PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Texas to withdraw from the United States of America


Pages : 1 [2]

listopencil
11-14-2012, 10:04 AM
What force would be used to stop an armed insurrection within our borders? National Guard?

Amnorix
11-14-2012, 10:07 AM
What force would be used to stop an armed insurrection within our borders? National Guard?


This whole thread is a real waste of bandwidth. I assume everyone is aware of this?

Bob Dole
11-14-2012, 10:07 AM
This whole thread is a real waste of bandwidth. I assume everyone is aware of this?

Dreamcrusher.

Donger
11-14-2012, 10:08 AM
It's like a whole other country.

listopencil
11-14-2012, 10:08 AM
This whole thread is a real waste of bandwidth. I assume everyone is aware of this?

I am always in favor of promoting discussion regarding state's rights.

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 11:15 AM
What force would be used to stop an armed insurrection within our borders? National Guard?

Fixed your quote.

Amnorix
11-14-2012, 11:42 AM
I am always in favor of promoting discussion regarding state's rights.


Secession ain't on the list. We established that one already, at significant cost of blood and treasure.

listopencil
11-14-2012, 11:55 AM
Secession ain't on the list. We established that one already, at significant cost of blood and treasure.

I don't think this is really about secession.

Mile High Mania
11-14-2012, 11:57 AM
Texas should pull OK, AR and LA with them... then annex Mexico and BAM - we have all we need.

Cannibal
11-14-2012, 11:58 AM
The entire southeast portion of the country should join them.

listopencil
11-14-2012, 11:59 AM
Texas should pull OK, AR and LA with them... then annex Mexico and BAM - we have all we need.


If Texas and Colorado could get along...you might be able to make a nation from one giant chunk of the middle of the country from border to border.

listopencil
11-14-2012, 12:00 PM
The entire southeast portion of the country should join them.

I know, every state could secede and then form a...ah, shit. Never mind.

Comrade Crapski
11-14-2012, 07:31 PM
Fairly regularly updated economic news at http://recenter.tamu.edu/newstalk/

Thank you.

:thumb:

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 07:33 PM
Texas should pull OK, AR and LA with them... then annex Mexico and BAM - we have all we need.All you need for what?

Comrade Crapski
11-14-2012, 07:43 PM
This whole thread is a real waste of bandwidth. I assume everyone is aware of this?

Why?

The United states is bankrupt, morally and financially. Washington DC is a corrupt cesspool. Like cancer, you have to cut it out.

There are many states that are productive and thriving, while others are peoples republics. Think North and South Korea.

Now, imagine if there was a central authority between the two states, and the North had more representation. They would take more and more from the South, inevitably destroying both states.

More and more people are wising up to the game. Our elected officials who make policy come from large population cesspools like Chicago and San Francicko. They don't represent people from "flyover country" yet they make all the policies that adversely disturb their lives and extort more and more lucre in the form of federal taxes.

Our currency is rendered more and more worthless with each passing day.

Why wouldn't Texas or an entire region want to cut the cancer out and form a brand new country that shares similar values, culture and yes, currency? A currency that is worth the paper it is printed on?

Discuss Thrower
11-14-2012, 07:45 PM
The irony in any state seceding would be the fact that if it got violent and enough civvies got killed, then the UN might get involved and start staying people have a right to self-determination a la Kosovo.. even though I imagine the UN is one reason why people would want to leave the US in the first place.

Comrade Crapski
11-14-2012, 07:51 PM
The irony in any state seceding would be the fact that if it got violent and enough civvies got killed, then the UN might get involved and start staying people have a right to self-determination a la Kosovo.. even though I imagine the UN is one reason why people would want to leave the US in the first place.

Look around the world at all the violence that occurs and the UN does nothing. Look at the failed states that we prop up--- from Egypt to Pakistan.

Please, Texas will be just fine as it's own country. In fact it will be so successful, it will lead to an avalanche of other states wishing to follow suit.

Kosovo. :rolleyes:

|Zach|
11-14-2012, 08:18 PM
LMAO

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 08:21 PM
Please, Texas will be just fine as it's own country. In fact it will be so successful, it will lead to an avalanche of other states wishing to follow suit.Just like that Romney landslide that you predicted.

Comrade Crapski
11-14-2012, 08:23 PM
Just like that Romney landslide that you predicted.

I was wrong. There were 100,000 more moonbats in Virginia, PA, and Ohio than I thought.

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 08:27 PM
I was wrong. There were 100,000 more moonbats in Virginia, PA, and Ohio than I thought.I think Obama won by more than 100K votes. Your views were soundly rejected by the country.

<table class="vk_txt results-president ts"><tbody><tr style="text-align:right"><td style="text-align:left;width:27%">Candidate </td> <td style="padding-right:10px" nowrap="nowrap"> Popular vote </td> <td style="padding-right:10px"> Percentage </td> <td colspan="2" style="padding-right:10px" nowrap="nowrap"> Electoral votes (270 to win) </td> </tr> <tr class="vk_sh"> <td style="color:#Barack Obama</td> <td style="text-align:right"> 62610717 </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 51% </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 332 </td> <td style="text-align:right">


</td> </tr> <tr class="vk_sh"> <td style="color:#Mitt Romney</td> <td style="text-align:right"> 59136717 </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 48% </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 206 </td> <td style="text-align:right">

</td></tr></tbody></table>

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:28 PM
I think Obama won by more than 100K votes. Your views were soundly rejected by the country.

<table class="vk_txt results-president ts"><tbody><tr style="text-align:right"><td style="text-align:left;width:27%">Candidate </td> <td style="padding-right:10px" nowrap="nowrap"> Popular vote </td> <td style="padding-right:10px"> Percentage </td> <td colspan="2" style="padding-right:10px" nowrap="nowrap"> Electoral votes (270 to win) </td> </tr> <tr class="vk_sh"> <td style="color:#Barack Obama</td> <td style="text-align:right"> 62610717 </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 51% </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 332 </td> <td style="text-align:right">


</td> </tr> <tr class="vk_sh"> <td style="color:#Mitt Romney</td> <td style="text-align:right"> 59136717 </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 48% </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 206 </td> <td style="text-align:right">

</td></tr></tbody></table>

I don't call a 51-48 victory being soundly rejected.

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 08:51 PM
I don't call a 51-48 victory being soundly rejected.In todays electorate, yes it does.

|Zach|
11-14-2012, 09:03 PM
The lead up and aftermath of this election has been a joy.

People going crazy.

Companies blaming Obama for their own woes in the free market.

Dogs and cats...living together...mass hysteria.

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:10 PM
I don't call a 51-48 victory being soundly rejected.

I shall grasp my anger like a virgin does his cock.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:20 PM
I think Obama won by more than 100K votes. Your views were soundly rejected by the country.

<table class="vk_txt results-president ts"><tbody><tr style="text-align:right"><td style="text-align:left;width:27%">Candidate </td> <td style="padding-right:10px" nowrap="nowrap"> Popular vote </td> <td style="padding-right:10px"> Percentage </td> <td colspan="2" style="padding-right:10px" nowrap="nowrap"> Electoral votes (270 to win) </td> </tr> <tr class="vk_sh"> <td style="color:#Barack Obama</td> <td style="text-align:right"> 62610717 </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 51% </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 332 </td> <td style="text-align:right">


</td> </tr> <tr class="vk_sh"> <td style="color:#Mitt Romney</td> <td style="text-align:right"> 59136717 </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 48% </td> <td style="text-align:right"> 206 </td> <td style="text-align:right">

</td></tr></tbody></table>

Obama won in 2008 with a 7.27% lead. His support dropped because he won with 2.8% recently. He also did not win the Independent vote. The Christian right did not all turn out for Romney either. They didn't all vote.

Now let's look at this election another way:
There are 207.6 million eligible voters in the U.S. The number who voted is 123.7 million. About 40.4 percent didn't vote.

Applying the Austrian economic analysis, we can conclude that 40.4 percent of possible voters, for many reasons, did not find it worthwhile to vote or found that the costs of voting exceeded the potential benefits. This non-vote is, in effect, a vote against their government and against any candidate for president. The preceding conclusion is solid as a rock. But I'd go further and speculate that their non-vote is, in effect, a vote against the system of voting.[<-the latter part I don't really agree with but it is true for some people who don't vote.]

Obama won with 62.6 million votes. He got 30.2 percent of eligible voters' possible votes. What he should do is immediately resign. He has failed even to get any reasonable fraction of his countrymen behind his presidency. Romney, of course, did slightly worse.

Obama's slimmer margin (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/126360.html)


The Republicans still have a majority in the House—that's the only place any revenue bill can originate. It's not one of the President's powers. The power of the purse belongs to the House. They don't have to give him what he wants. He has no right to dictate to them either as if he's an elected dictator. That's what you're demanding. He already dressed the SC down twice. We have checks and balances.

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:25 PM
In todays electorate, yes it does.

No it doesn't. That's just your opinion. It's enough to be elected president, but we have three branches of govt.
The EC is to create a clear winner and because of the role of the president since he represents the nation in terms of treaties, ambassadors, meeting foreign officials and executing war. He does not represent the various constituencies. The House has that role.
So he does not craft legislation.

bobbymitch
11-14-2012, 09:29 PM
Nowhere do I see Texans demanding that Texas withdraw from and pay all of their "citizens" social security, medicar, medicade expenses. Neither do I see them demanding that they pay all consruction and maintainance of their interstate roads, airport maintnenace, nor demand that they assume funding of any and all programs, including farm subsidies, in lieu of sending federal tax dollars back east.

It just seems that they are being a bunch of brats who just want to take their toys and go home because the election didn't go their way.

listopencil
11-15-2012, 12:55 AM
Nowhere do I see Texans demanding that Texas withdraw from and pay all of their "citizens" social security, medicar, medicade expenses. Neither do I see them demanding that they pay all consruction and maintainance of their interstate roads, airport maintnenace, nor demand that they assume funding of any and all programs, including farm subsidies, in lieu of sending federal tax dollars back east.

It just seems that they are being a bunch of brats who just want to take their toys and go home because the election didn't go their way.

Not even remotely close:

http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/burdens/burdensdata.php?mode=all_years_one_state&state=Texas&usa=false

listopencil
11-15-2012, 01:00 AM
And:

In 2009, most states — there were 45, including Texas — received more than residents paid in taxes. Though no data is yet available, DeLuna Castro said Texas will again receive more than residents paid in taxes in 2010. But by 2011, when stimulus funds dry up, she speculated that Texas will revert to being a "donor state."

Summing up: The figures from our sources show two different trends. On an annual basis between 1981 and 2003, Texas almost always paid more in federal taxes than it got back from Uncle Sam. But since 2003 the reverse has been true, with Texas receiving more than it paid in five out of seven years, which is close to routine.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/apr/22/rachel-maddow/msnbc-host-rachel-maddow-says-texas-routinely-rece/

Comrade Crapski
11-15-2012, 01:17 AM
Nowhere do I see Texans demanding that Texas withdraw from and pay all of their "citizens" social security, medicar, medicade expenses. Neither do I see them demanding that they pay all consruction and maintainance of their interstate roads, airport maintnenace, nor demand that they assume funding of any and all programs, including farm subsidies, in lieu of sending federal tax dollars back east.

It just seems that they are being a bunch of brats who just want to take their toys and go home because the election didn't go their way.

LMAO

Texas sends over $200 billion dollars a year to wash dc.

I'm sure they can figure out how to maintain interstate roads if they get to keep that.

Comrade Crapski
11-15-2012, 01:19 AM
And:

In 2009, most states — there were 45, including Texas — received more than residents paid in taxes. Though no data is yet available,

ROFL

listopencil
11-15-2012, 01:36 AM
ROFL

"In 2009, most states — there were 45, including Texas — received more than residents paid in taxes. Though no data is yet available, DeLuna Castro said Texas will again receive more than residents paid in taxes in 2010."

That would be the entire sentence. Were you lol'ing because you misread the quote? by the way, the article explains that from 1981 to 2003 Texas contributed more to the Federal government in taxes than it received. From roughly the beginning of W's second term to now that was flip flopped for a slight majority of years due to stimulus money being sent out to all the states, including Texas.

Comrade Crapski
11-15-2012, 02:29 AM
"In 2009, most states — there were 45, including Texas — received more than residents paid in taxes. Though no data is yet available, DeLuna Castro said Texas will again receive more than residents paid in taxes in 2010."

That would be the entire sentence. Were you lol'ing because you misread the quote? by the way, the article explains that from 1981 to 2003 Texas contributed more to the Federal government in taxes than it received. From roughly the beginning of W's second term to now that was flip flopped for a slight majority of years due to stimulus money being sent out to all the states, including Texas.

I didn't misread anything.

The taxpayers in Texas did not get back there money. The statement that these states "received more than residents paid in taxes" might be accurate, however who is "the state"? Federal employees who work in that state? Do you have any idea how many military bases are in Texas? Do you know how much federal property has to be maintained in those states? How much of that money goes to medicaid costs? Yeah, neither do I, because the OP doesn't provide the information.

Also when you factor in the waste, fraud and abuse, I guarantee the +200 billion dollars that Texas sends to the pig trough in wash dc would be managed much more efficiently if they just kept the money and handled the above mentioned costs themselves. In fact, they would be left with a surplus.

listopencil
11-15-2012, 02:36 AM
I didn't misread anything.

The taxpayers in Texas did not get back there money. The statement that these states "received more than residents paid in taxes" might be accurate, however who is "the state"? Federal employees who work in that state? Do you have any idea how many military bases are in Texas? Do you know how much federal property has to be maintained in those states? How much of that money goes to medicaid costs? Yeah, neither do I, because the OP doesn't provide the information.

Also when you factor in the waste, fraud and abuse, I guarantee the +200 billion dollars that Texas sends to the pig trough in wash dc would be managed much more efficiently if they just kept the money and handled the above mentioned costs themselves. In fact, they would be left with a surplus.

I asked you because you highlighted a sentence fragment. We don't disagree here. I am saying that not only does Texas run efficiently enough to tax its citizens substantially less than most states, but that historically Texas pays more money to the Federal government than it receives. The notion of Texas falling apart (economically) without Federal money is ridiculous.

Comrade Crapski
11-15-2012, 03:10 AM
I asked you because you highlighted a sentence fragment. We don't disagree here. I am saying that not only does Texas run efficiently enough to tax its citizens substantially less than most states, but that historically Texas pays more money to the Federal government than it receives. The notion of Texas falling apart (economically) without Federal money is ridiculous.

Oh. OK. We agree, then.

I apologize.

displacedinMN
11-17-2012, 06:42 PM
I may be willing to move there except it is too damn hot.

Maybe only in the winter-Like Canadians