Texas nationalist Would Like to Secede Now

It doesn't need to be specified to be prohibited.

No you won't, because I've pointed you to specific language in the Constitution that implies secession is unconstitutional, and you pretend it isn't there.

 

Never said Succession was unconstitutional, but I was asking you where in the Constitution are you finding your claim.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says it either way.

 

So you're saying it's prohibited, but there is no language in the constitution that prohibits it?

"to ourselves and our posterity"? That's the prohibition? Come on really?

 

No, I'm saying what I SAID.

You're an idiot, hth.

 

Yes, because those pimps and wife-beaters - all 50,000 of them - would scare the bejeesus out of rural Texans.

Alsonotreally.

When you're speaking of this purported 50,000 of Houston thugs who are supposed to be some sort of masterful organized force? The same group of losers who cannot get their own lives straight? Against terrain savvy hunters with years of field shooting and camoflage practice, many of them former military?

Yeah. Bring your inner city thugs on. They will be massacred.

Um...wut? Now you're talking about the same group of people who you think would be helpless against inner city thugs having motion sensors - and still you think they'd be helpless?

I'll take the ranchers and other rural Texans, thanks. Your posse will stand no chance, and will additionally be badly outnumbered, and fighting on foreign soil.

Yeah. They would. And easily. Am I detecting a subtle shift in your stance now? Before, there was no mention of "starving people". There was mention of lawless people, and criminal types.

Now, you present them as pitiable.

What position are you trying to now defend?

This has nothing to do with the topic other than the group of thugs who act like thugs would die.

Well, then I suppose it is time to officially burst your bubble on your incorrect presumptions. I am a retired SOF Army Ranger, served two tours in Iraq during Desert Storm, active in an organization called GallantFew, and I grew up in the inner city of Milwaukee. You should abandon your feelings.

Of course they do. In fact, that is the #1 reason they would.

WTF are you talking about?

Psychobabble. When such interference and concern of a wrong direction reaches a breaking point, a state threatens to secede. We're talking about hypotheticals right now.

 

Yes, there is nothing in the constitution that says anything about secession. Additionally, there is article I, section 10, which contains the prohibitions on the states. These is the list of things that the states may NOT do. You will notice that there is NO prohibition against secession.

 

After this election cycle and how the election comes down to only the "swing States" and electorial votes; I wish my State of Texas could successed from the Union as I believe I, my family and my small business would be much better off.


Yes, I live in Texas, my brother is a Tax Attorney living in Illinois. He voted for Obama in 2008 and is very sorry he did. He called me on election night and I told him that I knew Obama would win and that is why I kept posting online that we needed to put our money behind House and Senate Republican Candidates. Naturally not the Candidates that were idiots that nobody should have supported. I was struck by his comments relating to the economy and why he was so against Obama being re-elected this time around.. He said that we, those in our early 50's and up would probably survive the pending financial crisis Obamas re-election would bring, but he was sad and depressed when he thoughr of our young adults just graduating college and starting out and those that followed them. I was struck by his comments as he has won many awards in his profession and his business represents many middle class and extremely wealthy people and companies.
He and I had many debates in 2008 over Obama and his ability to be President. The one thing we agreed on then was that it was time for a minority citizen to be President and he believed Obama had what it took and while I was happy to see prejudice and racism go by the wayside, I didn't agree that Obama had the experience it would take to run the Country and after doing some research I didn't believe in Obama's socialist agenda and inherent beliefs.

 

They are against obamacare because it causes people to LOSE THEIR JOB.

Look at all the companies that are laying people off because they are preparing for obamacare.


The current commander in chief is disliked by the military. Conservatives join the military. The democrats suppressed the military vote for a reason.

 

So what? The federal government has dominion over the states. What they say goes.

 

Why would a state realistically secede over Obamacare?

Here is a short list of secessionist movements across the US and reasons why:
Second Vermont Republic--corporatism and imperialism http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957743,00.html
Montana--Gun control legislation http://web.archive.org/web/20080225160154/http://www.progunleaders.org/resolution.html
Staten Island--Dissatisfaction with Albany http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/05/nyregion/home-rule-factor-may-block-si-secession.html
Hawai'ian Sovereignty Movement--Illegal invasion of the Kingdom of Hawai'i http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index....returntoname=Short Stories&returntopageid=483

 

Talk about history repeating itself.

 

Why is the South still in the Union? Kick them out. But the North gets
to keep all of the nukes and military hardware.

 

The North would invade you, snort your oil, poo on your brown lawns, and sell your fat wives to Mexican Nationalist for pennies on the dollar.

I love me some Reconstruction.

 

We ALL need to secede from Washington D.C. and the global fascist u.n., turn the u.n. headquarters building into a nice, extravagent hotel, and tell the politicians they're fired, and leave the United States, NOW, immediately.

I'm ALL for rebuilding this Nation from the ground up, bringing back our Constitutional Republic.

Texas has balls.

Way to go.

Wish the other States had the balls.

 

If you want to pursue the US Civil War model, it works both ways. Eleven states had enough conviction to secede and go to war. In fact, 4 of those 11 seceded after the war began so I would argue that the conviction of the secesionists was greater than that of the North.

Of the 23 that remained in the Union, they were not unanimous about going to war. In fact when Lincoln was sworn in as Pres on March 4 1861 (AFTER 8 states had already seceded), in his inaugural address he stated he had no intention to invade the Southern states and was only interested in maintaining select US military bases in the South. No effort would be made to protect or recover US govt property including US gold bullion held in 3 Southern states.

Tempers were hot but war might have been avoided and a peaceful settlement probably arrived at (negotiations had been underway for months) until Ft Sumter was fired upon. If the South had left Ft Sumter alone, there is a good chance the original 8 states would be an independent country today.

Even after the war started, it was not unanimously popular in the North, with protests and riots in various cities cropping up throughout the war.
You base your arguement on nationalism, but it is a weak position.

Ask yourself this, if a state were to secede, would you join the Army and go fight to keep it in the union? Or send your children to fight? Even if the seceding state agreed to open borders and free trade and would pay the US for US govt property in the state so there would be no economic repercussions (as the Southern states offered to do in 1861 before Sumter), would you pick up a rifle or send your children just so you could keep 50 stars in a flag? I doubt it.
-----
I have seen Patriocracy. A biased, left leaning documentary. I found it insulting and shallow. The people interviewed were left leaning (particularly former Rep Inglis, a rino) and the conservative point was never presented. It doesnt surprise me at all that a person on the left finds Patriocracy appealing.

 

Pfft....I'm smoking weed and banging my gay husband in a charter school. How's that for balls? Washington...holla!

 

We already fought one war over this, bloodiest one in our history. Sure you want your fingerprints on the second?

 

The vast majority of wars are never popular with huge portions of the populace. A good chunk of people living in the colonies during the Revolutionary War were loyalists. Unpopularity doesn't prevent war. The War of 1812 was hugely unpopular in the Northeast, and many people felt that the federal government was wholly unprepared for a war with the military giant of Great Britain. (Massachusetts refused to send regulars to fight, and Madison summarily left them without federal military protection in retribution.) Riots occurred in Baltimore and Madison was denounced as a traitor and a fool. Yet afterward the treasury secretary, Albert Gallatin, said that the war strengthened the resolve of the nation as a whole and united the country.

It doesn't matter whether I would personally get involved. (I'd rather move to Mexico, although my fiance has expressed an interest in joining a theoretical army of Texas regulars.) The US has a military of a million strong who are more loyal to the federal government than an individual state. They offer their lives to protect the nation, and if the civilians called on them, they would fight to preserve the Union. They've done it before, and they would do it again provided that civilian control is still strong. As the United States has the most professional military in the world, they would.

Nationalism is a powerful force and has been the root of much of the major wars over the past two centuries. The justification for the Crimean War was to liberate the Christians from Ottoman rule. WWI and WWII were rooted in nationalism. The Civil War had roots in nationalism. Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, etc. Previous eras had justifications of their wars in expansion on behalf of the king and religion. Nowadays its nationalism and national security. That's just how it is.

The conservative position on party polarization is that it doesn't exist outside of the Democratic Party, so it wouldn't surprise me that you would find it "left-leaning." Party polarization doesn't occur with just one party, it occurs on a spectrum with all parties as a result of elites responding to mass preferences. (To use non-comparativist language, the politicians follow the whims of the public.) They presented that point well by showing Olbermann, Maddow, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh all foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs; although they didn't get at WHY the parties were polarizing.

If you can get past the chi-square tests and heavy use of comparativist concepts, this is a good article on party polarization in the US: http://www.unc.edu/~carsey/research/workingpapers/07 AJ Layman.pdf

The article traces modern party polarization to the 1960s civil rights movement, and the polarization perpetuates itself with politicians rehashing the same tired social issues over and over again. That doesn't do justice to the article, though.

 

Can you please provide the text of the constitution that says that the federal government has dominion over the states and what they say goes?

 

I was thinking the same thing. Who would have thought that over a hundred and fifty years racism still divides this country. All because of a black man in our highest office.

 

With the mood of the country, I wonder how long before total civil war broke out under these circumstances.

 

..he's not black, he's mixed.......that's what has Obama worshipper confused.

 

This country still operates on the blood quantum rule. But Obama identifies as black, and it probably has to do with the way he's been treated growing up. I'm half-Latina, half-white but I identify as Latina because store owners presume a young brown person is automatically a shoplifter. I've been at the stores with white friends and family (some of which are actual shoplifters), but guess who gets followed around? It's not the white shoplifter.

 

........sigh...........
that doesn't change the fact that he's mixed.

 

That's blood quantum that you're using. What he identifies as and has been treated as matters more than what he is mixed with. There are some Cherokee that look white and aren't on the Dawes Rolls but they are, for all intensive purposes, Cherokee because they grew up on the rez. To American Indians, "Indianness" is more about culture than blood quantum. That's because tribes adopted people of all backgrounds or captured people and integrated them into the tribe.