minor illnesses.
#138 to #136 - knightdavid (11/15/2012) [-]
Did you even read my last comment?
User avatar #140 to #138 - SgtObvious (11/15/2012) [-]
Oh sorry I read it over quickly and misunderstood.

What you're saying is wishful thinking. That isn't going to happen to enough people to make any sort of a difference. In the grand scheme of things the whole system of Obamacare won't help that much, but it will still cost a lot of money.
#141 to #140 - knightdavid (11/15/2012) [-]
What you are saying is based on your own personal idea on who it will help, do you realize how many people will actually benefit from this? Anyone who can't afford a doctor visit, will now be able to go. If you are really that ignorant of the poor in america, leave your nice neighborhood, and maybe visit a part of town that your parents told you not to... You will see a ton of people who are not living as nice of a life as you would hope.
User avatar #142 to #141 - SgtObvious (11/15/2012) [-]
Did you even read my last comment?

People go on a checkup once a year, and the doctor will most likely find nothing seriously wrong with the person. If a person goes when they're sick they'll probably have a cold or a minor case of the flu and not end up taking medication. My point is that the checkups won't end up being as beneficial as you described to the majority of people, but it will still cost billions of dollars for the whole country.
#143 to #142 - knightdavid (11/15/2012) [-]
I wasn't talking about yearly check ups and physicals. I was talking about those people who have something like the flu, or an ear infection. Plenty of people get it, including babies, who have no choice over if their parents can afford a doctor.
User avatar #146 to #143 - SgtObvious (11/15/2012) [-]
7 million people a year get ear infections. About 1/5 of the country is considered "lower class" and can't afford health insurance. That means that approximately 1.4 million people in the lower classes get ear infections (there are no statistics about socio-economic class relating to ear infections so this is as accurate an assumption as can be made). 1.4 million/311,591,917 (US pop)= .004. It will benefit .4% of the population, but it will cost billions of dollars and reduce medicare. If you factor in all other minor diseases that need some sort of medical treatment that would be covered under the most basic plan it'll still most likely be under 1.5% of the population.

You need to login to view this link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Class_US.svg

Numbers never lie.
#148 to #146 - knightdavid (11/15/2012) [-]
Congrats, you literally took that way to literal, and look at ONE single thing. Go ahead and find every other virus that needs a prescription to get rid of. I made a point using one single virus, are you seriously that stupid to do all that math to prove that one virus isn't a wide spread pandemic? This is why I hate most republicans.... You dont look at everything, only one specific thing, and how it doesn't help the wealthy
User avatar #149 to #148 - SgtObvious (11/16/2012) [-]
"If you factor in all other minor diseases that need some sort of medical treatment that would be covered under the most basic plan it'll still most likely be under 1.5% of the population"

What are minor diseases that would need medication to cure?
Flu
Ear Infection
Pink Eye

Other disease treatments probably wouldn't be covered by the most basic insurance. I can factor in all of those two and I guarentee you it'll still be a very small number.

And I hate Democrats because they don't listen to logic, statistics, and history.
User avatar #150 to #149 - SgtObvious (11/16/2012) [-]
Too not two*
0
#145 to #143 - SgtObvious has deleted their comment [-]
0
#144 to #143 - SgtObvious has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #82 to #73 - theaccountofjeremy (11/14/2012) [-]
There's enough of a balance between conservative and Liberal in the U.S. government that honestly, I think our freedom and rights are just as safe as they were when our country was founded, as well as all the years following that. Our rights aren't going anywhere, if anything we're getting more rights over the years, not fewer.
#74 to #72 - John Cena (11/14/2012) [-]
you're a stupid ****** . enslaving yourself with taxation and removing your own freedoms.
#86 - badkidpetersen (11/14/2012) [-]
Consider the following:
If a drunk driver hits a pregnant woman and kills her, he is charged with 2 counts of murder.
Yet a woman can choose to kill the baby herself?
How does this make sense. Thoughts?
User avatar #89 to #86 - Schwarzenegger (11/14/2012) [-]
It doesn't make sense. A human being is still a human being.
User avatar #130 to #86 - thesoulless (11/14/2012) [-]
Imagine the "baby" in the womb. When the woman becomes pregnant, if she does not want to, or can not, for whatever reason, carry the child, she can abort the baby, bearing in mind that this would most likely take place early in the pregnancy, especially if the abortion was for non-medical reasons. Most elective abortions occur during the first trimester, while the first signs of disconnected neural activity begin to appear around week 17, 4 weeks into the second trimester, and sensory response doesn't begin until about week 21, therefore most abortions occur before the foetus could be considered concious.

The point is, the woman can decide whether or not she wants to carry through with the pregnancy, and up until a certain point, whether or not the foetus is a human being, in that it is actually alive, is questionable.

If a pregnant woman is killed, for example, by a truck, and the foetus dies with her, her death would be the end of one human life, and one potential human life. If the woman had decided to keep the child, as long as the foetus was alive, and past very early development, it could possibly be considered a human being, so long as it does not die on account of some sort of biological problem. Supposing that the woman did not actually want the child, and was able to have it aborted, and was killed between becoming pregnant and having the foetus aborted, the potential could still exist, although with such a small window of opportunity, one could imagine that the probability of such an event occurring would be fairly small, although it could possibly be argued against the second charge, if there was proof that the foetus was going to be aborted anyway.
#88 to #86 - sacrilegious (11/14/2012) [-]
I've seen that, and it seems unlikely. Can you cite me that law?
#94 to #88 - badkidpetersen (11/14/2012) [-]
California's, "Fetal Murder law."
However if you disagree with me I'd enjoy to hear why. I am interested in hearing the other side of things. Coming from a biased school I never get to hear the pro choice side, so I'd like to change that.
#95 to #94 - sacrilegious (11/14/2012) [-]
I don't disagree, I was just curious if this law was a real thing.
It sounded very rumor milly.
#97 to #95 - fact (11/14/2012) [-]
Nope. I thought it was federal, actually; we have it in Iowa.
#100 to #97 - sacrilegious (11/14/2012) [-]
Yeah, I did some poking, found it in Washington.
Huh, that's interesting.
My personal belief is that fetuses should never be aborted, but embryos are a different story. I don't think they're developed enough at that stage to be considered a human being yet.
User avatar #115 to #86 - moooossseeee (11/14/2012) [-]
Coming from a Pro-choice Republican, here's my stance.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their body is literally their body. We can't tell people what is best for them, that's morally ludicrous. Also, that calls into effect the whole "when does a fetus really become a baby" loophole, which is another argument in itself.

My personal belief is that abortion shouldn't be used as a crutch to get pregnant whenever with no consequences, but should be used as a responsible way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, rather than put the baby through the hell known as the American Adoption program.
User avatar #117 to #86 - MistaJesus (11/14/2012) [-]
It makes sense because the woman most likely did not wish for her baby to be suddenly killed. But if she wishes to abort the baby, she can. It's her body. No woman purposely gets hit by a car to cause a miscarriage.
#139 to #117 - badkidpetersen (11/15/2012) [-]
I disagree. I don't think of the fetus as part of the woman's body. I consider almost to be like a parasite (not literally of course.) Just because it's in your body, doesn't make it part of your body. The baby is as much the man's as it is the woman's at that point. That's just my view anyways. (bear in mind if the baby is killing the mother I think abortion is a necessary option. or in cases of rape/incest.) That's just my opinion anyways.
User avatar #81 - fauxshores (11/14/2012) [-]
To be honest, Glenn Beck's views on a lot of things are pretty smart. I like hi a lot better than O'Reily. At least he explains his thinking.
User avatar #29 - intabutter (11/14/2012) [-]
My state is one of the ones that want to secede :(
User avatar #17 - recoveryone (11/14/2012) [-]
Texas currently has the most votes, but 40000, in a state of 25000000, is ******* nothing.
User avatar #80 to #17 - Fgner (11/14/2012) [-]
90k now.
#7 - lordhaha ONLINE (11/13/2012) [-]
#28 - Lambda (11/14/2012) [-]
I think some people tried that a while ago. Didn't it cause some war or something? Oh yeah, that's right, the ******* CIVIL WAR.
#61 - daggry (11/14/2012) [-]
it's also illegal to secede
#131 to #61 - fuckmyoldaccount (11/14/2012) [-]
If your going to secede, you really don't give a **** if its illegal, do you?
#69 to #61 - John Cena (11/14/2012) [-]
yep, that law sure did stop the south from trying didnt it?
#76 to #69 - knightdavid (11/14/2012) [-]
You do realize that law was passed AFTER the civil war right? Along with the abolishment of slavery... Dumb kids today... I swear//
User avatar #2 - profflippystix (11/13/2012) [-]
yeah still would choose living there than in any of the other 30 states. especially california, i hate liberals and tree hugers with a burning passion. seriously a gallon of gas can get you anywhere from 19miles up to 60 if its diesel. what can be better than that? electricity? we dont generate enough electricity to charge everyone in america's cars plus air conditioning, plus our various charging ports. and computers. see where im going? go ride your bike on the freeway, ill take my 'merican truck and plow your ass over you calicunt.
User avatar #3 to #2 - orangeooninja (11/13/2012) [-]
You know, that was a long rant just to hear someone bitch. All you "southern boys" talk real tough, with your guns and big trucks, but you bitch more than any ******* woman on the internet. you close minded faggots.
User avatar #16 to #3 - KayRed (11/14/2012) [-]
Make fun of Texas, and you'll really see him start to whine.
User avatar #4 to #3 - profflippystix (11/13/2012) [-]
haha closed minded? have you heard anyone from ******* california talk about politics? even seth ******* rogen sound like a retarded hellen keller. and i dont drive a car. i dont own a gun. dont know where your really going with this. but i guess all you "citycunts" are all talk until the draft happens than all of a sudden the us population with males drops 80% because you run like ******* pansies. and yes i am complaining because the last 4 years i stood idoly by while this ******** president ruins this country. im a moderate so dont call me a "stoopid fakin republicon" and have you heard people on this website? its more like the one place all the women go on while their on their periods and eat icecream.
User avatar #5 to #4 - darthtomale (11/13/2012) [-]
why argue on the internet when you could masturbate on the internet?
#11 to #4 - John Cena (11/13/2012) [-]
You two sound like 12 year olds from the old south and north bitching at each other.

"I hate da north! We fite bettur! Fuk ya trux! Ur opinen sux! Fuk ya gas!"
"I herd dat sout. so wut u hav da besest guns and hik trux. u jus lil bois. We have da besest tulerunce an citis. Fuk u sund lik wimens. We no sund lik wimins."
"Fuk ya livestock! Fuk ya ports! Fuk ya draft! Fuk citis. Fuk u hav wimens on perids in nort. We sund lik men nt ew perid wimin. Fuk opinens."

Shut the **** up and get in the corner.
User avatar #13 to #11 - profflippystix (11/14/2012) [-]
how do i get spinned into some hick? this makes no damn since. i hate people where hate is needed. you most likely hate people from 9gag but i dont call you a **** face bigot. or justin beiber but i dont call you a sexist bastard. is this site really full of hypocrites?
[ 144 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)