Texas seceding????? I guess not- now there are swine aplenty!!!!!!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 2:55 PM GMT
    And to think it was only the other day the idiot governor was talking about going their own way?!

    http://wonkette.com/408082/rick-perry-begs-feds-for-flu-help
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 3:11 PM GMT
    this topic has been beaten to death and pissed on.

    TX cannot succeeded, and just keep on washing ur hands and dont touch ur mouth to avoid the flu.

    the end
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 3:34 PM GMT
    What's the issue? Texans have helped fund the CDC and so have a right to what it has produced with their money. And even if they didn't it would be morally reprehensible to allow pride to prevent you from asking for aid at a time like this.

    You're a fail biscuit, Blackguy. Back to your gossip rag.

    The swine flu most likely came from all the Mexicans streaming across the border that the Federal government has failed to secure or monitor adequately. Oops.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 3:37 PM GMT
    Remember the Alamo?

    Yeah... they all died.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 3:44 PM GMT
    This forum makes just as much sense as Republicans! icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 4:00 PM GMT
    Ok Sedative I need to share with you some historical perspective to the battle of the Alamo.

    All of the 188 men who fought and died at the Alamo did so knowing that their chances of survival were minimal at best.

    They did not retreat because they knew that by staying put they would give Gen. Sam Houston and his army more time to gather materiel, train and enlist more men. The did just that. The siege lasted 13 days (February 23-March 6).

    Santa Ana made the mistake by basking in victory too soon and took only 2/3rds of his troops to find Gen. Houston.

    Gen. Houston was able to raise and train an army of about 900 and he was able to pick and choose the place of battle. On April 21, 1836, Gen Houston mounted a surprise attack on Santa Ana's forces at what is known as San Jacinto.

    The men of the Alamo did what they were asked to do and gave the remaining Texas forces time to do what it needed to do to give them a better chance of facing and defeating a force of superior numbers.

    They did not die in vain.

    There are other battles like this in world history. Thermopylae ("The 300") held the Persians long enough for the Athenian fleet to defeat the Persian fleet that was necessary for total Persian conquest of the Grecian city states. The Battle of Midway: Outnumbered US forces held the island of Midway and occupied the Japanese fleet long enough for the US Pacific fleet to get into a place that they could regroup for what would ultimately be a victory in the Pacific. Most all US forces died doing so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 4:13 PM GMT
    TexSportsNut saidOk Sedative I need to share with you some historical perspective to the battle of the Alamo.


    Believe me, I know. icon_lol.gif Just because I'm not American doesn't mean I'm totally ignorant of that fact. It was a joke. Consider the fact that a lot of the men who fought in Alamo were not native Texans - including Davy Crockett and James Bowie. Yeah, perhaps a bit too vague. Oh well...

    A better question perhaps: Was the federation right to take away Texas from Mexico? As well as California and New Mexico (Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico as they were called back then) in the aftermath of the war?

    Do you know the reasons why the war was fought? Partly manifest destiny, partly to gain ground against the abolitionist North. (in other words a belief that Americans have a god-given right to expand all over North America as well as spread slavery).

    The men died with great courage, no doubt, but was it for a just cause?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 4:35 PM GMT
    The reasoning is the same as others: manifest destiny and pioneer-butchery. However, the people that fought for Texas were partly residents and full time warriors. The US government did not take Texas away from Mexico. Texans built their own country and then later agreed into statehood. The way Texans would look at it is that they were fighting a butchering regime that was singling them out without rights. Texans at the time felt they were without proper governance, but instead more of a dictatorship. There was no Democracy and that's essentially why the war was fought. It's hypocritical when you look at the years after. They essentially did to nationalized Mexicans what had been done to them. They essentially treated Mexicans as slaves, without the shackles. But, the idea behind it was the creation of Democracy and an end to Mexican Imperialism in the southwest where many Easterners were settling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 4:37 PM GMT
    ok 3 cases of swine flu does not equal 37K antiretroviral doses. I think the texas gov is just a reactionary son of a bitch
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 5:04 PM GMT
    waxon saidthis topic has been beaten to death and pissed on.

    TX cannot succeeded, and just keep on washing ur hands and dont touch ur mouth to avoid the flu.

    the end


    I don't know if they will succeed, but it is sure that they can not secede.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 5:10 PM GMT
    The only thing Texas can do is separate into five other states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 5:15 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 5:20 PM GMT
    TexSportsNut said...Blah blah blah, words, punctuation, blah blah...


    But... they still all died.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 5:20 PM GMT
    I wonder if the U.S. would invade Texas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 5:23 PM GMT
    growingbig saidThe only thing Texas can do is separate into five other states.


    That may have been in the anexation treaty, but the US constitution wont let it.

    Article IV Section 3New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 6:07 PM GMT
    Question: Did the 13 colonies have the legal right to seperate from the United Kingdom?
    Question: If a majority of citizens in a given political subdivision wish to disassociate itself from a larger political entity for any reason, what is to prohibit them for doing so?
    Question: Do the majority of citizens of Northern Ireland have the right to disassociate itself from the United Kindom and join the Republic of Ireland?
    Question: Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit a state from disassociating itself from the Union?

    I contend if a majority of citizens in a given political subdivision can disassociate itself for the greater entity for any reason. It is called political self-determination.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 7:34 PM GMT
    TexSportsNut saidQuestion: Did the 13 colonies have the legal right to seperate from the United Kingdom? (etc)

    I contend if a majority of citizens in a given political subdivision can disassociate itself for the greater entity for any reason. It is called political self-determination.

    It is actually called civil war; the US has been there, done that. The US Constitution does not permit secession, nor autonomous partitioning of states. The annexation document can say all it likes, but US Constitutional law is always supreme whenever a conflict arises.

    You Texans need to think twice about the implications of restarting the Civil War, and marching behind the right-wing banner of your nut-job governor. And realize that when you cheer the historic battle cry of states rights, you are aligning yourself with past & present supporters of slavery, Black oppression, women's subjugation, and anti-gay persecution. Be careful of the company you keep.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 7:38 PM GMT
    [/b]
    GuerrillaSodomite said

    [COOLicon_lol.gif
  • TexanMan82

    Posts: 893

    Apr 27, 2009 8:02 PM GMT
    This again? The horse. It's dead. Many times over.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 8:14 PM GMT
    I don't know that I will have the time to do this, but when I saw a chart this morning that showed that, compared to other states, Texas has among the lowest number of primary car doctors per 100,000 citizens, it occurred to me to see if I could find out where Texas would stand as an independent territory among the countries in the UN's annual Human Development Report, which includes very comprehensive measures of things one would associate with development and human well being (i.e. air pollution, access to healthcare and education, nutritional status, infant mortality, life expectancy,etc,etc. My hunch is that it would be somewhere around a middle income Latin American country (maybe Costa Rica), possibly behind Cuba, and definitely behind much of the US, which itself is ranked 12th in the overall Human Development Index. In other words, in terms of quality of life Texas looks a lot like the third world.

    Here's a link to the UN Human development Report Site: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 8:18 PM GMT
    TexanMan82 saidThis again? The horse. It's dead. Many times over.

    The horse may be dead but the thread won't die as long as there are those who enjoy pointless Texas-bashing. It's a thoughtless automatic reflex,like a tap on the patella.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 9:06 PM GMT
    Red Vespa, my contention is that if a majority wishes to disassociate itself, it can. Same are saying that states cannot secede. The nation was built as a voluntary union of various states. Please cite for me the amendment in the Constitution that prohibits secession. I do know about Art. IV, Sec. 3 and the prohibition from creating a state or states within the jurisdiction of any existing state or the combination of territories from 2 or more states. There is no expressed prohibition of secession. If you think there is, please cite your authority.
    I prefer federalism over a powerful, centralized government that has the tendency to become unresponsive to its citizens and is more prone to look out for the interest of well funded special interest
    Yes, I have thought it out and yes states rights were wrongly used as a reason to continue practices that I find abhorrent, but the states are still afforded certain powers as indicated in the 10th amendment. If you have problems with this, then you and others can petition for this to be repealed by amendment. I am not advocating secession at this time, but to say a state, by a majority of it's citizens, wishes to disassociate itself cannot do so, I must strongly disagree. It can and yes it would probably lead to a civil war. Just because we had one civil war doesn't innoculate us from experiencing another.
    The Roman republic experienced many civil wars and so did England and Scotland before they became known as Great Britian. The last was the Civil War of 1642-1649. Historically, I am seeing some of the same elements that led us into our civil war existing today. I do not wish it, but it maybe inevitable.
    .
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Apr 27, 2009 9:27 PM GMT
    Please cite for me the amendment in the Constitution that prohibits secession.

    Ok.

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states don't have a right of secession. It's not an amendment. It's in the main document, according to the Supreme Court, whose decisions carry the force of law.

    Texas vs. White

    Chief Justice Samuel Chase writing for the majority said:

    The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

    When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States

    Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.


    So no, not even a majority vote is valid for secession. It is illegal.

    Besides, if Texas can secede from the Union then what's to stop the more unionist and liberal parts of Texas, including Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and Houston, (all of which voted for Obama) from seceding from Texas and staying in the U.S.?

    (That is the perennial question that comes up on the Quebec sovereignty question.)

    Finally, Texas gets way more in Federal dollars than it pays to the U.S. in taxes. (In Canada it would be called a "have not" state.) It's the northern states like New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts that pay more in taxes than the receive back from the government. Texas was also one of the largest benefactors of federal money during the Great Depression. The state has no natural lakes; all of them were built with federal money.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2009 9:40 PM GMT
    TexSportsNut saidRed Vespa, my contention is that if a majority wishes to disassociate itself, it can. Same are saying that states cannot secede. The nation was built as a voluntary union of various states. Please cite for me the amendment in the Constitution that prohibits secession....

    Here is a link to just one of many detailed analyses of this topic. It is actually somewhat favorable to your own position, which is why I chose it from among others. Ultimately it seems to say what I have: that a Civil War with nearly 600,000 combat deaths, and subsequent Amendments and Supreme Court decisions, makes secession a practical impossibility.

    http://www.apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

    Our Union is now forever bound by both blood and precedent. Your arguments are 150 years too late.

    You may dispute fine points of Constitutional interpretation, but I will reply with reality. And quote the pledge that I wonder if you refuse to recite:

    I pledge allegiance,
    To the flag of the United States of America,
    And to the Republic for which it stands:
    One Nation under God, indivisible,
    With Liberty and Justice for all.


    [Emphasis added]
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Apr 27, 2009 9:45 PM GMT
    growingbig saidI wonder if the U.S. would invade Texas.


    If they do, I hope some of those fine military men invade my bedroom icon_twisted.gif