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....
Nor am I surprised that you would offer a straw man in response.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.
You do understand this isn't about Pujol, don't you? Of course you do.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.
People have the inherent right to self-govern, and therefore secede. Yes, even if they are corrupt, morally and politically.
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.
Hey! You! Get out of my popcorn!
Now, Mr. Freeman, I only lurk here to stay current on gun-related politics, but your recent actions simply call out for a response.
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.
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.