Bill on Texas Secession presented to Texas Legislature

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Ironic you easily dismiss so many complex issues. Makes me wonder if you fully fathom their depth and scope. But for sake of rebuttal and since I'm fascinated by the absurd, may I assume that Texas won't mind picking up the tab for any/all actions related to their departure. Heck, redoing all those 49 Star flags alone will cost a small fortune.

It's not so much dismissing complex issues as it is treating them as if they were Gordian Knots. Simplification is the key.

Why would Texas buy us new flags? They're not TEXAS flags, are they? Besides, we can just annex Puerto Rico or Guam and keep the star count constant. (That last was of course just for you, to feed your fascination with the absurd - or maybe not )

Oh and I'm sure you won't miss having a huge NASA presence in your state. Aerospace isn't a big industry in Texas is it?

You misapprehend me. I'm not a Texan, so it's not my state - well, "nation", if it were to ever come to that. NASA has plenty of facilities elsewhere, so the loss of NASA to Texas would be a Texan problem, rather than a Federal problem. Maybe they could fire up their own aerospace industry out of what resources they have there?

I'm not a Texan, but I support Texas Independence if they so choose, same as I support the "independence" movements in the Middle East. I also think that Texas, like the Middle Eastern movements, should be able to accomplish that on their own, without US interference.

So I assume you are on wife #3? Speaks volumes regarding ability to learn from history.

Actually, what I learned from history is that marriage was not the thing for me, so no, I'm not on wife number 3. I found it odd that both of my wives divorced me, then wanted to shack up again afterwards. I couldn't quite get behind that logic, either. The first is now married to a preacher, of all things, and the second died a little under 5 years ago from cancer. We got along famously, and without animosity (after the divorce, that is - plenty of animosity beforehand!) right up to the end.

I neither bore, nor now bear, any ill will towards either of them. Some times, if you just can't get along together, it's better to get along apart. I take the blame for the divorces - I CAN get a bit difficult at times - but I know you find that hard to believe! Otherwise, I occasionally have my moments when I'm not busy being unbearable.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Where did you say that?

Say what?

This?

Originally posted by Sinnthia
This gets a little old every two years.

To which you responded -

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Actually, this is the first time this has been brought before the legislature in quite awhile. They tried two years ago and were denied on a technicality.

First page of this thread actually. So either something is different this time around or not. You seem to want to make both cases. Whatever works for you.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Ahahaha

Another back peddle.

Hmmmm. I pointed out your backpeddling a few pages back. In fact, that is the exact phrase I used. Your originality is simply stunning.

This is so priceless.

If you care so little, why are you still here?

That is a pretty faulty question right off the bat. I do not watch half the train wreck things I enjoy watching because I "care." I think it is cute that you want to assume I care if you go or not just because I take part in this thread.

reply to post by nenothtu


I sincerely appreciate your honesty and additional info. I concede error is assuming you live in Texas but was influenced by your staunch support. My bad, and my apology. You get extra bonus points for the chuckles, much appreciated.

I honsetly believe this has a snowballs chance of ever becoming a reality, so we are debating hypotheticals. Buit if it does I'd like to be the forst to proclaim BOYCOT TEXAS. Now there is a MOVEMENT I could get behind.

Texas already properly seceeded from the union in 1861, as did several other states. They passed measures in their individual houses, and the governors signed the secession declarations.

Lincoln had to resort to mis-terminology to justify his attack on the Southern States. He called these secessions an "insurrection." Look up "insurrection." To paraphrase, that's an armed endeavor to take over a government by force.

You'll note the Southern States, including Texas did no such thing. They said, "we don't want to take over anything, we just want out - as is our right." They voluntarily joined the Union, and the voluntarily un-joined the Union.

The laws passed immediately after the defeat of the Southern States were unconstitutional. The states were occupied territories, laws were passed for them in their absence - either they had a vote (which they didn't) or they were independent (which they weren't according to the Union.)

If just one state, likely a Western or Southern State secedes, likely all will follow, especially if the seceding states adopt the Bill of Rights.

'Cause it sure ain't working now.

reply to post by kinda kurious

Why would you want to boycott Texas? Why not boycott the U.S. federal government? That is where the vast majority of the problems the entire WORLD faces comes from.
Your president (not mine) has too much power, and the bureaucrats in D.C. won't do anything about it because they are just as corrupt.
In fact, the congress votes to send our wealth overseas (often Israel) while our country crumbles.
And YOU complain about Texas? You want to boycott Texas because a representative files a bill?
The U.S. sends soldiers and weaponry around the globe, killing people in their own homes. The U.S. supports ruthless dictators that impoverish their citizens because OUR corporations (that are supposed to be regulated) pay them handsomely to steal the resources of their host countries. Your president apparently can play God over people's lives, deciding who is guilty and who is innocent, who gets billions, and who gets bomb. Or, is that Hillary?
A Texas representative doesn't want any part of that, and you would boycott a state because of that.

I say, don't just secede, call out the criminals wherever they reside. This is not America anymore friend, it got stolen while you were voting. Maybe you should boycott VOTING.

Originally posted by Sinnthia


. . .

Really? My entire argument is "If you hate it here so much, then leave already." I guess I missed all your rebuttals to that because all I see are excuses why you are still here, still whining about wanting to go.

The ball is rolling. But like I said before, apparently patience is not one of your virtues.

I get it. You want us to give in and beg you to stay. Sorry that did not happen. Good luck with it in your other thread.

Conjecture, your honor.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

. . .

"Something" is happening you say?
Let me know when that "something" is actually anything and maybe it will mean something.

that SOMETHING is a bill that will be put before the legislature, which has not happened since 1861, even though there has always been a secession movement in Texas.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Again, the Texas units belong to the state, as evidenced in links a few pages back.

Again, I never tried to refute that. You keep asserting it for some reason though. Not sure what is up with that

.

This is a lie. You said --You can say "National Guard" all you like. I see no actual break down of the forces and equipment you will be left with after the federal government closes off its bases, takes back its equipment, closes off its land, recalls its troops, and stop funding your National Guard. --

As for bases . . . some can be used, and others can be sold.

Yup, Texas has some bases. Still not sure what you are arguing.

You said --You can say "National Guard" all you like. I see no actual break down of the forces and equipment you will be left with after the federal government closes off its bases, takes back its equipment, closes off its land, recalls its troops, and stop funding your National Guard. --

I honestly do not know what would happen to the federal property. I am assuming that the government would abandon them. Texas could also try and buy them.

Oh, right. Armaments.

Most nations spend 1.5-2% GDP on defense.

That would be 28 billion out of a 1.44 trillion GDP. That would put Texas at #11 on defenses spending.

Uh huh. Texas spends some money. Your break down of the post secession armaments that will be retained and full funded/manned must be coming later.

My reply was in reponse to what you said. You said --I see no actual break down of the forces and equipment you will be left with after the federal government closes off its bases, takes back its equipment, closes off its land, recalls its troops, and stop funding your National Guard.

Let's see what you got left.--

I then gave you the breakdown on why exactly stopping funding was not an issue.

You really should learn to do some research.

Just in the area I am in.

B&M Bridge - Owned by Union Pacific Railroad

Gateway International Bridge - Owned by Cameron County

Veteran's International Bridge - Owned by Cameron County


And the corridor in Laredo that I cited?
World Trade International Bridge - Owned by the City of Laredo

And...?

Let me refresh your memory. You stated here, that Texas would no longer have access to shipping corridors.

I presented you with land, air, and sea corridors that Texas has permanent access to here.

You said --Did you think I meant that the roads would cease to exist? Sorry but the federal government is not going to just hand over access and continue to maintain those. Those belong to the federal government and will remain that way. Of course, Texas can raise taxes and build a parallel system but it will have to buy access from the United States.--

This is, as is true to your M.O., false. The corridors that you claimed Texas had no access to where shown to be perfectly and permanent accessible.

You then tried to claim (in the part that I typed in bold) that these land corridors belong to the federal government, but Texas can try and buy access.

I also proved that claim false by showing you who exactly owns the gateways. As far as the roadways to and from the gateways, The federal government owns roads serving
national forests, parks and dams. State governments own most of the highways between cities
and towns and the Interstate highways. Cities and counties own the local roads.

And just because I know you will try and say that that is a Washington government site, here it is from the federal government: The States own and operate the Interstate highways.

So yet AGAIN, you have been proven to be 100% false. I am seeing a trend here.

Your "style" of arguing is fun to watch

Thank you. I have provided 100% conclusive proof of my claims. Where is your proof?

I claim that the promise of free squirrel will not rouse the populace at large, to which you respond that I am wrong because you like squirrel.

I never said you were wrong. I made an off hand comment that I did not like deer, but did not mind rabbit, squirrel or snake.

I actually never said that you were wrong. Do you need proof?

Here it is:

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Deer is meh. But I will eat it. I dislike elk and caribou though. Yech

Rabbit, squirrel, snake, etc. All good.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

edit on 3/8/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

I point out that the federal government owns and will not just hand over the major shipping corridors and you respond by pointing out that Texas owns some bridges and stuff.

Those bridges are the major shipping corridors, along with the roadways! The federal government does not own ANY of it!

Blah blah blah. Read above. You are dead wrong.

What do those bridges have to do with our perception of the new Nation of Texas as an enemy threat? What does it have to do with bordering airspace?

You wrote --You also have to be smart enough to understand that allowing a neighboring ENEMY nation access to so many federally owned biways becomes a matter of national security for the US and it is doubtful that you will just be given all this federally built and maintained infrastructure.--


Notice the sections in bold? You are categorically wrong in your premise, and therefore makes your whole statement wrong. There is no issue of national security, because those are not federal corridors.

Texas as a GDP of 1.44 trillion. We get back only 96% of that TOTAL (as evidenced by link in previous pages. That includes all highway funds, disaster relief, etc.). That 4% is roughly 57,600,000,000 that Texas loses each year. More if we happen to not ask the government for some of our money back.

Do the math.

You should really go back to your sources and try your math all over again but hey, I would be happy to just concede.

I gave you my source here. It states "The latest report allocates approximately 92 percent of total FY 2005 federal spending. The 8 percent not allocated includes net interest outlays, foreign aid, and other outlays that are not allocable to the states"

Notice the word total? That includes highway funding, disaster relief, earmarks, etc. Total.

The total GDP of Texas is actually 1.224 trillion. So my memory was off a bit (notice no link to back up that number until now? I was going by memory.)

If 100 pennies equals one dollar, and Texas gets back 96 pennies for every dollar it sends to Washington, that is 96% return. That means that 4% of the 1.224 trillion goes to the other states. .04*1.224 trillion = $48 ,960,000,000.

I am not that great at math, so if you can prove me wrong, have at it. I have no problem admitting when the evidence shows that I am wrong.

Texas is so big and tough and self sustaining that it should be its own nation. You win. Ok, now get to it!

It is being got to, which is why this thread was made

You are the one crying about the federal government not letting Texas have stuff

You still here? I am not crying about anything. I am simply introducing a little reality into your fantasy. You are the one wanting to run away from the big bad US. Why can't you get away? What is it you need from other people in order to fullfill that independant streak you claim to hold so dear?

Your perception of reality, and the real world are at diametric odds with each other, as I have gone above and beyond proving in this thread, and specifically in this post.

:shrug:

Are you shrugging from American soil?

edit on 9-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

The motto of this site is deny ignorance.

I am shrugging off your ignorant trolling attempts.

This will be my final reply to you, as you have done nothing but make false claims, with no evidence to back it up, you have ridiculed myself and others while invoking these false claims, and you have contributed not one iota to this thread. Instead you have tried to derail it with emotional arguments, lacking of standing or logic.

Good day.

If it makes the ballot I will be voting yes. The only thing that kind of turns my gut about it would be the possible term "President Rick Perry". YUCK. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, however "President of the Republic of Texas, Kinky Friedman, or Ron Paul", I could live with that!

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Why would you want to boycott Texas? Why not boycott the U.S. federal government?

The Texan state government is no different to the Federal government. Perry was a staunch supporter of the Bush doctrine, stood right by him during the passing of the patriot act and the Iraq war, has been a faithful Republican supporter for years and still is to this day.

So, Texas seperate (taking along Perry and Bush) will essentially just be splitting part of the issue with the federal government. It is interesting to see people throw around this notion that Texas seceeding is going to solve their problems there, to the contrary.

And YOU complain about Texas?

Texas has alot to blame itself for considering the state of this country. They happily elected Bush as governor of their state, overwhelmingly supported him as president in 2000 and even after the patriot act and the lies about the Iraq war, overwhelmingly elected him in 2004 again. Bush even got a welcoming party in Crawford in 2009, most Texans had no issue with him coming back. So now Texas wants to split away because they believe this current administration is infringing on their freedoms and lying. Yep.

Sounds rather hypocritical to me.

You want to boycott Texas because a representative files a bill?

Texas aint going anywhere, as evidenced by its various attempts of partitioning secession in the past, it always ends up as a bluff in the end.

But, in the hypothetical scenario that Texas does seceed, I for one would love to be there to see the results for myself. To name afew Texas will need to cut more than 2 million of it's elderly residents off medicare for numerous apparent reasons along with sanctions, the loss of businesses due to Texas being sanctioned, the loss of jobs with those businesses, the loss of the federal border patrol and so forth. But hey, it is so easy for pro-secessionists to sit here and insist that won't be the case or what not, but that is the reality in my view.

The U.S. sends soldiers and weaponry around the globe, killing people in their own homes.

In 2003 more than 60% of Texans supported the war in Iraq, that same amount supported the war in Afghanistan. Yep.

Originally posted by texas thinker
If it makes the ballot I will be voting yes. The only thing that kind of turns my gut about it would be the possible term "President Rick Perry". YUCK. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, however "President of the Republic of Texas, Kinky Friedman, or Ron Paul", I could live with that!

No... that will be the condition I put forth. If Texas leaves the Union, they cannot take Ron Paul with them. He wants to give states more sovereignty from the White House so he wouldn't be nearly as effective sitting in office in Texas. No, Dr. Paul runs. If he doesn't get elected in 2012, you can have him back.

Reply to post by Cuervo

Well if this makes it to the ballot and passes, the next time anything can be dome about would be in 2013 when the legislature meets again.

Win win

lol


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Wow. Someone is really really worried about whether or not I am personally convinced that you are leaving, have the right to leave, and can make it on your own. I am flattered as all heck. No wonder my name came up in your other thread 4 posts in.

Somebody can't stop thinking about how Sinnthia feels about them leaving. Awwwwwwe. Tell you what. You can take the tv from the office, ok. Just quit telling me about it and go already. Jeez. This is the worst breakup ever.

Perhaps I should have gotten you reading glasses as a parting gift but you know, I really do not care that much.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
No thanks. I am not looking to be convinced that you can and should leave. I have conceded that and wished you the best of luck. Any further attempts to convince me you are right instead of actually doing it will only go to prove the lack of sincerity so apparent to most other people. Please save your typing fingers for all that grabbing guns and defending your bridges and squirrel supplies.

I told you not to bother. I am certainly not going to bother reading it. I would just rather agree with you that you are right, yet again. You are going to argue either way.

Texas has the right to secede. Texas will do awesome on its own. OK then. All you are doing here is going

"We really mean it this time, we really do!!!! Are you listening? We are going? Sinnthia? Sinnthia? We are leaving. You cant stop us! You cannot make us stay! Let me sit down and explain at great length why you cannot make us stay. Because we really are leaving this time. Really we are. Sinnthia, are you even listening? We are going!!!! Maybe I better stick around and explain it some more. Hello??? We are trying to say goodbye here! I better make two threads on this because you people are just not listening. We are leaving! We hate you guys and do not want to stay here ANYMORE! Maybe if we explain it a little more, you will understand. Won't you even miss us?"



Seriously, who are you trying to convince with all that? You do not need my approval and you have it. So move along with it.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I sincerely appreciate your honesty and additional info. I concede error is assuming you live in Texas but was influenced by your staunch support. My bad, and my apology. You get extra bonus points for the chuckles, much appreciated.

I honsetly believe this has a snowballs chance of ever becoming a reality, so we are debating hypotheticals. Buit if it does I'd like to be the forst to proclaim BOYCOT TEXAS. Now there is a [I]MOVEMENT I could get behind.

Apology unnecessary, but accepted, and the chuckles are gratis. Imagine having to live it, and trying to figure out WHY. After a while, the why just doesn't seem to matter so much.

Some times, the world is just crazy, and that's all the "why" there is to it. Sometimes, the world is only crazy because I make it so, but with pretty much the same results as a natural sort of craziness.

I think if it ever has a chance, those days would be a ways off still. There will likely have to be a lot more unrest present before it gains enough serious traction. So yes, we ARE debating hypotheticals. Even the "resolution" to be put to a popular vote should this succeed passing the legislature is a non-binding plebescite, and is more in the nature of an ear to the ground sort of poll than it is a serious attempt at secession at this point.

That's why it's so much fun to debate it. We know that at this point there's not much chance of anyone actually trading shots over it - although I sometime wonder considering the heat injected into the debates here at times.

I've no problem with you boycotting Texas - that's an individual choice, not a government mandate... yet. In the same way, I boycott Union made goods currently. I've not noticed much effect on the Unions, but I do it all the same. We're all pretty happy with it, and no one is getting shot at over it, so it works for us - "us" being myself AND the Unions. They hardly even notice my failure to contribute...

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
The ball is rolling. But like I said before, apparently patience is not one of your virtues.

Does patience equate to 150 years? If that's the case you must be a very patient man.

Showing us petitions and legislation does not change a thing. In my time here I've seen alot of petitions, laws and so forth come into effect, and I've heard the oh so common "any time now" comment flood various threads, and then before we know it, it's the start of a new month and a new issue or piece of hyped up news that we should all listen to again. And what happened to that petition or legislation that people were rallying behind before? It didn't do a thing, aside from scoring the politicians behind them more campaign money and support in time for the elections.

Lemon will you be able to update us on the progress of this bill in two months time? If you are confident that is.

Reply to post by Southern Guardian

I actually intend too keep an eye on this.

I do not think the people as a whole are reagdy yet, as evidenced by the re-election of Perry, though the movement has been picking up steam.

Same as the people who are stuck in the Republican vs Democrat paradigm.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I actually intend too keep an eye on this.

I do not think the people as a whole are reagdy yet,

So now you are having doubts that secession will occur at all considering this proposal to the Texan government you posted to us?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Southern Guardian,
apparently, you must agree with the actions of our federal government...those actions that I would boycott. I say this, because you did not make it your point to agree with me. You only chose to take my argument, and throw in a bunch of straw dogs.
In fact, there IS a difference between Texas state government and the federal government, but YOU know that don't you? For instance, Perry can't very well keep someone that has not been convicted of any crime (foreign combatants) without a trial in prison for life. And, Perry can't personally assure foreign governments of FULL support of our mercenaries...military.
But, Obama apparently can. Heck, as much as I hate Bush, he was a lightweight compared to Obama.
You seem to think that I think Texas is perfect. I am no fool S.G., I know people are stupid, even Texans. But, unlike you, I can recognize the bigger enemy at the moment, though we ALL have so many.

So, are you against Texas for the reasons you stated? Then, by your own reasoning and methodology, you are against America.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I actually intend too keep an eye on this.

I do not think the people as a whole are reagdy yet,

So now you are having doubts that secession will occur at all considering this proposal to the Texan government you posted to us?

I never said I did not have doubts.

I am excited that this is starting to roll. I am excited that the movement is growing and has over 1 million signatures on the petition.

But it still has to pass by the general public, if it gets passed the legislature.

It is up to the supporters to push as hard as they every have now, or it will fail, and the movement will be puched back a few decades.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Southern Guardian,
apparently, you must agree with the actions of our federal government...

I don't agree with many of the actions taken by the federal government, no. But I do find it hypocritical with criticism coming from Texans and the Texas government the likes of Perry. If you cannot see the hypocrisy then I cannot help you because evidently you have selective memory.

I say this, because you did not make it your point to agree with me. You only chose to take my argument, and throw in a bunch of straw dogs.

Ok, so you have absolutely no issue with Perry and his government and their actions, but you want to hold a different standard to the federal government. right? I would agree with you if you admitted to the fact we have a problem with our state governments as much as our federal governments, but you don't seem to want to admit this.

In fact, there IS a difference between Texas state government and the federal government, but YOU know that don't you? For instance, Perry can't very well keep someone that has not been convicted of any crime (foreign combatants) without a trial in prison for life.

I'm not arguing Perrys inability to charge Bush with crimes just like you can't blame good folks for our constitution for their inability to charge him. I'm arguing about Perry's silence, or rather, support of the Bush doctrine and the many unconstitutional actions carried out by the federal government over the years. I am looking right back to the many texans, millions of them, who have backed the actions of the federal government for years and have never, by the least, held themselves accountable over.

So excuse me if I throw Texas trash right back at ya, because to me it stinks just the same as the Federal governments. You seem to have me ignore one over the other because of your bias. It stinks the same to me.

Perry can't personally assure foreign governments of FULL support of our mercenaries...military.

Again, Perry is not been criticized by me over his inaction over these policies, he's been held accountable by me over his full support of them and the fact he has not held himself accountable, ever. Him and the many other Texans... and now they want to declare secession because the government is doing the exact things they had supported for years.

If you were really concerned with these specific actions by the federal government, you would not be ignoring the support and the actions of those state governments.

I am no fool S.G.

Then wake up and actually read what I am posting to you.

So, are you against Texas for the reasons you stated?

I find the motives behind the Texas government and many Texans hypocritical. Texas has been verymuch apart of the issue with this country, and now Texas wants to leave because, well, they feel the need to blame the federal government for actions they supported for years. When I refer to Texas, I refer to the Texas government and the many pro-secessionist Texans who held their support for the actions of the federal government over the years.

Now surely you understand my point here. You can try and turn it around as much as possible, but I am confident you know pritty darn well its a fact.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I never said I did not have doubts.

I am excited that this is starting to roll. I am excited that the movement is growing and has over 1 million signatures on the petition.

So, do you have a time limit of Texas secession? How long do you believe it will be before Texas seceeds?