How does one respond to this post on secessionSubmitted by HeatForce on Tue, 11/20/2012 - 18:09
And the post:
nic on November 20 at 9:15 a.m.
"False equivalency. During the American Revolution, we didn’t secede like a state today would secede from the Union.
Back then, we weren’t states a part of the Kingdom of Great Britain. We were colonies. Today, we are states a part of the United States of America.
Back then, we had not parliamentary input. We didn’t have any elected representatives representing us within the British government. Today, we have elected congress representing us in the Senate and the House of Representatives. This group is made up of citizens from each of the 50 states. Including Texas. Ron Paul should know better - he served there off and on since 1976. Just because he has less than 0.3% in having bills he sponsored become law doesn’t mean that his state wasn’t represented.
A population within a state wanting to form their own nation separate from the USA is not the same thing and what we did during the American Revolution. Now, if he was trying to build an argument in favor of allowing American Samoa, Puerto Rico, The US Virgin Islands, or Guam to secede - then he’d have a valid point."
The dbag the proceeds to call Ron a kook but I'm not familiar enough with secession to respond myself.
edit: here is another link to another bogus article: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ron-paul-secession-147...