Will the People of Catalonia Have Their Say on Secession?

[Henry]

I'm not making the argument that Kurdistan is vile. It was the argument of the Ba'ath Party.

I happen to believe the people of Kurdistan have the right to govern themselves if they so choose.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

I'm so wound up in my own tiny life I'm not familiar with the vileness of (the leaders of) Catalonians, nor why that invalidates their right to decide that the execution of the constitution of Spain has been invalidated by some action of Spain's government, any more than I can understand why, for example, the state of Indiana can't decide that the execution of the contract under the US constitution has been invalidated by the action of the federal government. Did we seriously consent to any conceivable (or inconceivable) action of the federal .gov without the option of calling foul? I kinda have a problem with that, especially when it's them what has the authority to determine that.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Of course the Spanish court says no, but Spain stands to lose tax base. Why don't the Catalonians get to have a say? They have their own language and everything. Sure, they'd be a wee little state, but not as wee as Andorra or Luxembourg, plus they have coastline, so they'd be rockin it. What if they just declare their independence, does Spain invade and occupy them? Might be worth finding out. Would the US occupy Indiana if we decided they'd broken the contract and told them to f-off? A lot of us might take exception to that. Why do you hate liberty?

Now apply this to the Southern US....

 

[poptab]

Id post a popcorn meme but I'm too lazy

 

[Henry]

Now apply this to the Southern US....

I hope Mariano Rajoy is not vile enough to rape, plunder, and kill the folks of Catalonia in order to save the union, but you never know.

It could be an excellent opportunity for him to establish his legacy as the best Presidente del Gobierno ever...perhaps even deified by future generations of Spaniards!

 

[rambone]

People have the inherent right to self-govern, and therefore secede. Yes, even if they are corrupt, morally and politically.

 

[88GT]

What else would you call Pujol other than a con man?

Griftio de la Grifta del Griftiando?

Nor am I surprised that you would offer a straw man in response.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Nor am I surprised that you would offer a straw man in response.

My head. Ok, what would you call the con man Pujol?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[88GT]

My head. Ok, what would you call the con man Pujol?

You do understand this isn't about Pujol, don't you? Of course you do.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You do understand this isn't about Pujol, don't you? Of course you do.

1. Wookie set imposes their worldview onto other people.

2. I correct and educate them.

3. This is about me because I was mean to Wookies.

 

[poptab]

1. Kirk thinks that when libertarians ask questions it somehow imposes thier worldview on others.

2. Kirk likes to pick fights

3. Everything is apparently about Kirk.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Your side imposed your lunatic arguments about nullification and secession . . . in a completely different nation.

I seek the truth and will point out when something is not right. Libertarians hate this because so much of their argument is utter bunk.

Nothing is about me, but it is about the truth.

Catalonia secession was about corrupt politicians attempting to deflect from the scandals Pujol created. INGO attempted to import their own moonbat ideas into an incorrect context.

 

[Henry]

People have the inherent right to self-govern, and therefore secede. Yes, even if they are corrupt, morally and politically.

Indeed.

 

[wadcutter]

Your side imposed your lunatic arguments about nullification and secession

Are you the same Kirk Freeman from Glocktalk who said:

"KSFreeman

05-24-2007, 14:18

Cameras at traffic signal lights is how the UK became the Orwellian state it is now. Have you seen the flying cameras they have now?

I find the cameras truly terrifying, something out of a dystopian novel or video game. Give the government the nose of the camel and it will be on top of you in no time. I'd rather shoot the camel than let it crush me.

If I were on a jury and someone was accused of vandalism to a camera, I would not hesitate in voting not guilty. Truly a noble use of jury nullification.

I believe a statutory prohibition, coupled with criminal penalties if the police use them, is the correct remedy."

Those words on nullification were inspiring. I hope you were the author. Your recent words on the subject, however, are terrifying.

Now, Mr. Freeman, I only lurk here to stay current on gun-related politics, but your recent actions simply call out for a response.

Here's a definition for you to review:

Main/Derailing - Television Tropes & Idioms

"Derailing
Derailing tends to happen on Fora and Blogs the most, but it's generally something that can happen anywhere there is a discussion of any sort. It is simply the unwanted and forced change of a subject to one that the derailer wishes to discuss, or one with which the derailer wishes to start a Flame War or a flare of Internet Backdraft in hopes of getting the original topic forgotten. Derailing differs from simple Trolling in that where the troll wants to start a fight or cause damage, consequences be damned, the consequence of the topic being changed is the goal of someone engaged in derailing. This often can make methods of combating trolls (such as the application of whole thread locking and deletion or the banning of trolls and others behaving badly) worthless at best and in some cases extremely counterproductive in an attempt to deal with a derailing attempt."

I call your attention to this definition, because you regularly engage in the practice, and your conduct in the Tom Woods' thread, particularly, was the very example of derailing. You derailed that thread from its primary focus by pretending to make an issue with a bit of dictum that, as another poster informed you, accounted for one tenth of one percent of the entire talk. I and others who remain outside this forum lost an ability to read a discussion of Mr. Woods' arguments from a gun-rights perspective.

Moreover, you relentlessly insult an entire political ideology that, frankly, is pretty darn good on gun rights. Despite your incessant insults and trolling, you're free to come and go in the forum and say whatever you want, while a parade of other posters with interesting contributions get shown the door.

I won't post again on this topic, as those who criticize you seem to end up thrown off the site. Those few critics who do remain seem to reluctant to respond to you in the same manner in which you taunt them.

Speaking as an outside observer, the quality of your writing stands as proof that you do not benefit from having no opposite. You may think you're scoring points, but it's clear that you're fighting people who cannot fight back, or may not even be allowed in the room. Your recent evasiveness on natural rights was embarrassing. You actually attempted to have the forum cut off all discussion of a secular humanistic source of individual contract by claiming secular humanism was religious. Now, that's spin. I came very close to saying something at that point.

By letting your true feelings run wild and unopposed, you're giving the world a frightening picture of gun ownership. After reading so many of your posts, it seems that your primary political goal is not to protect and enhance gun rights, but to ensure that an omnipotent government be strengthened and unchallenged.

In case you haven't noticed, really big totalitarian governments aren't popular, anymore. If the gun lobby is really just a trojan horse for big government and big social control, this movement will stall; the passion will be drained from it, and former allies will become indifferent or switch sides.

And try not to insult the folks in porkpie hats. If they don't develop the desire to want ammunition from Wal-Mart, this movement is dead in 20 years.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

 

[Henry]

Are you the same Kirk Freeman from Glocktalk who said:

"KSFreeman

05-24-2007, 14:18

Cameras at traffic signal lights is how the UK became the Orwellian state it is now. Have you seen the flying cameras they have now?

I find the cameras truly terrifying, something out of a dystopian novel or video game. Give the government the nose of the camel and it will be on top of you in no time. I'd rather shoot the camel than let it crush me.

If I were on a jury and someone was accused of vandalism to a camera, I would not hesitate in voting not guilty. Truly a noble use of jury nullification.

I believe a statutory prohibition, coupled with criminal penalties if the police use them, is the correct remedy."

Those words on nullification were inspiring. I hope you were the author. Your recent words on the subject, however, are terrifying.

Now, Mr. Freeman, I only lurk here to stay current on gun-related politics, but your recent actions simply call out for a response.

Here's a definition for you to review:

Main/Derailing - Television Tropes & Idioms

"Derailing
Derailing tends to happen on Fora and Blogs the most, but it's generally something that can happen anywhere there is a discussion of any sort. It is simply the unwanted and forced change of a subject to one that the derailer wishes to discuss, or one with which the derailer wishes to start a Flame War or a flare of Internet Backdraft in hopes of getting the original topic forgotten. Derailing differs from simple Trolling in that where the troll wants to start a fight or cause damage, consequences be damned, the consequence of the topic being changed is the goal of someone engaged in derailing. This often can make methods of combating trolls (such as the application of whole thread locking and deletion or the banning of trolls and others behaving badly) worthless at best and in some cases extremely counterproductive in an attempt to deal with a derailing attempt."

I call your attention to this definition, because you regularly engage in the practice, and your conduct in the Tom Woods' thread, particularly, was the very example of derailing. You derailed that thread from its primary focus by pretending to make an issue with a bit of dictum that, as another poster informed you, accounted for one tenth of one percent of the entire talk. I and others who remain outside this forum lost an ability to read a discussion of Mr. Woods' arguments from a gun-rights perspective.

Moreover, you relentlessly insult an entire political ideology that, frankly, is pretty darn good on gun rights. Despite your incessant insults and trolling, you're free to come and go in the forum and say whatever you want, while a parade of other posters with interesting contributions get shown the door.

I won't post again on this topic, as those who criticize you seem to end up thrown off the site. Those few critics who do remain seem to reluctant to respond to you in the same manner in which you taunt them.

Speaking as an outside observer, the quality of your writing stands as proof that you do not benefit from having no opposite. You may think you're scoring points, but it's clear that you're fighting people who cannot fight back, or may not even be allowed in the room. Your recent evasiveness on natural rights was embarrassing. You actually attempted to have the forum cut off all discussion of a secular humanistic source of individual contract by claiming secular humanism was religious. Now, that's spin. I came very close to saying something at that point.

By letting your true feelings run wild and unopposed, you're giving the world a frightening picture of gun ownership. After reading so many of your posts, it seems that your primary political goal is not to protect and enhance gun rights, but to ensure that an omnipotent government be strengthened and unchallenged.

In case you haven't noticed, really big totalitarian governments aren't popular, anymore. If the gun lobby is really just a trojan horse for big government and big social control, this movement will stall; the passion will be drained from it, and former allies will become indifferent or switch sides.

And try not to insult the folks in porkpie hats. If they don't develop the desire to want ammunition from Wal-Mart, this movement is dead in 20 years.

That must be a different kirk freeman. This one is a smart lawyer.....like Lincoln!

 

[CathyInBlue]

Hey! You! Get out of my popcorn!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Now, Mr. Freeman, I only lurk here to stay current on gun-related politics, but your recent actions simply call out for a response.

To say jury nullification is the same as state nullification is nonsense.

Jury nullification has a long history and is explicitly in the constitution of the state of Indiana (and note we now have state statutory prohibitions of drones). State nullification was concocted out of thin air and is a specious argument.

I and others who remain outside this forum lost an ability to read a discussion of Mr. Woods' arguments from a gun-rights perspective.

I pointed out an error which undermines the rest of the discussion. You don't like that. I understand.

Moreover, you relentlessly insult an entire political ideology that, frankly, is pretty darn good on gun rights. Despite your incessant insults and trolling, you're free to come and go in the forum and say whatever you want, while a parade of other posters with interesting contributions get shown the door.

I fail to see where asking questions violates forum rules. If asking questions does, then I can stand the correction.

I ask questions.

By letting your true feelings run wild and unopposed, you're giving the world a frightening picture of gun ownership. After reading so many of your posts, it seems that your primary political goal is not to protect and enhance gun rights, but to ensure that an omnipotent government be strengthened and unchallenged.

By asking questions I shake people's confidence in an ideology that they have not examined and make it stronger.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

I look at myself as having a contract with "the state" embodied in its constitution. I pledge allegiance to the flag and all, but only as much as it follows that. If "the state" breaks that contract, I don't consider myself a traitor to it if I work against it. My pledge is to protect the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. There are foreign enemies, to be certain, but plenty of domestic ones as well. To say that fatal disagreement with the current regime represents treason is to invalidate our own Revolutionary War. I respect the revolution and its goals, but I realize that means I have to respect the idea of another, should it be necessary. That day draws near, not that I look forward to it.