Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Beany

Texas and the Obama takeover

181 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

KariW

Jackass works very well in politics.

ROTFLMAO! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Jackass works very well in politics.

It does, but I feel like it's been overdone and lacks a creative spark.

Edited by Beany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

I don't know. Some things are timeless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KariW

I don't know. Some things are timeless.

Exactly, There are some things that are just so perfect, they never lose their appropriateness. :tsu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

No one thinks that. That's the exact BS main stream is trying to lead the sheep with. That people who are against jade helm don't like the people in the military. That's ridiculous. We don't trust the elected leadership and their control over the military. That's cause they have done everything to remove that trust. Heck we are about to enter into a major trade agreement, bigger then NAFTA, and we the people aren't allowed to read a word of it. The congressmen and senators arent allowed to speak about it. These are the kind of people we are dealing with. I say you are the crazy one, to trust any single these people do.

When you call people sheep..take a step back, and realize that NONE of your ideas are original. You are a follower, with a different shepherd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

I would still like to see an answer to the question on who would initiate violence in response to Texas succeeding. Say if Texas held an official election and 95% of the people voted to succeed, I'm not exactly sure what the problem would be. Paranoia over which demographic initiated it aside, can someone give me a good reason why I should care and how it would effect the rest of the country?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

I'd say the Governor and other Texas politicians who would stand to lose their jobs if the state ceded from the union might be inclined to promote violence as a tool to stop that from happening. But since, seceding from the union is a hypothetical example, so would the reasons from using violence from stopping it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

I'd say the Governor and other Texas politicians who would stand to lose their jobs if the state ceded from the union might be inclined to promote violence as a tool to stop that from happening. But since, seceding from the union is a hypothetical example, so would the reasons from using violence from stopping it.

Might I remind you that your northern neighbour went through two referendums for separating/seceding from Conferederation/the Union. The last time it was 50% (+1 person) in the province of Quebec, just 20 years ago. The results are obvious since were still a united nation but the outcome was close.

93.52% of the eligible voters turned out.

49.41% voted to separate.

50.58% voted to stay in.

If I remember, no one got attacked or killed over it even though passions were 'on high'. Now the sovereignty movement is at a low ebb.

Edit: ...forgot a 'r'.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Found this on the Southern Poverty Law Center, scroll down to the League of the South Chieftain Talks Race War. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Found this on the Southern Poverty Law Center, scroll down to the League of the South Chieftain Talks Race War. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/

I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense or it's just late. I seem to remember you saying you couldn't find the "initiators" of the movement in Texas and now you provide a link to something that, to me, seems unrelated. Would you be so kind as to connect the dots for me?

There have been a lot of good points brought up that haven't been addressed.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I would still like to see an answer to the question on who would initiate violence in response to Texas succeeding. Say if Texas held an official election and 95% of the people voted to succeed, I'm not exactly sure what the problem would be. Paranoia over which demographic initiated it aside, can someone give me a good reason why I should care and how it would effect the rest of the country?

The military would, and they'd just be following orders. Just like every other day.

How would it affect the country...for starters it'll lower the country's GDP by Texas's GDP. That's probably not a small amount. Based on the Keynesian poison we're infested with so far, that's more than enough to make Janet Yellen print a zillion more dollars to buy a million more bonds to juice the numbers even more, and make the Owners in the Big Club even wealthier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

The military would, and they'd just be following orders. Just like every other day.

i'm pretty sure her question was more in line of who will give that order. an order to attack state of TX

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xxxdemonxxx

Posturing. Just to remind Obama that Texas hates him lol; And to show off that Texas is willing to get dirty if need be. Nothing more, and some are being more dramatic about Texas than the crazies are about Jade Helm.

Edited by xxxdemonxxx
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

i'm pretty sure her question was more in line of who will give that order. an order to attack state of TX

No, it's more about which side would initiate. Would Texans start shooting Feds just because or would the Feds start shooting Texans in a pouty fit of rage for not being liked?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

No, it's more about which side would initiate. Would Texans start shooting Feds just because or would the Feds start shooting Texans in a pouty fit of rage for not being liked?

so Texans will just start shooting feds for......just because? lmao. good one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

so Texans will just start shooting feds for......just because? lmao. good one.

I know. Exactly why I said earlier that if anyone would make secession violent it would be the government they're seceding from.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Well, since everything is just hypothesis, I can think of several ways that Texans could shoot first. Say for instance, Texas cedes from the union and decides that they want Ft. Hood and all the military bases and gear too. You forget the first shots of the civil war was the confederates taking Fort Sumter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Read the paragraph below, it speaks directly to the issue of secession. This particular organization ties it in with a race war. So, the dots are connected. I don't know whether this group is an "initiator" of the secession movement, and right now I don't know if there is a core group assuming a leadership role or who those people might be. If you have any such knowledge, I'd love it if you would share it. What I am doing is educating myself and doing a little research. I'm disturbed by the issue of a possible race war, as well as the potential for violence. All it would take to set off a fire fight is one idiot on either side with poor self-control firing a weapon. On the other hand, I was looking at a list of state militias, and some of them were dedicated to upholding the constitution and defending the country against both foreign & domestic terrorists, so that was heartening. I don't think all advocates of secession are as loopy or dangerous as League of the South members, but groups like this do exist, and they are a threat to everyone, secessionists and otherwise.

Then, last year, Hatewatch revealed that the LOS was actively — and secretly — training a uniformed, paramilitary unit to be called the ‘Indomitables’ that was tasked with advancing a second southern secession. "Of course, that was never a very honest presentation. After all, Hill is the same man who at a Georgia LOS meeting in 2011 urged his constituents to begin stocking up on AK-47s, hollow-point bullets, and, most remarkably, tools to derail trains."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VictorVictor

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?

I think you come from a biased perspective on Texas and Texans. You are stereotyping an entire state, and it's puzzling to me, as a new member, that such divisive and condescending rhetoric is posted by a Moderator on these forums. It's quite obvious how you feel about Texans and probably Southerners in general.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

I think you come from a biased perspective on Texas and Texans. You are stereotyping an entire state, and it's puzzling to me, as a new member, that such divisive and condescending rhetoric is posted by a Moderator on these forums. It's quite obvious how you feel about Texans and probably Southerners in general.

I love Texans, and I have no beef with the rest of the Southern states. I'm not stereotyping an entire state or region, I'm specifically addressing a small minority group within that state. You are certainly free to think however you want about me, that's your right, but a discussion of the issues would be more productive. The post I made was a response to someone who basically said "who cares" to my statement that secession could possibly have negative consequences for the rest of the nation, just to put it in context, which you did not. FYI, I have been out on the net looking at why people want to secede, and it runs the gamut from reasonable people and groups to the opposite. I am not at advocate of secession, and never have been, even during those times when our elected officials followed policies and took actions with which I vehemently disagreed. My belief has always been this: America, love it when it's right, fix it when it's wrong. In times of trouble we all need to work together to find and implement solutions. It's not easy, and not without conflict and high emotions, but it's a far better philosophy than shattering the union. You know, someone said "a country divided will not stand", or something like that. Actions are not made in a void, you know, there are always ripple affects and sometimes unintended consequences, as well as reactions. No successful secession movement will be without reactions from the rest of the population or the Federal government. What those reactions/actions might be I don't know, but it is not just a Texas issue, it's a much bigger playing field than that, certainly nationally and quite possibly internationally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VictorVictor

I'll just let your post stand on it's own. Biases are a part of each and every one of us and are readily recognizable. It's just human nature to form an opinion about others different than us. There are a large number of Texans that feel government has exceeded it's authority and reach, and has begun to infringe upon the rights of individuals. That doesn't imply a militarized force of white redneck separatists are intent on "shattering the union" as you imply.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skep B

I'd like to see the US allow secession, then the next day invade and reclaim it.

I don't see it happening, but the history books of the future would be entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

I would still like to see an answer to the question on who would initiate violence in response to Texas succeeding. Say if Texas held an official election and 95% of the people voted to succeed, I'm not exactly sure what the problem would be. Paranoia over which demographic initiated it aside, can someone give me a good reason why I should care and how it would effect the rest of the country?

It's sad that this would still even be contemplated after 154 years. This is from Lincoln's first inauguration address in 1861. It would be the duty of the president to initiate violence should it be required.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens, have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils; and, generally, with great success. Yet, with all this scope for [of] precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices.

http://abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

"once you're in, you can't get out", isn't a union of equals, it's a prison.

If Texas thinks it can go it alone in the 21st century and the majority of locals vote for it - let it. It's called "Freedom" and it's something you Americans proudly promote as being your core virtue.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KariW

Sometimes "ripple effects" can be a very good thing...kind of like Karma, & when your actions come back to haunt you. :) And yes that works both ways, but I have no problem whatsoever with paying the ultimate price for my actions...and I know the fact that I value liberty over life really bothers some people. I totally agree with Sir Wearer of Hats statement about a union being like a prison....no truer words have every been spoken. With regards to the Secession of Texas, I am reminded of the following quotes from one of my favorite patriots.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God!

I know not what course others may take;

but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

-Patrick Henry,

1775, Virginia

Edited by KariW
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.