MFW SECESSION. I'm from South Carolina, one of the poorest states in the union, and I don't think most of the people signing these things realize that if someth merica blackjack
x

MFW SECESSION

MFW SECESSION. I'm from South Carolina, one of the poorest states in the union, and I don't think most of the people signing these things realize that if someth

I'm from South Carolina, one of the poorest states in the union, and I don't think most of the people signing these things realize that if something like this were to happen, we'd lose the whole $2 we get for every $1 in taxes we pay in the form of federal aid.

Could be neat to see where this stupid **** storm leads though.

rpm. -cc PETITIONS TO
SECEDE ROM THE UNITED ATES '11“
Will MAKE Ill“! mtm
Moms
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1584
Views: 51302
Favorited: 59
Submitted: 11/14/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to komradkthulu submit to reddit

Comments(418):

[ 418 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#258 - TomHamilton (11/15/2012) [-]
What if this is all a big viral marketing campaign for the new Lincoln movie?
User avatar #261 to #258 - bromop (11/15/2012) [-]
haha good call
#402 - silverlance (11/15/2012) [-]
Oh you guys and your secessioning...
#11 - bminous (11/15/2012) [-]
>New York and New Jersey want to secede
>Voted for Obama
#27 to #11 - anon (11/15/2012) [-]
The amusing thing is that the petition for New York to secede was made by a man from South Dakota.
#415 to #27 - bdevils (11/15/2012) [-]
are you serious? I can't take this whole thing seriously just because of that
User avatar #22 to #11 - lunchablespizza ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
remember it's not the states that want to secede, just people in the states.
#265 - arborgold (11/15/2012) [-]
CO, OR, NY, and FL all voted for Obama...
CO, OR, NY, and FL all voted for Obama...
#271 to #265 - ohnosman (11/15/2012) [-]
Michigan as well
User avatar #329 to #265 - lube (11/15/2012) [-]
fukken saved
#341 to #265 - foromil (11/15/2012) [-]
Doesn't mean they don't want to be stuck with the ones who did.
Doesn't mean they don't want to be stuck with the ones who did.
User avatar #343 to #341 - foromil (11/15/2012) [-]
Didn't*
User avatar #270 to #265 - thewambo (11/15/2012) [-]
The electoral college did the people did not
#279 to #270 - xchocolatethunderx (11/15/2012) [-]
The people vote to tell the electoral college who to vote for.
User avatar #282 to #270 - Marker (11/15/2012) [-]
More than 50% of the people in each state voted for Obama, so yes, those states did vote for him.
#272 to #265 - nunuman (11/15/2012) [-]
But theres still enough butthurt repuplicans to sign a petition.
#290 - malifauxdeux (11/15/2012) [-]
Considering which states are considering succession, I highly doubt there'd be any black jack OR hookers allowed... So sad to be an Alabamian.

#16 - ladyluna (11/15/2012) [-]
I don't  get it. Clearly enough people voted for Obama to get him re-elected. So why the 			****		 is everyone hopping on the secession boat now?
I don't get it. Clearly enough people voted for Obama to get him re-elected. So why the **** is everyone hopping on the secession boat now?
User avatar #215 to #16 - Fgner (11/15/2012) [-]
By the way, they found major evidence of voting fraud, which everyone knows has been a huge problem in a lot of modern elections.
#225 to #215 - laughindrunkdonut (11/15/2012) [-]
Voter fraud isn't a big issue; only around 2,000 cases. Also, it was exaggerated by the GOP so they could enforce voter ID laws. This was so minorities, old people, etc, would not be able to vote-- they tend to vote for Democrats.
User avatar #237 to #225 - Fgner (11/15/2012) [-]
1) Yes it is. There wasn't a single damn vote for Romney in 59 districts. That's statistically impossible.
2) What's wrong with voter IDs? Is there a problem with having to prove you are a registered and legal voter/citizen in this country to be able to vote and have an effect on the outcome of our election? I'd go farther than voter IDs, I think we should establish a political literacy test on each ballot. If you want to vote, you have to know who the Speaker of the house is, who the president is, who the vice-president is, etc. If you are to ******* stupid to know even remotely what's going on, you have no right to vote.
#323 to #237 - whtkid ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
That's a nice opinion and all, but could i see your papers before you speak?
User avatar #356 to #323 - Fgner (11/15/2012) [-]
That's not a big thing to ask for. Nobody who can't tell me the President, Vice-President, and Speaker of the House should not vote. It is NOT a God given right to vote. This does NOT violate freedom of speach.
#457 to #356 - anon (11/15/2012) [-]
Your grammar is terrible, your opinion is terrible and promotes a society where those who are at a disadvantage should keep their mouth shut, and therefore, you are terrible.
User avatar #468 to #457 - Fgner (11/15/2012) [-]
1) My grammar is terrible? Okay?
2) How is this attacking people at a disadvantage exactly? Are you saying that people who don't know who the current 3 largest people in the government are (out of a MC) should be given a say in how this country is run? Is it so much to ask that people who vote, know what the Hell they are voting for? No. It's not.
User avatar #17 to #16 - dacuban (11/15/2012) [-]
Well technically the popular vote went to Romney but our country is stupid and has an Electoral College. I think all past presidential choices (including Bush) would have been fixed if we did popular vote.
#18 to #17 - collisionofworlds (11/15/2012) [-]
No it didn't. Obama won both the electoral college and the popular vote. Obama won the popular vote by 3.5 million. Please check your facts.
User avatar #45 to #18 - Daeiros (11/15/2012) [-]
there was a brief moment before all the votes were in where romney was ahead in the popular vote but obama was ahead in the electoral.
it was brief and several states had still not been counted fully
people went ape **** and started spreading that around the moment they noticed it even though there were hours left until the official results
#19 to #17 - anon (11/15/2012) [-]
Actually Obama won the popular vote. Obama had 62610717 votes while Romney had 59136717 votes.

#37 to #17 - jakeattack (11/15/2012) [-]
no he won both votes but you are at least true in saying the electoral college is dumb we would have had al gore instead of bush.....damn
#267 to #16 - Battledogg (11/15/2012) [-]
The vote count was rigged. In one county in Ohio, Obama got 108% of the possible vote. I think other counties had insane numbers too.

http://www. sodahead . com/united-states/bho-won-wood-county-ohio108-of-vote-and-21-districts-with-100- of-votejust-an-innocent-occur/question-3313911/
#285 to #267 - anon (11/15/2012) [-]
Next time use a reliable news source.
#294 to #16 - anon (11/15/2012) [-]
Everyone isn't. The number in texas is around 50k of 26000000. That's 0.2%. That's the westboro baptist church of politics.
User avatar #30 to #16 - Skrufymunky (11/15/2012) [-]
Because it was so close that it felt 50/50. Enough people disliked Obama as a president, especially with the new taxes being placed. There were multiple businesses that were sending out emails to their employees saying that if Obama gets re-elected, they will no longer be able to afford keeping X number of people at their company.
#299 to #30 - laughindrunkdonut (11/15/2012) [-]
You say that enough people disliked Obama, but then you say people were forced to vote against Obama? Wouldn't that mean that there is actually more support for Obama than the what the popular vote showed? Also, the new taxes being place are bipartisan, but mostly being pushed by the GOP. Around 60% of Americans wanted taxes to increase, for either the rich or everyone. Also, before you call me an ideologue, know that I dislike Obama. His compromise with the Republicans is going to a do a load of harm to the middle class and below. It would actually be better if he did nothing at all, considering how the Bush tax cuts are going expire soon.
#419 - rmoran (11/15/2012) [-]
Oh boy, thousands.
That's almost as many people that go to my college but spread throughout the entire expanse of the 4th largest country in the world. What a revolution. Better get into my fallout shelter.
#232 - jebusjabarty (11/15/2012) [-]
Another Civil war WHOOO, but we still have to use muskets and cannons.
Another Civil war WHOOO, but we still have to use muskets and cannons.
#171 - givehimthemulk (11/15/2012) [-]
God people are stupid. Do they really think their state has the resources to be a successful country?
User avatar #489 to #171 - strikingeight (10/03/2013) [-]
Texas can most definitely survive on it's own and support other states as well. *cough* "The Confederacy will rise again" *cough*.
User avatar #186 to #171 - senorfrog (11/15/2012) [-]
Some people think because the state is doing good that they can be a country, or that they have many airforce/army bases that they have an army. The bases would pack up and leave if a state seceded and that state would be on U.S.A.'s **** list.
User avatar #245 to #171 - glasgowrangers (11/15/2012) [-]
Texas would be the world's 15th biggest economy
User avatar #220 to #171 - Fgner (11/15/2012) [-]
If all those countries in the South seceded, and became a union, they could easily maintain their own, and prosper. Also, Texas alone has all the resources to live on it's own. And when they were admitted to the U.S. it was on the condition they could maintain their own navy (which they use for border patrol now) and that they could peacefully sucede at any time.
User avatar #417 to #220 - bdevils (11/15/2012) [-]
after the civil war, they gave up the right to secede at any time.
User avatar #471 to #417 - Fgner (11/15/2012) [-]
Really? How sad.
User avatar #325 to #220 - whtkid ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
No.... no they couldn't. Hell, North America couldn't sustain itself as a whole. We need trading with other countries.
User avatar #353 to #325 - Fgner (11/15/2012) [-]
Yes it can. We choose not too. Also, needs for imports do not classify a country as non-self-sufficient.
User avatar #436 to #353 - whtkid ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
No, it cannot. The united states has a very large lack of natural resources, and has to trade for most of the goods it receives. If the south split of, then we would be placing large tariffs on each other and competing more and more for the remaining resources.
User avatar #470 to #436 - Fgner (11/15/2012) [-]
And if you want to talk about successful countries without virtually any natural resources, look at Japan. They are a processing country. They import raw materials, and export the completed products.
User avatar #469 to #436 - Fgner (11/15/2012) [-]
Do you know what you are talking about? The United States has more oil than the rest of the world, the United States has ample amounts of raw material, we export large amounts of agriculture products (because we have so much farmland), and we are entirely capable of industrialization. We make up almost an entire continent, and one of the most fertile continents to boot, do you not realize that? The South contains the majority of these resources, as well. The only reason we don't take advantage of them, is because of stupid ******* politics. And if the South seceded, tariffs wouldn't be placed because they have been proven to damage the economy of those enforcing the tariff quite a bit.
User avatar #481 to #469 - anonymouslive (11/15/2012) [-]
Just saying, the US does not make up 'Almost an entire continent', let alone even half of the continent. Also, I don't believe the US has more oil than the rest of the world. Seeing as that would be damn near impossible for 51% of the planets oil reserves to be within US borders.
No offence, but you should try to not exaggerate your 'facts'.
User avatar #482 to #481 - Fgner (11/16/2012) [-]
1)
North America: 9.54 million square miles
United States: 3.79 million square miles
Sorry, I've never bothered wasting my time doing the math, but I was making a general assumption. I underestimated the size of Canada greatly.
Source: Wiki
2) "A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimate that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves.""(abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852#.UKXJytHpvNA)
I'm sorry, but maybe you should bother clicking the first link on Google before you go spouting your mouth off.

Also, nice job ignoring everything else, and simply attacking the one thing I got wrong because of a simply misunderstanding of Canada's size, and another thing which was completely right and has been known for years.
User avatar #483 to #482 - anonymouslive (11/16/2012) [-]
I was not be disrespectful, so I don't see why you had to be. Second, it is an 'estimated' amount of oil. And estimations aren't always right. But, say that there is that much oil there, how do you know there isn't another huge oil deposit like that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that article saying that it would amount to more than the current oil reserves?
I never used the word current, I simply said 'Seeing as that would be damn near impossible for 51% of the planets oil reserves to be within US borders'. Now, thinking about the size of the rest of the world compared to the US, would it not make sense 'statistically' that there could not be that much oil there?
Again, your fact only takes into account known oil amounts. There is probably still a TON of oil elsewhere in the world, such as under sea, but it hasn't been discovered yet.
Now, I was not commenting on your post to attack or berate you, but to just correct the facts you had stated prior. You don't you have to get all bent out about it.
#183 to #171 - Battledogg (11/15/2012) [-]
Several of them in fact do. Texas as a prime example.
User avatar #196 to #183 - givehimthemulk (11/15/2012) [-]
But a lot of the states that think they have the resources get huge government subsidies to afford to use them (oil, obviously, but even agriculture). Leave the US, lose the money to afford the resources. Not to mention all the national military personnel and equipment.
#202 to #196 - Battledogg (11/15/2012) [-]
Implying citizens in especially those lower states couldnt throw up a hell of a defense protecting their homes. Short of Airstrikes, which I think the US would not allow as they would be so close to their own border.

Pretty sure several of the states, could be self sufficient. Note most probably could not, but some of them might be able to be. Others might be able to get enough from tourism or other factors as well as their own agriculture.

And money. That will depend on how the secession happens, if they say **** your debt or agree to pay a share of it. Its beyond my knowledge level to comment any further on this part
#273 to #202 - intrepidy (11/15/2012) [-]
Americans would never fire on Americans in that situation. Its different to the civil war now, people have a national identity as opposed to a state identity.
#275 to #273 - Battledogg (11/15/2012) [-]
I meant other countries invading. If some states do secede, which the US kinda has to allow if it does happen, there would be no point then for them to war the new 'country'.

If the US wanted to start bombing and **** , I doubt any citizenry militia would last long.
#291 to #275 - intrepidy (11/15/2012) [-]
No country would invade Texas, no country has any remote interest or navy specialized in amphibious invasions. Texas has nothing worth having (it will run out of oil soon)

US doesn't have to allow anything. Worst comes to the worst, the US would have a vote in Texas for the whole population to vote on Independence, which most likely would end up with an autonomous Texas. (But not sovereign.) War would only happen if Texas decided to seize all the US military hardware and infrastructure and refuse to pay their national share of the debt. Which even then, would be as quick as it took the US to move across the border. (If texas was on the verge of leaving, we can assume the US would place military forces on the state border)
User avatar #191 to #183 - senorfrog (11/15/2012) [-]
Texas doesn't, we have some resources, but no army, we would lose are "no debt" law to build one and maintain the "country" but would die out fast.
#199 to #191 - Battledogg (11/15/2012) [-]
Pretty sure I saw somewhere they were saying Texas could thrive, given they were not invaded. And truth be told, I doubt anyone from across the sea would, cause it would make the USA thats left nervous, having enemies so close.
#207 to #171 - Spikeydeath (11/15/2012) [-]
if oklahoma were to leave we have oil, farm animals, and grain
not to forget we also have grain
but we are not even going to try because we may be dumbasses but we are not that big of ones
#247 - Milos (11/15/2012) [-]
<---OP's face while looking at comments.
<---OP's face while looking at comments.
#86 - fabbethefirst (11/15/2012) [-]
Well last time someone wanted to try this it went splendid...right???
#253 to #86 - glasgowrangers (11/15/2012) [-]
But the time before that it worked out very well
#93 to #86 - newsmyrna (11/15/2012) [-]
Indeed very splendid.
User avatar #23 - motorbowden (11/15/2012) [-]
All you need is Nevada to secede and you'll have all the blackjack and hookers you want...or at least just take Las Vegas
#31 to #23 - hanabro (11/15/2012) [-]
But if Las Vegas seceded, what would we call it?

User avatar #35 to #31 - kornonthecob (11/15/2012) [-]
lost vegas
#309 - certifiedidiot (11/15/2012) [-]
What pathetic form of fairy tale have these people pulled over their eyes?

''Oh we lost a fair battle let's be the worst losers since ******* ever''

How was it even a democratic election if this is the result afterwards, we don't allow younglings to vote but we let these delusional baboons vote is beyond me

If the states marked did go through with their secession and then joined bands afterwards, it'd be laughed at for many generations to come as the epitome of idiotcy

Get your **** together US
#414 - Zombehblob (11/15/2012) [-]
Secede from the U.S. it will work trust me
User avatar #365 - jalthelas (11/15/2012) [-]
"Waaah Womney didn't get elected. We're running away! Stupid U.S.!"

Who the **** acts like that just because their vote didn't win?

******* childish.
User avatar #367 to #365 - blaxfire (11/15/2012) [-]
v The post below says it all.
User avatar #369 to #367 - jalthelas (11/15/2012) [-]
Yeah, I read it haha
#335 - jjholt ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
I'm from Florida and this is the first time I've heard about this.
I'm from Florida and this is the first time I've heard about this.


#161 - thearcher (11/15/2012) [-]
Finally, some sense
User avatar #121 - thadin (11/15/2012) [-]
While the states are in turmoil, and locked in a civil war, one power shall arise above the rest.
Canada shall swoop down like birds of prey, attacking an injured animal.
No longer shall we be a hat. America will be our pants, and we shall NOT apologize.

Please don't take this seriously.
User avatar #138 to #121 - VikingSharkPANCH (11/15/2012) [-]
I'm just gonna say this now. Canada wouldn't ever be able to take down a Country/State like Texas. Almost every citizen is armed, and damn proud of where they live. Tell them they are all about to be considered Canucks, and watch the **** storm when Canadians move in on the territory.
User avatar #151 to #138 - thadin (11/15/2012) [-]
Lets ignore your idiotic comment about how you think a state could take on a whole country, because put simply, that's pants-on-head retarded. A bunch of rednecks with shotguns against a trained millitary.

To the next point, I was making a joke and you took it seriously. **** off.

Final point, Texas would most likely be anally destroyed by the other states they're going against, otherwise known as, the smart part of USA that ISNT trying to break away from it.
#228 to #151 - komradkthulu (11/15/2012) [-]
To be fair, he has a point because Canada has a population that is 1/10 of ours, they simply can't be a large military power.

Also, 1 out of every 15 military servicemen are Texan, so I wouldn't say that Texas would get its ass whooped right off the bat.

Secession is still a stupid idea.
User avatar #165 to #151 - VikingSharkPANCH (11/15/2012) [-]
Yea its not like they don't have 3 major Forts, one of which is the main Army Medical Fort, nor Corpus Christi, the Navy Training site. Not to mention all the gun loves who shoot tactically, which is why Texas is home to the largest tactical shooting establishment for civilians, known as Thunder Ranch. They aren't rednecks with shotguns, they are armed civilians. You underestimate Texas a great deal.
User avatar #166 to #165 - thadin (11/15/2012) [-]
You seem to think it could take on a whole ******* country.
Pants-on-head retarded.
"Underestimate texas"
You're the one whos got their 'murica beer goggles on, believing that Canada has no millitary power.
#132 to #121 - caplocker (11/15/2012) [-]
I just took this serious!
#177 to #121 - basilbrush (11/15/2012) [-]
I just took this cereal!
#180 to #177 - thadin (11/15/2012) [-]
I've poisoned the cereal.
#440 to #180 - hewhoepicfails (11/15/2012) [-]
My cereal!

Jokes on you, I'm emo!
User avatar #431 - MaxFabian (11/15/2012) [-]
Jeez, i guess they REALLY don't like Puerto Rico.
#423 - exarzero (11/15/2012) [-]
The place with the most secede votes is my home Texas...

Pisses me off honestly. People are calling for some pretty rash and ****** up **** , and I am just wondering how the **** a hundred thousand or so people can ever speak for the millions here. "The south will rise again" ******** tempted me to clean up the AR under my bed to be ready to go Hick on these Hicks.

Pic somewhat related (My home)
[ 418 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)