Texas and the Obama takeover

[Beany]

of course you do not know, but if state of texas wants to leave the union, they wont ask anyone's opinion, but people of texas.

Well, isn't that great. A bunch of people who are unhappy with the current state of politics planning on leaving the union because they can't have their way, and apparently utterly unconcerned with how this action might affect anyone other than them or our country, with a poor grasp of history or consequences. Super. Just the kind of people we want as neighbors.

And are they going to provide relocation funds to all the poor people who can't afford to get the heck out of there? Any no comments on whether people of color or women are involved in this "movement?" Or is this just another white power group with a little more muscle than most?

Edited May 6, 2015 by Beany

[aztek]

Well, isn't that great. A bunch of people who are unhappy with the current state of politics planning on leaving the union because they can't have their way, and apparently utterly unconcerned with how this action might affect anyone other than them or our country, with a poor grasp of history or consequences. Super. Just the kind of people we want as neighbors.

yes, exactly because they can not have it their way as a part of union, they have every right to look for ways to get their way. why should they even be concearned how it affects state of CA or NY?? it's the union that needs texas more than texas needs the union. tey were given special terms when they bacame part of the union, 3 electorial votes (as opposed to 1 for every state) is just 1 of them.

Edited May 6, 2015 by aztek

[Bama13]

3 electorial votes (as opposed to 1 for every state) is just 1 of them.

Every state has at least 3 electoral votes. They get 1 for each member of congress. Each state has 2 Senators and at least 1 Representative, therefore at least 3 electoral votes.

[aztek]

Every state has at least 3 electoral votes. They get 1 for each member of congress. Each state has 2 Senators and at least 1 Representative, therefore at least 3 electoral votes.

actually now that i look up, we both wrong.

it is not electorial votes that tx got 3x as much, it is something else, i'll find out what it is. i remember from school, tx got special privilege when it joined union, it got 3x of something, but i forgot what it was, i'll look up

Edited May 6, 2015 by aztek

[Bama13]

actually now that i look up, we both wrong.

it is not electorial votes that tx got 3x as much, it is something else, i'll find out what it is. i remember from school, tx got special privilege when it joined union, it got 3x of something, but i forgot what it was, i'll look up

No, I am correct. Each state gets one electoral vote per person in Congress. The least number a state can have is 3 since each state gets 2 Senators and at least one representative. Representatives are based on population, so some states will have more than others, and therefore more electoral votes.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Bama13

[aztek]

yea, now that i read your post again, i see you origanally said AT LEAST 3, so yea you were right,.

[Bama13]

yea, now that i read your post again, i see you origanally said AT LEAST 3, so yea you were right,.

Ah, now I understand why you thought otherwise. Thank you Mrs. Stinson, my 9th grade Civics teacher.

[aquatus1]

The colonists rebelled to achieve independence from England. They achieved independence. If you achieve your goals I call that a win. A win by default is still a win. A win means you won.

And that sort of thinking is what differentiates winners from cannon fodder.

Winning a schoolyard fight because the bully decided you had had enough isn't winning. Achieving your goal of him not beating you up doesn't make much of a difference if he already beat you up and the only thing that is keeping him from beating you up the next day is the annoyance factor.

More importantly, there is no such thing as a moral victory in war. If you were not the reason why your enemy left the battlefield, you didn't win. At best, you tied with someone who had more to lose elsewhere. At worse, you were rescued at someone else's expense (in the case of the colonies, by the French). Without knowing whether the enemy intended to re-engage in hostilities, with the allies departing after they gave their assistance (because England was now going to concentrate their efforts in Europe, i.e. the French), with an entire army of unpaid, restless, soldiers and officers wondering if they could do a better job running the country (see Newburgh Conspiracy), calling it a victory is optimism at its worst.

In the words of Carlos Santana (maybe) "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". If you are basing your concept how well a particular war would turn out by using the outcome of another war, but completely ignoring the context, exigent circumstances, and external factors involved...then really, what is the purpose of using the example?

[Beany]

yes, exactly because they can not have it their way as a part of union, they have every right to look for ways to get their way. why should they even be concearned how it affects state of CA or NY?? it's the union that needs texas more than texas needs the union. tey were given special terms when they bacame part of the union, 3 electorial votes (as opposed to 1 for every state) is just 1 of them.

OMG. Take up arms, fracture the Union, the heck with anybody else. If I weren't concerned about loss of life and how vulnerable it would make the US, I'd say let 'em do what they want. But every action affects someone, and in this case a lot of someones, and none of it good. So excuse me if I'm ticked that these people pose a threat to this country that I happen to love. This is from the NY Times website: "That if a body of people, conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed neither lessens or increases the crime -- whether by one hundred or one thousand persons is wholly immaterial;"

* * * "and that it is altogether immaterial whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object; any force connected with the intention will constitute the crime of levying war." http://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/25/news/treason-against-the-united-states.html

[aztek]

you seem to only see things from your perspective. may be that is why they want to leave. they can't even protect their own border, feds do not do it, and people of TX are paying the price, not you.

Edited May 7, 2015 by aztek

[KariW]

you seem to only see things from your perspective. may be that is why they want to leave. they can't even protect their own border, feds do not do it, and people of TX are paying the price, not you.

Have to agree with you! I have a hard time understanding people who expect me to care about their concerns, when they don't respect my rights as a Free individual. You can't expect respect, if you don't give it. IMO, It's all about Control!

Edited May 7, 2015 by KariW

[KariW]

Beany, you make some very interesting points! So here’s my take on things for what it’s worth. For thousands of years, human beings have been migrating from place to place in order to live as free individuals, unchained by the abuses of repressive regimes. There is something in the human spirit that strives for the God given rights of Liberty and Freedom. that cannot be denied. Literally millions of people have died for that cause throughout history. For some people, like myself, it is like the air that we breath, and it is something that we cannot live without, Mostly because of the pain that is inflicted by those who seek to “control” us by denying certain unalienable rights. I’m not talking about physical pain, but emotional pain that leads to the death of individuality, and the death of the soul. Having said that, I will do my best to address your points as follows.

I've been pointing out what's wrong with it. We don't know who's in charge,

IMO, that's what democratic elections are for. As far as “who’s” in charge, I personally believe in a form of government where no one man is “in charge” as with dictators/kings, but where there are three branches of government with checks and balances.

we don't know what plans, if any, they have,

Its really hard for me to respond to this, as I need more info on what specific plans you are referring to? Plans to build hospitals, roads, establish space stations? IMO, Hopefully the master plan is to establish a government that upholds the constitutional rights of its citizens, without infringing on their rights of Free Speech, Religion, unreasonable Searches and Seizure, and the Right to Bear Arms, etc.

we don't know the possible economic and security risks, and if they pick up weapons, which is highly likely, there will be a substantial loss of life.

IMO, the “unknowns” you speak of are of no ones concern, except for the legal citizens of the new sovereign nation. Seceded states have every right to form their own military and defend themselves like most other sovereign nations. And as long as they aren't attacked, why would there be bloodshed or loss of life? Leave them alone to live their lives in peace as they see fit, and there will be no need for violent conflicts. I’ve always found that the best way to avoid being stung by a hornet, is not to shake the hornet’s nest. Just seems like common sense to me. If you keep poking sticks and tormenting any animal, they will usually defend themselves and strike out at you. Its not the animals fault, and sole responsibility lies with the person holding the stick. Quite simple really - just leave them alone.

We don't know what governmental structures would be put in place, if or how they would conduct foreign affairs, what their foreign policies might be, nor do we know if & when an election process might be,

Who doesn’t know? The states certainly do because they already have their own system/ structure of Gov’t pretty much set up, with individual State constitutions already defining Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches. That’s actually pretty common knowledge. And, IMO, I would expect very little to change regarding amendments to their constitutions, other than to declare themselves as free sovereign nations, and perhaps amendments that restrict an alien country such as the US from interfering in their affairs.

I believe AZ, recently passed an amendment (Prop.122) to their states constitution that allows them to essentially ignore Fed. Gov’t regulations & abuses. And as was stated by the Texas Constitution, the states citizens would have the right to abolish and form a republic where individual rights are upheld. Another thing to consider, if a state decides to secede, they are no longer bound to decisions passed by the US Supreme Court., and are only bound by their State’s Supreme Court, as part of the state’s Legistlative branch.

we don't know whether they might constitute a threat to the new border,

Why would a peaceful nation that upholds the constitutional rights of its citizens pose a threat? A non-repressive regime is someone I would love to have as a neighbor. Not sure if that is where you were going with that??

whether the new republic would be more vulnerable to the drug cartels already encroaching on their border, who would guard that border and how, thus increasing the threat to the rest of the country.

I for one would be very happy if Texas established and patrolled its own borders, without interference from the Fed. Gov’t who has failed to do so. Texas can take care of its own – always has – always will. The US, as a foreign country, can take responsibility for its own borders, IMO.

Remember, no more federal money to pay for law enforcement personnel & expenses, roads, education, no assists from Homeland Security, TSA, the FBI, no more FAFSA student loans or federal grants, no more tax collections or refunds.

If a state such as Texas, has a healthy economy, why on earth would they need federal money for the programs you listed above? Heres a new concept: why not pay their own way, and become a self-sufficient Nation. By being self-sufficient, the Federal Gov’t can’t control you by using Federal funding as a weapon. IMO, dependency on the Fed. Gov't is like a cancer, that weakens the individual and the state. There is absolutely nothing keeping states that secede from creating their own security, environmental agencies, etc,, if that is the will of the majority of citizens in that state - Its ups to them, and no one else.

I do know there are more than a few people who would like to get rid of the Fed. agencies such as the TSA, EPA , IRS, etc. and limit their abusive practices. Some states are already passing laws to do just this, Thank Goodness! By seceding from the US, Individual states would no longer be subject to ANY Federal agency, as sovereign entities in their own right! Texas is definitely not alone in the fight for Liberty and Freedom!

Oh, here's something I've been wondering. How many of these secessionists are people of color or women?

To be honest, I never define people by their race, sex, etc. Only by the content of their character and morals. Racism, Etc. is something I absolutely despise with every fiber of my being, so I never think of a person's race, etc. I have to admit, that concept is totally foreign to me – Thank God!

Is the new republic going to issue its own visas and passports?

Most sovereign nations do.

What countries in the world would want to conduct business there, because it would certainly be an unstable government for a while.

IMO, Can't see that as a problem, as Texas has a very healthy economy under current management, with businesses leaving other states and reestablishing themselves in Texas. Business is booming, even with the drop in oil prices. Also other nations/states that have seceded would have the opportunity to form trade and business coalitions, with like minded states.

Just let them go? Only if it poses absolutely no threat to the the United States.

Again, Why on earth would a democratically elected government that upholds the unalienable rights of its citizens be a threat to the US? Isn't that what the US Government has been doing lately, spreading democracy around the world? If the US sees these new nation[states as a threat, it makes me wonder about the US Gov’t? IMO, generally repressive regimes are threatened by democratically established nations which support the right of the individual.

People with a live and let live point of view, and a healthy respect for individual liberty, freedom and human rights are generally quite peaceful, and make great neighbors….but there is something quite sinister about those who try to deny its citizens their constitutional rights, or their right to simply walk away in order to regain their freedom and dignity as human beings. Freedom, for me has always been a human rights issue.

So much for the hallowed pledge of allegiance, huh? Or should that be hollowed pledge of allegiance. Apparently it's not worth a warm bucket of spit to some people.

Why would anyone of sound mind pledge allegiance to a Gov't that seeks to suppress their individual rights as human beings? I really can't wrap my head around that one. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Beany, Great Thread! THANK YOU so much for giving me the opportunity to express my opinion on a topic that is so very dear to my heart. That’s one of the great things about living in a democratic society, everyone is free to express their own viewpoints, and live their lives as FREE individuals. Its getting late, and I really need to go check on Piwacket and her babies. Take care, and have a great night!

Edited May 7, 2015 by KariW

[Bama13]

And that sort of thinking is what differentiates winners from cannon fodder.

Winning a schoolyard fight because the bully decided you had had enough isn't winning. Achieving your goal of him not beating you up doesn't make much of a difference if he already beat you up and the only thing that is keeping him from beating you up the next day is the annoyance factor.

More importantly, there is no such thing as a moral victory in war. If you were not the reason why your enemy left the battlefield, you didn't win. At best, you tied with someone who had more to lose elsewhere. At worse, you were rescued at someone else's expense (in the case of the colonies, by the French). Without knowing whether the enemy intended to re-engage in hostilities, with the allies departing after they gave their assistance (because England was now going to concentrate their efforts in Europe, i.e. the French), with an entire army of unpaid, restless, soldiers and officers wondering if they could do a better job running the country (see Newburgh Conspiracy), calling it a victory is optimism at its worst.

In the words of Carlos Santana (maybe) "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". If you are basing your concept how well a particular war would turn out by using the outcome of another war, but completely ignoring the context, exigent circumstances, and external factors involved...then really, what is the purpose of using the example?

So according to you the colonists lost their war for independence and then England, after fighting the war for years, decided to just grant them independence? Really? Wow, I love alternate histories too! You should write a book.

[aquatus1]

So according to you the colonists lost their war for independence and then England, after fighting the war for years, decided to just grant them independence? Really? Wow, I love alternate histories too! You should write a book.

Since this has gotten ridiculously drawn out, no, the colonists did not lose the war, and no one ever said they did. They did not win it, either. No, England didn't simply decide to grant them independence either. If I felt you had the faintest interest in history, I would explain it to you, but you obviously don't, and it doesn't really matter, because the actual point is not history, but rather how utterly futile it would be for a civilian resistance in the U.S. to pit themselves against the U.S. military. Not only would it be futile for civilians, even non-regular military (i.e. reservists and National Guard) would have much of a shot. The gap is just too ridiculously large. The American Revolutionary war barely ended with a stalemate; since then, the advent of a federal standing military, technology, professional soldiers, and global training, has made the modern military a force beyond the capacity of a civilian resistance to deal with. It is more of a comic book match-up, except in the real world, the hero doesn't actually beat the evil empire.

[KariW]

Just reread my ultra long post, and found a stupid mistake, I want to correct! - State’s Supreme Court, as part of the state’s Legistlative Judicial branch.

[Bama13]

Since this has gotten ridiculously drawn out, no, the colonists did not lose the war, and no one ever said they did. They did not win it, either. No, England didn't simply decide to grant them independence either. If I felt you had the faintest interest in history, I would explain it to you, but you obviously don't, and it doesn't really matter, because the actual point is not history, but rather how utterly futile it would be for a civilian resistance in the U.S. to pit themselves against the U.S. military. Not only would it be futile for civilians, even non-regular military (i.e. reservists and National Guard) would have much of a shot. The gap is just too ridiculously large. The American Revolutionary war barely ended with a stalemate; since then, the advent of a federal standing military, technology, professional soldiers, and global training, has made the modern military a force beyond the capacity of a civilian resistance to deal with. It is more of a comic book match-up, except in the real world, the hero doesn't actually beat the evil empire.

Actually I love history, but you are right that this is not the thread to discuss it. Never said the colonists won the war all by themselves, just that they won, which they did.

What makes you think that the US military, which is comprised mostly of people that live here, would fight against their families, friends and neighbors? Some might, but some most certainly wouldn't. Do you think they are all robots?

[Beany]

I love history, myself. Secession makes me think of the Civil War, with a loss of life around half a million. People do have a right to self-determination, but not at the expense of others. I wouldn't be so vehemently opposed if I knew that it would all peaceful and orderly, but there's no assurance that would be the case, and if it were a movement composed of diverse people, which I don't think it is. I haven't found any websites with information about the mechanics of secession, I'd be interested in educating myself about that, if anyone knows of any.

[aztek]

Actor and karate king Chuck Norris is adding himself to the list of skeptics questioning whether a U.S. Special Forces exercise is a government ruse to impose martial law over several states including Texas.

"The U.S. government says, 'It's just a training exercise.' But I'm not sure the term 'just' has any reference to reality when the government uses it," said Norris, who said Texas Gov. Greg Abbot was right to order his state National Guard monitor the exercise in Texas to ensure civil rights are protected

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/07/chuck-norris-warns-that-us-special-forces-is-threat-to-texans/

[aztek]

How many of these secessionists are people of color or women?

what?? that sounds very racist and sexist.

why do you put them in a different category than white males? are they better or worst? how many should there be in your opinion ? and why does it even mater?

Edited May 7, 2015 by aztek

[F3SS]

Because Aztek, certain mindsets are simply obsessed with race. Even if it were only white people that in no way equates to a white power movement.

Kari, you're exhausting my like quota for the day, and many others too. You're all leaving me with little to say.

Yamato, awesome video. Makes me want to try it.

England did not grant US anything, nor did it matter if they did. We declared our independence. Frankly, we were tired of giving a crap what England thought. Also, I'd consider the formation of America a win on all fronts. Perhaps everyone did tire of the warring, not sure tbh, but all the goals on our end were achieved. That's a win.

Secession does not have to be a bloody war. The only ones who would create that reality is the very government that Beany is demanding these Texans obey. I don't have a certain number or percentage in mind but if enough of Texas decides they want out, state their case and show their plan, so long as it doesn't involve becoming a third world dictatorship which we all know it won't, I don't see any reason that a secession can't be peaceful. The Feds are the only ones who would turn it bloody.

As for how educated these folks are, well you don't know but your implication is that they are a bunch of toothless backwoods racists hillbillies who couldn't live without people like you in the world. Lots of baseless insults for people you don't know.

So much going on in this thread, I forget what all else I had in mind. Had a bunch of quotes ready but it would've been a ridiculous multi-quote bomb so I shot from the hip.

Edited May 7, 2015 by F3SS

[F3SS]

Oh yeah one more thing. I think an independent Texas would be an amazing deterrent to the cartels and illegal immigration. They'll not have to follow our ridiculous enforcement tactics, our political correct stances and so on.in fact, it would be well within their best interests to take those matters as seriously as most of US wish our current bunch of inept morons would.

[travelnjones]

if those isis dudes in the 15 states thread see this they may get ideas. Attack armed forces in texas misrepresenting themselves as militia. powder key + match

[F3SS]

Yea I don't think that would work. It wouldn't take much to figure out they're not militia folk.

[F3SS]

Besides, there's supposedly only 71 of them left, down by two since a traffic cop annihilated the two sorry asses on their first try.

[Aftermath]

May be John Titor was real? Perhaps we are at the fork in the road; looking left, looking right - which timeline friends...?

Edited to protect the Houston turtles.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Oops Monkey