PDA

View Full Version : Texas,Really? I ponder what Texus will do next?



anunitu
12 May 2016, 08:08
Really,Texas..

Texas Secession Movement 2016: Lone Star State Republicans Vote To Leave The United States

Story here. (http://www.ibtimes.com/texas-secession-movement-2016-lone-star-state-republicans-vote-leave-united-states-2368036)

Think on this Texas,if the Mexicans decide to annex what once was theirs,you would not have Uncle Sam to call on to stop it. It is good to be part of a large country..

DanieMarie
12 May 2016, 08:45
I dunno. I think that if I lived in the US, I'd want Texas to leave. They're a big and really powerful state full of conservatives, and they have a huge amount of influence on things like educational curriculum. They're sort of like Bayern is here. I'd also support Bayern's "leave" campaign if it gained any steam.

MaskedOne
12 May 2016, 09:06
Didn't we have this debate once already? I seem to recall a minor fracas in the 1860s when a number of states tried secceding to guarantee their ability to abuse and enslave...

Maybe my memory is failing....

Hawkfeathers
12 May 2016, 09:12
They're like the lone Japanese soldier hiding out in the woods who thinks WW2 is still going on.

anunitu
12 May 2016, 09:58
Not really a chance of this going the distance.

But though some Texas Republicans may want to go it alone as a country, it’s not clear other Texans are clamoring for independence. A poll taken soon after Perry’s comments showed that 75 percent of Texas residents wanted to stay in the U.S. Thirty-one percent thought their state had the right to leave, but just 18 percent said they’d vote in favor of a secession, according to the Huffington Post.

ThePaganMafia
12 May 2016, 16:28
State's rights!

DragonsFriend
13 May 2016, 04:47
Is it that people don't read the constitution or is it that people just think it no longer applies?

DavidMcCann
13 May 2016, 08:44
Before Texas was admitted to the USA, they actually tried to join the British Empire as a self-governing dominion. Imagine how that would have worked out! They were turned down because the British government felt that there was nothing in Texas worth shouldering the burden of protecting Texas against the Mexicans and the inevitable row with the USA.

kalynraye
13 May 2016, 09:10
Just ignore that article. There are a group of good ole boys who talk about annexing from the USA all the time. I have heard talk since I was a little girl. This is nothing new. Also Texas can't annex themselves. See we lost that privilege during this thing called The Civil War. These lovely gentlemen are a club of red neck men.. remind me of someone I see on a regular basis.. anyway we lasted nine years as our own country known as the Republic of Texas which I think contributes to our Texas pride. It is ingrained in us. There is no better place then Texas. No state more beautiful no state more "free". No we aren't perfect but we sure are damn proud of most of what our state has done. Sam Houston is the reason we joined the USA he worked tirelessly to see that we became a state because though we lasted nine years they were a hard nine years and he understood we would not continue to last as an independent country.

This crap pisses me off though because its idiots like this who give my state a bad name. We have lots of wonderful and beautiful things in Texas, we have some really great people who work really had and bust their ass, and those idiots up there give us ALL a bad name. Because do you think anyone remembers the good ones? No its the crack pots that they plaster all over the news they we remember. We are almost considered as bad as Florida.. no offense Florida.

- - - Updated - - -


I dunno. I think that if I lived in the US, I'd want Texas to leave. They're a big and really powerful state full of conservatives, and they have a huge amount of influence on things like educational curriculum. They're sort of like Bayern is here. I'd also support Bayern's "leave" campaign if it gained any steam.

We also aren't all conservatives in Texas, we do have pockets of liberals, and no you wouldn't want us to leave. I don't think we could hold ourselves indefinitely but we would die trying. Imagine another power country who does have all the nuclear war fare at their disposal invading and taking over Texas. Do you know how big Texas is compared to the rest of the USA. Do you want some other country right at its back door? No you don't, yes we have crazies but we aren't all crazies.

DragonsFriend
14 May 2016, 06:03
Each State has the right to secede from the union. That right was recognized in the founding of the united States and listed in the constitution as a protected right by the 10th amendment. Whether it is practical or doable for a single state is the real question. The war between the states only proved that Lincoln could violate the constitution and almost get away with it.

Medusa
14 May 2016, 10:25
Texas wants out (again)?
Bye Felicia!



10 minutes after secession oh dios mios, we got sucked up by Mexico! Viva the new Mexican state.
Come on.

Denarius
14 May 2016, 13:22
Would we have to build another wall?

Tylluan Penry
14 May 2016, 13:55
You could make an Offa.
Build a dyke... ;)

thalassa
14 May 2016, 14:19
I love it when people talk about what they think the Constitution says without any evidence of such, and with total disregard for decisions the branch of government created in the Constitution for the expressed purpose of interpreting it have made in the commission of their duties. It's especially delightful when fundamentalist regard for such a document is undertaken with complete disregard to its historical context and the intentions of its authors.

Hawkfeathers
14 May 2016, 15:00
Would we have to build another wall?

Let them secede and then they can pay for the wall!

anunitu
14 May 2016, 15:52
Yes,yes.....rubbing hands together, excellent!!
http://images-cdn.moviepilot.com/images/c_scale,h_438,w_438/t_mp_quality/gmfsrnxfn7ua31qdza6z/stop-panicking-mr-burns-is-not-leaving-the-simpsons-excellent-495170.jpg

Norse_Angel
14 May 2016, 19:22
Isn't it a conservative ideology that "If you don't like it, you can Gert out of 'my' country!"

Denarius
14 May 2016, 19:51
Isn't it a conservative ideology that "If you don't like it, you can Gert out of 'my' country!"

Googled that exact quote, and the first and only result is someone arguing for same sex marriage.

Also, if it is, then that's practicing what they preach.

anunitu
14 May 2016, 21:58
I just really came to the thought that Mr. Burns looks a lot like a certain political figure..Oh MY!1

thalassa
15 May 2016, 06:52
Isn't it a conservative ideology that "If you don't like it, you can Gert out of 'my' country!"

It's fanatical demagoguerous ideology, whether it's liberal or conservative. Though I generally have heard such idiocy from the Connie nutjobs, it is a banner the has lately been taken up and spat back to Conservatives by the more zealous progressive types. And, TBH, I can't blame them...one extremism breeds another. When you have systematically oppressed, harassed, suppressed, discriminated against, and take advantage of groups of people, eventually those groups learn to use your own tactics...since it's apparently the only thing they understand. Of course, then they get all whiney about because they can't handle that they ate actually being held to the same standards and rights, instead of being afforded special privileges.

Hawkfeathers
15 May 2016, 07:23
fanatical demagoguerous ideology

Them thar's too many sillabulls. You mus' be one a them book lernt folks. Don't need that in 'Murica!! Guns n Bibles, yup. Freeeeeedumb!!!!!

(I have actually heard real people say these things.)

DragonsFriend
15 May 2016, 10:20
Can you point out where the supreme court is given authority over the rights and freedoms of individuals?
To help here is the third article that provides powers to the judicial branch:

Article III.

Sect. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one
supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time
to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and
inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall,
at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation which shall not
be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Sect. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases
affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls;-to all Cases
of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the
United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more
States, between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of
different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, and between a State or the Citizens thereof,
and foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;
and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have
been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be
at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Sect. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no
Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except
during the Life of the Person attained.

You will notice that it is not given the power to decide the rights of people at all. The reason for this is that the rights of the people extend from deity and government has no power to affect them. That the Supreme court has overstepped its constitutional limits is clear but unconstitutional acts by the government is not law.

anunitu
15 May 2016, 11:41
I do not see what your point is here,if something is NOT,that does not imply that it's absence creates something else.

thalassa
15 May 2016, 12:12
I do not see what your point is here,if something is NOT,that does not imply that it's absence creates something else.




The Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial authority to decide what is and is not legal when a law is legislated and individuals or states take umbrage through the legal system (among other things). It says so in the very thing he posted.

anunitu
15 May 2016, 12:25
It is this line that made me ask that question.

"You will notice that it is not given the power to decide the rights of people at all. The reason for this is that the rights of the people extend from deity and government has no power to affect them. That the Supreme court has overstepped its constitutional limits is clear but unconstitutional acts by the government is not law.

It seems he says the supreme court does not have power over a deity..and that confused me no end. Seems to imply this country does not have separation of church and state.

- - - Updated - - -

also the line "fanatical demagoguerous ideology" made my head rattle a little,but I liked it:rolleyes:

thalassa
16 May 2016, 08:37
It is this line that made me ask that question.

"You will notice that it is not given the power to decide the rights of people at all. The reason for this is that the rights of the people extend from deity and government has no power to affect them. That the Supreme court has overstepped its constitutional limits is clear but unconstitutional acts by the government is not law.

It seems he says the supreme court does not have power over a deity..and that confused me no end. Seems to imply this country does not have separation of church and state.

- - - Updated - - -

also the line "fanatical demagoguerous ideology" made my head rattle a little,but I liked it:rolleyes:There's no such thing as "natural" rights--nothing, not nature, not God, not some other deity, has granted any "right" other than that of 1. Existence and 2. Death (probably as food). So basically, there's effectively no such thing as a natural "right".

What we have are rights we have determined as a society, via governments, struggle, consensus, disagreement, etc, are rights that are conferred upon ourselves by the virtue of being human and that are guaranteed though legislation and the enforcement of legislation and the appeal and repeal of legislation as times (and perceived "rights") change.

DragonsFriend
17 May 2016, 08:32
Thalassa stated: There's no such thing as "natural" rights--nothing, not nature, not God, not some other deity, has granted any "right" other than that of 1. Existence and 2. Death (probably as food).

Really? Every animal and most plants on the planet have the means to defend themselves against their predators. Be it poison, chemical, tooth, claw, speed, flight or thought process. Even Oak trees have a chemical defense against the bugs that can attack and kill it. The oak tree, along with other trees can even communicate to other trees to begin to generate the chemical once the first is attacked. The right of self defense is inferred from nature. The right to property is also inferred from nature. Many animals including most primates and extending to the corals on reefs fight and kill over territory upon which to live. Animals exercise defense against animals that are to "personal" or investigate too closely to themselves which infers the freedom from search - you have undoubtedly seen dogs, bears and others become aggressive toward another sniffing too close. We exercise the same behavior over our persons and property - freedom from search and seizure.

Nature is the source of our rights because they exist throughout nature.

Medusa
17 May 2016, 09:28
Being able to kill my predators with my poison tongue isn't a 'right'.
(I'm speaking if I were a toad).
Nature don't care.
Nature ain't got time for that.
Things get born and things last if they can get their shit together.
Nature ain't having some 'beings' council every Thursday in the senate.

thalassa
17 May 2016, 13:50
That's not a right , that's an adaptation created by evolutionary processes.

Nature is distinctly amoral, which is why there is no such thing as a right in nature. Religions ascribe morality, but deities themselves are also amoral because they operate outside of human concepts of morality.

Individuals of other species might have ideas of right and wrong behaviors within their species, might have preferences for behavior, etc., but that isn't the same. What is "moral" drives "rights", no both morals and rights are purely human constructs.

anunitu
17 May 2016, 14:04
Nah,it is just Duces natural satanic power....forked tongue anyone?

- - - Updated - - -

It was just a simple story of some nut jobs down yonder in Texas,and it turns into a whole "Thing". Go argue with Mr. Trump,or Glenn Beck,or Rush Limbaugh or even that Cruz guy...

B. de Corbin
17 May 2016, 15:23
Really? Every animal and most plants on the planet have the means to defend themselves against their predators. Be it poison, chemical, tooth, claw, speed, flight or thought process. Even Oak trees have a chemical defense against the bugs that can attack and kill it. The oak tree, along with other trees can even communicate to other trees to begin to generate the chemical once the first is attacked. The right of self defense is inferred from nature. The right to property is also inferred from nature. Many animals including most primates and extending to the corals on reefs fight and kill over territory upon which to live. Animals exercise defense against animals that are to "personal" or investigate too closely to themselves which infers the freedom from search - you have undoubtedly seen dogs, bears and others become aggressive toward another sniffing too close. We exercise the same behavior over our persons and property - freedom from search and seizure.

Nature is the source of our rights because they exist throughout nature.

That's a way to say it, but I think a more correct way of stating the same idea would be that we create and value certain things we call "rights" because of the our evolutionary history - which we share with other inhabitants of the earth, and so see similar behaviors.

Doc_Holliday
17 May 2016, 19:27
I support any large culturally identifiable group within a larger nation having the right to secede if a vast majority of that group votes it in, that's democracy at work. I don't think Mexico would annex Texas by the way. 1. I have an odd feeling they'd lose or stalemate, the amount of texans that have guns and would resist an invasion, it's scary. 2. The UN and NATO are things. But yeah I say go for it, it's up to them.

Denarius
17 May 2016, 20:08
I've been looking into Texas' viability as an independent nation, and it's pretty fair. On par with most industrial nations, even accounting for the massive losses they'd take in the process.

This article even goes so far as to suggest it'd be a very successful and influential nation at that (http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2012/11/14/what-an-independent-texas-would-look-like/#7a9462456781). One that has the capability and infrastructure to be a nuclear power.

I also came across another article that was very interesting, if only tangentially related, about america's growth over the next decade broken down by region. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/09/04/a-map-of-americas-future-where-growth-will-be-over-the-next-decade/#5eb40c5f7ae7)

Edit: Both from a few years ago.

Medusa
17 May 2016, 20:24
You know what would be great? If Texas did break apart and no longer be a part of the USA. Then when they wanted to I dunno, cross on over to New Mexico to pick up some good chili rojo, they would first have to get a passport to enter the USA. And the USA would be like nah.....It's the wall for you. Illegal immigrants not allowed.

I would die.
Like right there.
D.E.A.D.

Denarius
17 May 2016, 20:33
Tourism is not the same as immigration though.

If you said something like "Texan workers can't get a visa because our immigration system doesn't work" then I'd be with you.

Medusa
17 May 2016, 20:49
Tourism is not the same as immigration though.

If you said something like "Texan workers can't get a visa because our immigration system doesn't work" then I'd be with you.

Question. After Texas bashes the shiznit out of Mexico, is it supposed to just be it's own country? I mean It's saying F U to the USA and FU to Mexico. It's a big state. But it's not a big country. What do Texans actually want to happen to the state? Like in practical terms.

Denarius
17 May 2016, 21:14
But it's not a big country.

It's bigger than every country in the EU and half the countries in Africa. It ain't small either.

As for the rest, check out that first link I made. I can't speak for Texans, I've never been further south than Portland, but I assume it'd be to be independent. A sovereign nation.

Medusa
17 May 2016, 21:18
It's bigger than every country in the EU and half the countries in Africa. It ain't small either.

As for the rest, check out that first link I made. I can't speak for Texans, I've never been further south than Portland, but I assume it'd be to be independent. A sovereign nation.

Well yes yes, it's big next countries in the EU. But being smacked up next to the USA and then down...it's kinda.....well if the USA wanted to bomb it, it could easily. Just saying.

Denarius
17 May 2016, 21:31
well if the USA wanted to bomb it, it could easily. Just saying.

And Texas has potential nuclear capabilities and military installations comparable to any other world power. Plus, if the US wanted to bomb anything there's not a whole lot they can do to stop us. We could bomb a moon base if we wanted to. We could bomb ourselves if we wanted to.

Why would we want to? You seem to be assuming secession as something violent.

anunitu
17 May 2016, 21:35
Are you guys working on a test war,just to see who could screw who...One thought about the flooding and really BAD storms that hit Texas...who is gonna take care of all that destruction and loss,if Texas was on its lonesome?

Medusa
17 May 2016, 21:35
And Texas has potential nuclear capabilities and military installations comparable to any other world power. Plus, if the US wanted to bomb anything there's not a whole lot they can do to stop us. We could bomb a moon base if we wanted to. We could bomb ourselves if we wanted to.

Why would we want to? You seem to be assuming secession as something violent.

Are those resources the sole property of Texas or The United States of America?

Denarius
17 May 2016, 21:53
Are those resources the sole property of Texas or The United States of America?

I said potential. They have the state and private owned infrastructure, as well as the materials and skilled labor to manufacture such things on their own. Every currently existing American military installation is property of the US military.

The nation of Texas would by necessity have to start out occupied by the US military, and substantially so.

Hawkfeathers
18 May 2016, 04:52
The name "United States" becomes more of an oxymoron each day.

anunitu
18 May 2016, 05:46
Think on this,Europe is trying to become what we have been for almost forever.

B. de Corbin
18 May 2016, 06:11
I'd hate to see the dis-United States fall into the kind of perpetual warfare that plagued the dis-united countries of Europe for most of their history, but people can be dumb, and generally fail to learn anything but facts from history.

thalassa
18 May 2016, 07:52
Sort of a moot point when it's only the crazy ones that want to secede.

Raphaeline
18 May 2016, 08:29
When my Texan family members come to visit, they always make jokes about how backward Kentucky is. I never get it, and this is why.

ThePaganMafia
18 May 2016, 09:27
Have fun seceding with the two of the largest cavalry and artillery installations in your borders. I know the Amarillo Good ol' Boy Patriot Militia just got sponsered by the local bar and are ready to rise again.

Good luck Texas!

- - - Updated - - -


And Texas has potential nuclear capabilities and military installations comparable to any other world power. Plus, if the US wanted to bomb anything there's not a whole lot they can do to stop us. We could bomb a moon base if we wanted to. We could bomb ourselves if we wanted to.

Why would we want to? You seem to be assuming secession as something violent.

Oh, are those Texas military installations? Pretty sure when I was stationed in Texas we worked on Federal installations, got paid by the Federal government and had a Commander and Chief from Hawaii.

Sorry, the military capabilities you speak of are not Texas military capabilities but United States military capabilities.

MaskedOne
18 May 2016, 09:38
Well they have the State Guard which appears to be distinctly theirs and not as easy to federalize as national guard units are but if Texas wants to turn its State Guard into a defensive organization that can operate without the US military standing right behind it ready to eradicate anyone who looks cross-eyed at Texas than someone is gonna have to foot the bill for a rather large expansion and I see no reason for the US to do so.

Medusa
18 May 2016, 09:53
So. Texas is out! We agree. Let's start now. Someone go get some Mexicans and wall Texas up. :p

anunitu
18 May 2016, 10:22
And you wonder why all those world people are pointing and laughing at us,they think our country is now a Monty python bit....

Denarius
18 May 2016, 10:45
And you wonder why all those world people are pointing and laughing at us,they think our country is now a Monty python bit....

Just like the whole world laughed at Scotland for democratically deciding to remain in the UK, or how the world will be laughing at the UK for democratically deciding whether they should remain in the EU?

HAHA, people actually thinking that they are the ones who define what their nation is or is not.

anunitu
18 May 2016, 10:57
Not always about Texas...think complete meltdown of our two political parties...if we start throwing blows at conventions we may have become a third world country.

Denarius
18 May 2016, 11:03
Not always about Texas...think complete meltdown of our two political parties

More and more people are realizing the two party system is absurd, somehow managing to be both restricting and nebulous so we may be in the process of transitioning to a multi-party system like the rest of the world. Those silly Americans.

anunitu
18 May 2016, 11:04
it all breaks down to this...

https://youtu.be/buqtdpuZxvk

B. de Corbin
18 May 2016, 12:12
Sort of a moot point when it's only the crazy ones that want to secede.

Only loonies would want to secede. The kind of issues people get pissy about are not worth:

A. A civil war - not like hundreds of thousands of human beings being held in chattel slavery vs. a massive economic system run by a small number of feudal lords that couldn't survive without chattel slavery

Or

B. The economic loss, the trade loss, the sactions, the frozen assets, the loss of support, the loss of a defensive military, and the general thousand foot deep sludge pile that would result if nobody wanted to bother with a civil war...

The loonies can hook their thumbs in their belts and thrust out their bellies all they want, everybody knows their just blowing smoke out their arse.

anunitu
18 May 2016, 12:41
Why is it that only comedians make any sense in an election year??

Denarius
18 May 2016, 21:35
I wonder how Texas would govern itself. I assume something like the US system, as in an elected president. How would Texas/American immigration work? Would people have dual citizenship, if so then who? Would existing Texas representatives, such as my personal hero Robert Morrow, retain their office?

It's really interesting to think about how all thia stuff would work, which probably means that it'd be steaming mess sorting it all out.

kalynraye
19 May 2016, 16:14
Are those resources the sole property of Texas or The United States of America?

Those resources are in Texas and if they decided to secede, WHICH WE WONT, they would be theirs, cause I'd like to see you get all of that out of Texas. Alright now I'm going to mosey on out of this thread because we all know I get super defensive over my state and there really is no need for that.

anunitu
19 May 2016, 16:19
See the video for the reality check in all this.

kalynraye
19 May 2016, 16:22
Don't you know the earth is flat...

anunitu
19 May 2016, 16:25
Oh lordy lordy,we all gonna fall off the edge....

B. de Corbin
19 May 2016, 16:28
Those resources are in Texas and if they decided to secede, WHICH WE WONT, they would be theirs, cause I'd like to see you get all of that out of Texas. Alright now I'm going to mosey on out of this thread because we all know I get super defensive over my state and there really is no need for that.

LOL - just so ya know, all the money that Texans have in Texas banks isn't really there, except in theory. Cut off ties to US banking, and everybody in Texas who has money in the bank doesn't have it any more...

kalynraye
19 May 2016, 16:35
I also know that. But they aren't helpless and they have more resources then people give them credit. We also have this HUGE population that doesn't agree with the seceding.. nope walking away..

and yep gonna fall right off the edge cause the government is lying to us and the world isn't round but flat. #insert sarcasm.

Denarius
19 May 2016, 16:47
Don't you know the earth is flat...

It is also hollow, the Earth is basically a pita.

anunitu
19 May 2016, 16:54
John Quincy Adams Once Approved an Expedition to the Center of the Earth
He believed a man who said the Earth was hollow.

So maybe...Story from the Smithsonian (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/john-quincy-adams-said-yes-expedition-center-earth-180955203/?no-ist)

thalassa
20 May 2016, 16:34
SXSW and helium.

B. de Corbin
20 May 2016, 16:51
Thomas Jefferson, while president, covertly planned for secessesion of states:

https://collection1.libraries.psu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/pabooknews/id/446

monsno_leedra
20 May 2016, 20:10
LOL - just so ya know, all the money that Texans have in Texas banks isn't really there, except in theory. Cut off ties to US banking, and everybody in Texas who has money in the bank doesn't have it any more...

Hm I though they had it in the Caymen Islands banks or other off shore to avoid paying taxes he he he