Texas can leave the union if it wants to...

page 2 of 6: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

lukimp80Threads: 3 Posts: 109 Joined: Dec 1, 08 ♂	Apr 19, 09, 19:04 #31
dcchris: hmm does the nameTimothy Mcveigh ring any bells? One man. Jesus Christ. And you are a teacher? God have mercy on your pupils. You sir are an IDIOT in my eyes. Please go away. You nauseate me.

dcchrisThreads: 11 Posts: 687 Joined: Oct 29, 07 ♂	Apr 19, 09, 20:41 #32
lukimp80: You sir are an IDIOT the immediate insults when the point is lost. very mature debating skills you have.

♂

Apr 19, 09, 21:25 #33

Wahldo:

Another genius.. ever heard of the civil war? It's illegal to leave the union.

This is very characteristic for such unions. First voluntary and suddenly obligatory as soon as rule of new establishment is undisputed. (legally or illegally, this is impossible to leave). The US is good example. One should mention Soviet Union where many republics had theoretically possibility to leave. The same will be with the EU, seeing their constant appetite to extend their powers this is more than obvious.

HatefulBunch397:

When a small business fails, no one is there to "bail it out" there is no special fund the government has for them to fall back on

Politicians cannot let to bankrupt companies that corrupt them on regular basis.

Seanus:

America needs to be together more than ever and playing poor me isn't gonna solve that.

Why? Different people in the US have different interests and many of them have different interest than Washington's bureaucracy.

Seanus:

So what? The other States don't feel hard done by either?

This is not problem of Texas.

sledz:

They cant even afford to feed all the homeless in that ghetto city of Houston??

sledz:

Ok Ill be serious

I hope that this suggestion that the state should be responsible for feeding all drunken and lazy people leaving there is a part of the joke :)

freebird:

Danzig can become a free city again

It definitely should gain autonomy. Rule from Warsaw/Brussels is very harming to local economy.

osiol:

I assume there aren't many Gdanskites (better name please) wishing for their city to be independent of the rest of Poland, if any.

Maybe not for full independence but I think that if some widely respected citizen (this exclude politicians) would start movement for autonomy, he would collect many supporters.

dcchris:

hmm does the nameTimothy Mcveigh ring any bells?

With such attitude government must pay special attention literally on everyone. This would lead to preventional terror.

♂

Apr 19, 09, 21:32 #34

Lesser, in when it's good and out when it's bad is hardly an advert for the UNITED States.

Secondly, America has a great system. They have Federal laws and a Constitution that has largely worked very well. They just need to ride the waves of the storm and America will return to its former high stature. I bet the Texans would change their tune then.

There are different interests in every country. Just look at the EU. I know you are not a fan of it but it has brought countries with highly varying outlooks together. America, now more than ever, needs to be united.

♂

Edited by: lesser Apr 19, 09, 21:57 #35

Seanus:

Lesser, in when it's good and out when it's bad is hardly an advert for the UNITED States.

I'm not paid by US government to make them to look good :) Smaller territories are always easier to govern.

Seanus:

Secondly, America has a great system. They have Federal laws and a Constitution that has largely worked very well.

In comparison with the EU it look good indeed. However greed of Washington's bureaucracy is not smaller. Just constitution block their appetites but this will not stop them in the future. Constitutional judges are nominated by presidents, always from political key. They are not objective public servants but politically motivated creatures. If some group of judges have majority then they can say that constitution in fact state something different that everybody thought till this day. White can become black in one moment. This tribunal have history of misinterpreting constitution. I think that founding fathers would be really surprised how their intentions were missed.

Seanus:

I know you are not a fan of it but it has brought countries with highly varying outlooks together.

Common road to socialism? I'm not interested. I demand from politicians much more than not starting military conflicts.

♂

Apr 19, 09, 22:03 #36

Well, yes they are but that isn't the point. My point was clear, suit-me suit-me ways are not gonna curry favour and, IMHO, makes them look stupid and childish.

Still, lesser, varying interpretations differ from fully tampering which Obama has recently tried with the reversal of the right to bear arms. As judges, they have to capture the spirit and ascertain the intentions of the Constitution as best they can and they have extensive legal training.

If they don't do their jobs or produce unintended and un-Constitutional outcomes, they will be hauled over the coals and be taken to task.

Wahldo

Apr 19, 09, 22:12 #37

lesser:

The same will be with the EU, seeing their constant appetite to extend their powers this is more than obvious.

Well I don't know if you can equate the EU with the US that much in this regard. I know you hate the EU but a state like Texas has gained quite a bit from being in the US. Road construction, schools , huge harbors for shipping. They can't just jump out , jump in like some damn hokey-pokey dance.

Let me put it this way: Małopolskie wants to go its own way, how about Lubuskie are you just going to let it happen? You would not object one bit? Yes you would because Poland as whole has invested in those places.

SeanusThreads: 22 Posts: 30,160 Joined: Dec 25, 07 ♂	Apr 19, 09, 22:20 #38
Exactly, Wahldo. Playing the sulky schoolkid is not the way forward. Yeah, it's a bit like the hokey-cokey approach. In times of crises, rallying around helps more. Texas cannot really be serious if they think officials at Washington are the main culprits. It goes much deeper than that.

Wahldo

Apr 19, 09, 22:28 #39

Seanus:

Texas cannot really be serious if they think officials at Washington are the main culprits.

Well you see they blame Obama for spending this money but offer no counter plan whatsoever. DC Chris kind of paraphrased that. We'll probably see 10% unemployment but not the 15% - 20% you'd see if he did nothing. Should that happen, you'd have people eventually leaving the US in droves absolutely killing your tax base and skilled labor supply.

Obama is not a messiah but leave it to a southerner to pull this kind of ridiculous sh/t in a time like this.

What a joke.

♂

Edited by: Seanus Apr 19, 09, 22:35 #40

It just goes to show how deeply entrenched their hardliner attitude is. If the Texans were so damn smart, they would've explored different ways of extracting oil, sth Obama and McCain discussed in their debates. They should have the expertise as a couple of biggies are based down there. But no, they sit/sat back and let Washington cut the deals with the Saudis and placate the Iraqis to get from them too.

lukimp80Threads: 3 Posts: 109 Joined: Dec 1, 08 ♂	Apr 19, 09, 23:11 #41
Not to worry Seanus, it's all a conspiracy anyhow.

IronsideThreads: 56 Posts: 6,196 Joined: Feb 26, 09 ♂	Apr 19, 09, 23:21 #42
CSA ? go for it

SeanusThreads: 22 Posts: 30,160 Joined: Dec 25, 07 ♂	Apr 20, 09, 00:04 #43
Well, the American government is good at those ;)

♂

Apr 20, 09, 02:39 #44

I don't think Texas would go under if they were to secede.
Commentary about secession being illegal (re: the U.S. "Civil" war) is off the mark; the states had every right to secede peacefully when they felt Washington was overgrowing its bounds, and that is exactly what they did. President Lincoln then decided that regardless of what the constitution said, he wanted to force these insolent states under his will, and refused to withdraw Federal troops from various bases suddenly positioned in a foreign country. When diplomatic efforts failed, South Carolina troops fired on Ft. Sumpter which was occupied by US troops who Lincoln refused to withdraw.
It was a war in which propaganda played a huge part, and is even believed today. Many Americans, even, believe that the war was fought over slavery....it wasn't (there were even tens of thousands of former slaves fighting under the CS banners, and people who did not believe in slavery also fought for the CSA...) rather states newly becoming members of the Union were being mandated from Washington that "your new state will have slaves" "yours will not" nevermind what the state wanted, and that was just one of many issues...this is not to say the Confederacy was anti slavery, because it was not. but that was not why it was formed. Many Americans also believe Lincoln freed slaves....he freed exactly zero. He wrote the "emancipation proclamation" well after the start of hostilities, hoping to create subversion in the Confederate ranks, as they were giving some of his Union generals a very hard time. Take the time to read it. It frees not a single slave in the states Lincoln controlled. 20 years later....and well after he was dead, was when AMERICA banned it.
OK, I'm a history nut, lesson concluded.

I think if it came to it, Texas would do fine. If the US government truly is leaving the citizens of Texas unrepresented, and Texas isn't getting fair treatment...they shouldn't have to stay in. Some may not realize this but America started as separate governments which then decided to work together simply to help themselves against (sorry folks) the British.
Which is why when one reads accounts of the Civil war or some such, instead of "The US Army" is here or there, one reads about the "20th Maine Infantry" or "Picketts North Carolina" and this continued on well into WWI.

If Texas has such a large economy...it would tell one Texas is doing something right, and Washington is penalizing them for it by making them pay for all the other states which are not. Imagine if instead of sending money to Washington to pay for the "Octomom" and her 37 children, they could spend it on better schools in Texas...not to mention not paying anything to the US government would be a huge income boost to the state.
Militarily, it might not be a superpower, but then again, if it nationalized the military industry there, just as the Saudis nationalized oil facilities built and operated by us....
I think they'd do fine.

Anyway, don't think it would be the catastrophe for Texas, but the rest of the US govt...used to taxing the @#$# out of success to pay for those who won't work for it...will suffer, I think, if that ever were to happen.

John P.

osiolThreads: 59 Posts: 4,714 Joined: Jul 25, 07 ♂	Apr 20, 09, 02:52 #45
Winklepickedia: In Florida there have been calls in the past and present to separate the state into north (a more southern culture) and south (a more northern culture).

♂

Apr 20, 09, 02:57 #46

Well said John P.

"Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States."

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000100.html

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the United States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Essentially Rousseau channeled by the founding fathers.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

♂

Apr 20, 09, 03:55 #47

[quote=Babinich]
Essentially Rousseau channeled by the founding fathers.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Not only Rousseau, Please don't forget about Locke and Hobbes. It is clearly seen that the declaration is more of Locke than anything else. his three rights= life, liberty, property. These rights are clearly mimicked in the declaration.

Nice job John P, sometimes it pays off to be a history geek lol

♂

Apr 20, 09, 05:04 #48

The wikipedia article from which I had quoted, states that the majority of US citizens believe that it is illegal for a state to secede from the union.

I would have thought that the forces keeping the states together are much stronger than any of those pulling it apart. However, the threat of secession may be what it takes to get things changed if a particular state doesn't get what it wants, particularly if it creates a lot of wealth with things like oil.

♂

Edited by: sledz Apr 20, 09, 05:32 #49

Has anybody been in the Dallas/Ft.Worth area latley besides our pgtx :)

The exit ramps and bridges look lke Roller coasters, everything is big in Texas the state is huge, I drove across it once, swamps on one end, mountians on the other side.

Hands down the worlds best BBQ Ribs and Steaks!!

The majority of people you meet there are usually very friendly:)

You got to be carefull if youre a Yankee, they still dont like us...lol

BabinichThreads: 1 Posts: 1,049 Joined: May 26, 08 ♂	Apr 20, 09, 11:34 #50
osiol: The wikipedia article from which I had quoted, states that the majority of US citizens believe that it is illegal for a state to secede from the union. Now does that surprise you? Mattewoflv: Not only Rousseau, Please don't forget about Locke and Hobbes. Yes; I should not have mentioned Rousseau without mentioning the others.

♂

Edited by: Seanus Apr 20, 09, 11:43 #51

All this talk of Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau, I like what they wrote. Particularly on their central theme of 'the social contract'. I have subconsciously followed their reasoning elsewhere on PF.

However, the man that America could be indebted to is Montesquieu. He created the separation of powers doctrine upon which the US Constitution and apparatus are based.

Still, Babinich is right to mention Rousseau first and foremost as having a different perception of the social contract. He posited that 'man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains'. He was well aware of the theft committed by the rich and wealthy at the expense of the poor. He hated this and wanted democracy to manifest itself in its fullest form. Government of the people, for the people, by the people, something like that. I think it was him that said 'We the people.....' which is ensconsed within the US Constitution.

So, Texans want self governance. Fair enough but they are doing it against the spirit of things. Rousseau envisaged a situation whereby the rich wouldn't rip off the poor. Texans, on the other hand, are pretty darned rich and wanna get richer. This is not a good reason to sever contact from the rest of the US but it's symptomatic of the prevailing times.

Diddums, poor Texas, all trampled on and powerless, NOT! Just fat and greedy sods!

BabinichThreads: 1 Posts: 1,049 Joined: May 26, 08 ♂	Edited by: Babinich Apr 20, 09, 11:52 #52
Seanus: Texans, on the other hand, are pretty darned rich and wanna get richer. This is not a good reason to sever contact from the rest of the US but it's symptomatic of the prevailing times. Sorry, but that is not the reason (no matter how much you wish it to be).

SeanusThreads: 22 Posts: 30,160 Joined: Dec 25, 07 ♂	Apr 20, 09, 12:09 #53
Then please enlighten me

BabinichThreads: 1 Posts: 1,049 Joined: May 26, 08 ♂	Apr 20, 09, 17:23 #54
Seanus: Then please enlighten me Yeah, everyone in Texas is J.R. Ewing... http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank29.html Top three states are "blue".

SeanusThreads: 22 Posts: 30,160 Joined: Dec 25, 07 ♂	Apr 21, 09, 00:06 #55
Sorry, I made valid points above, both with regards to political theory and to the behaviour of Texas.

BabinichThreads: 1 Posts: 1,049 Joined: May 26, 08 ♂	Apr 21, 09, 02:58 #56
Nothing to be sorry about. Texas has a reputation of being rich because of oil. In many ways that reputation is not well deserved. TARP loans with conditional paybacks, greater common equity plays (diluting the shareholder), phony tax cuts, and other big government intervention is making many in the US anxious.

♂

Apr 21, 09, 08:14 #57

I don't think most Texans are rich at all; nor have they even threatened to secede...we are simply arguing the principles here. Texas, like all US States, is a sovereign power; it already has self governance. The issues many have is that the Federal government in Washington...supposedly in place to look after the collective interests of all the states, and to perform duties on behalf of the Union...seems to be forgetting that the states actually have a say in what happens. The states are different than territories, provinces, or any of those; each has its own elected representatives, and has control of its own military forces, embodied in the National Guard (although these are also able to be called up by Washington, and are...) police forces and infrastructure. The way the system is supposed to work, is the government in Washington represents the wishes of the states-it is not in place to control the states. Many are concerned it is trying to do exactly that.
Hence the unrest, if you will. Texas from what I understand, has some of the most favorable tax laws in the U.S. for industry...and so it is no surprise that while industry leaves states like California (VERY high taxes and restrictive regulations) faster than soup through a fork, they are starting to flock to states like Texas and others, which do not punish success to pay for the failing social and other programs envisioned by its disconnected representatives. Yes, Texas has oil, but there are states hemorrhaging money into feel-good programs and the like but which also have oil...and those states are not doing as well. It is not a coincidence.

Just my thoughts.

John P.

♂

Apr 21, 09, 09:57 #58

Well John, that was the problem envisaged by Rousseau. That the leaders would assume too much control and forget about their representative role. Still, America has around 50 States (51?) and it is nigh on impossible to coordinate their respective wishes and desires.

The EU only has 27 member states but it is harder to harmonise some EU Directives and make things uniform.

I think Texas is just making noises to remind Washington that it is still there and is very much ready to take a firm stance. Tha bark is worse than the bite though.

♂

Apr 22, 09, 07:43 #59

Sean,
honestly we all hope that it never takes a "bite" when the bark should suffice.
Of course, these ARE the days of people jumping in with Polar bears.

And yes, you are correct, the US has 50 states, still, although our latest President is on record as having campaigned in 57 states, with the 58th on the way. Those must be the secret ones kept in reserve only for elections...
But seriously, 50 is correct.
Puerto Rico toys with the idea...but they get all the benefits and none of the taxes, as I understand...I wouldn't become a state, EITHER, in that situation...
I've also heard separatists in Qebec (sorry Canada) in the not too distant past were carrying around a US flag modified to have a fleur-de-lis in addition to the 50 stars, implying possibly they wished to break from Canada and join the US...although as far as I know nothing came of it, even if considering it wouldn't be insulting to our Canadian neighbors...
But I digress.

John P.

SeanusThreads: 22 Posts: 30,160 Joined: Dec 25, 07 ♂	Apr 22, 09, 13:02 #60
Well, perhaps much ado about nothing. People have to create a hoo-haa sometimes to give themselves a sense of purpose, soth to do.

POLAND . The Unofficial Guide.	Unanswered \| Archives
POLAND . The Unofficial Guide.	Poland News and Events	Witamy, Guest \| PF Members \| Gold Members

Home \| Unanswered \| Archives \| Random \| Statistics	Time in Poland: 07:53 / Feb 9
About Us \| Contact Us \| Rules, Privacy \| Poland Advertising	© 2005-12 PolishForums.com