|
|
Post by mincerray on Nov 9, 2010 14:31:08 GMT -5
|
|
Scarlet&Gray
Senior Forumite
Mr. Ohio
In our honor defend we will fight to the end
Posts: 2,902
|
Post by Scarlet&Gray on Nov 9, 2010 20:47:52 GMT -5
Please Texas pull out now.
|
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 9, 2010 20:58:13 GMT -5
There are more and more "Secede!" signs every day, and a lot of support for Texas pulling out of Social inSecurity and Medicade. "Texas is a free and independent State ... All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper." — Texas Constitution (1876) "When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived...[it is] the inherent and inalienable right of the people to...abolish such government, and create another in its stead..." — Texas Declaration of Independence (1836) "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever government becomes destructive to life, liberty, or property [i.e., the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it... It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." — American Declaration of Independence (1776) Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede? A: This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution (adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation. However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...") Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said). Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper." Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Texas Secede! |
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 9, 2010 21:00:15 GMT -5
So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?
1. NASA is just south of Houston, Texas. (We will control the space industry.)
2. We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States.
3. Defense Industry. (We have over 65% of it) The term "Don’t mess with Texas," will take on a whole new meaning.
4. Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. Yankee states? Sorry about that.
5. Natural Gas - Again we have all we need and it's too bad about those northern states. John Kerry will figure a way to keep them warm....
6. Computer Industry - we currently lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications: Small places like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Semiconductor, Dallas Semiconductor, Delphi, Nortel, Alcatel, Etc, Etc. The list goes on and on.
7. Health Centers - We have the largest research centers for Cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world and other large health planning centers.
8. We have enough colleges to keep us going: UT Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, Rice, SMU, University of Houston, Baylor, UNT, Texas Women's University, Ivy grows better in the south anyway
9. We have a ready supply of workers. (Just open the border when we need some)
10. We have control of the paper industry, plastics, insurance, etc.
11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. We don't have an army but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an army in 24 hours if we need it. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over a couple Texas Rangers.
12. We are totally self sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables and lets not forget seafood from the gulf. And everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don't need any food.
This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic Of Texas in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need and don't have.
Now to the rest of the United States under President Obama: Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only Mr. Kerry will be able to drive around in his 9 mile per gallon SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.
You won't have any TV as the space center in Houston will cut off your communications. You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes but since Mr. Kerry has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas.
Signed, The People in Texas
Have a nice day!
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Nov 9, 2010 21:03:40 GMT -5
Just watched Rick Perry's Daily Show interview from last night. Guy comes across as an idiot. He even uses many of the same inflections and gestures as G.W.B uses like the squint eyed lean in to accentuate a point he's trying to make.
Go ahead and secede Texas. Let us know when you need some water.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 9, 2010 21:19:21 GMT -5
The best I can tell Texas is in no worse shape than Georgia where water resources are concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeydokey on Nov 9, 2010 21:42:23 GMT -5
Yeah go ahead and secede Texas, we don't need you, we have huge defecits in the welfare states of California and New York to consume what limited resources the only few remaining productive states can produce. Go ahead, see if WWJD and blackcarfax cares.
|
|
|
|
Post by mincerray on Nov 9, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Lots of NASA talk there, "Pastor"...last time I checked, NASA was one of those "socialist" federal programs. Funny how much pride you take in it.
Good luck with autarky. Please - go ahead and secede (your Governor won't do it because he is all hat and no cattle, but we can all just hope).
|
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Nov 10, 2010 8:44:41 GMT -5
Secede? Well so much for all this Rightist talk about "loyal Americans". Another thread bemoans the "Smart Alecs" as tho they should love it or leave it. The attitude and hate filled rhetoric of the Rightists reinforces the notion that the effete liberal "elite" and ethical libertarians are all that keeps the USA from becoming a charnel house of neo-Nazi proportions.
And "pastor"? I hope that's sarcasm; what perverse gospel would endorse those rantings?
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Nov 10, 2010 8:51:43 GMT -5
If it weren't for some Tennessee boys, they'd all be Mexicans.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Nov 10, 2010 10:22:13 GMT -5
Sho nuff! We stole it from them! And California. Yehaa! Independence! Not forcing one's (Gringo) government on others! Ole!
|
|
Scarlet&Gray
Senior Forumite
Mr. Ohio
In our honor defend we will fight to the end
Posts: 2,902
|
Post by Scarlet&Gray on Nov 10, 2010 14:54:46 GMT -5
Your right I don't care. Why don't you secede from this forum. if not stay I don't care Mocassin Bend only gives you 1hr a week on the pc..  |
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Nov 10, 2010 21:53:52 GMT -5
Just watched Rick Perry's Daily Show interview from last night. Guy comes across as an idiot. He even uses many of the same inflections and gestures as G.W.B uses like the squint eyed lean in to accentuate a point he's trying to make. Go ahead and secede Texas. Let us know when you need some water. You HATE it, don't you? "Red November". |
|
|
|
Post by mikeydokey on Nov 10, 2010 23:04:16 GMT -5
"Red November". It will be forever remembered as the time we told obama, "Here's a tip, keep the change." |
|
|
|
Post by mincerray on Nov 10, 2010 23:17:59 GMT -5
"Red November". It will be forever remembered as the time we told obama, "Here's a tip, keep the change." Enjoy it now; in November 2012, Obama will be re-elected. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeydokey on Nov 10, 2010 23:23:15 GMT -5
Oh yeah, you're a fine prognosticator, you don't even have a clue what color britches you gonna wear tomorrow. I would like to place a wager on that but something tells me you'll be long gone from this message forum by then.
|
|
|
|
Post by mincerray on Nov 10, 2010 23:29:32 GMT -5
Oh yeah, you're a fine prognosticator, you don't even have a clue what color britches you gonna wear tomorrow. I would like to place a wager on that but something tells me you'll be long gone from this message forum by then. Prediction noted. |
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Nov 11, 2010 4:30:33 GMT -5
"Red November". It will be forever remembered as the time we told obama, "Here's a tip, keep the change." Enjoy it now; in November 2012, Obama will be re-elected. If he takes a lesson from the Clinton playbook and navigates to the center, works constructively to ameliorate the worst aspects of the atrocious health care bill, and extends the Bush tax cuts, he WILL. If he lets Pelosi continue to torpedo any hope of salvaging his mid-term debacle, he's TOAST. |
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Nov 11, 2010 7:33:17 GMT -5
It's kind of a draw for me. I'd love to see Texas go on a social level, them folks are crazy (even my cousin, who made himself a home there). On the other hand, there's no way in hell they'd be allowed. The ghost of Abraham Lincoln would egg anyone in the White House to fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by mincerray on Nov 11, 2010 7:35:19 GMT -5
If he takes a lesson from the Clinton playbook and navigates to the center, works constructively to ameliorate the worst aspects of the atrocious health care bill, and extends the Bush tax cuts, he WILL. Most of the health care bill is actually quite popular, so don't hold your breath on that one. Even the GOP won't touch the mandates. As far as the tax cuts go, he'll extend them for the middle class as he promised, but I don't think that failing to extend a deficit-increasing tax break for the superrich is going to hurt too much. Besides, who would the GOP run? Romney, who passed an almost-identical health care bill in Massachusetts? Palin? Please. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 11, 2010 8:42:46 GMT -5
If he takes a lesson from the Clinton playbook and navigates to the center, works constructively to ameliorate the worst aspects of the atrocious health care bill, and extends the Bush tax cuts, he WILL. Most of the health care bill is actually quite popular, so don't hold your breath on that one. Even the GOP won't touch the mandates. As far as the tax cuts go, he'll extend them for the middle class as he promised, but I don't think that failing to extend a deficit-increasing tax break for the superrich is going to hurt too much. Besides, who would the GOP run? Romney, who passed an almost-identical health care bill in Massachusetts? Palin? Please. You like noting predictions, note this one. Either all the Bush tax cuts will be extended for at least two years or all of them will be allowed to expire. Most likely we will see the extension of all of those tax cuts through at least 2012. The Senate is the only body that could possibly change this scenario and I don't see them having the will to buck the President on this. As far as health care goes, it may not be repealed but it will see some drastic changes. Already people are seeing huge increases in premiums that were not expected to be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by mincerray on Nov 11, 2010 8:53:01 GMT -5
You like noting predictions, note this one. Either all the Bush tax cuts will be extended for at least two years or all of them will be allowed to expire. Most likely we will see the extension of all of those tax cuts through at least 2012. The Senate is the only body that could possibly change this scenario and I don't see them having the will to buck the President on this. I will agree that the cuts will be extended, too. Of course, they won't be paid for (they never were), and they will continue to augment the deficit. So what "changes" to the ACA do you propose would halt the increase in premiums? |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 11, 2010 9:11:18 GMT -5
You like noting predictions, note this one. Either all the Bush tax cuts will be extended for at least two years or all of them will be allowed to expire. Most likely we will see the extension of all of those tax cuts through at least 2012. The Senate is the only body that could possibly change this scenario and I don't see them having the will to buck the President on this. I will agree that the cuts will be extended, too. Of course, they won't be paid for (they never were), and they will continue to augment the deficit. You don't pay for tax cuts. That's a dumbass idea that people wanting to increase taxes has put in our minds. Spending is altered to reflect expected income regardless of tax rates going up or tax rates going down. A tax (rate) cut will alter income but it has just as often increased income as it has reduced income. Want to reduce the deficit? Reduce spending and/or grow the economy. I have no idea. I just know that we are dealing with reactionary politicians and they will do something whether it is right or wrong. Look for extensive modifications. |
|
|
|
Post by mincerray on Nov 11, 2010 9:24:57 GMT -5
You don't pay for tax cuts. That's a dumbass idea that people wanting to increase taxes has put in our minds. Spending is altered to reflect expected income regardless of tax rates going up or tax rates going down. A tax (rate) cut will alter income but it has just as often increased income as it has reduced income. Want to reduce the deficit? Reduce spending and/or grow the economy. So according to your illogic we can cut taxes down to 0% and it won't increase the deficit. That's a "dumbass idea" if I ever heard one. Oh, there will be theater, but I don't expect major mods to get anywhere near the President's desk. The individual elements of the ACA are popular, and the GOP will pay mightily if they cut them out. The only part that is vulnerable is the mandate, and the insurance industry won't let the GOP touch it. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 11, 2010 9:37:02 GMT -5
You don't pay for tax cuts. That's a dumbass idea that people wanting to increase taxes has put in our minds. Spending is altered to reflect expected income regardless of tax rates going up or tax rates going down. A tax (rate) cut will alter income but it has just as often increased income as it has reduced income. Want to reduce the deficit? Reduce spending and/or grow the economy. So according to your illogic we can cut taxes down to 0% and it won't increase the deficit. That's a "dumbass idea" if I ever heard one. That's not what I said. I said the term "paying for tax cuts" is a dumbass idea. But if I had my way I would cut income tax rates to 0% and institute at least a 15% retail sales tax. I would entertain up to a 33% retail sales tax if all other federal taxes were also eliminated. So, yes, you can reduce income tax rates to 0% and also reduce the deficit. But none of it is paying for a tax cut. |
|
|
|
Post by mincerray on Nov 11, 2010 9:46:09 GMT -5
That's not what I said. I said the term "paying for tax cuts" is a dumbass idea. It's not a dumbass idea; it's reality. If the government has a $100 obligation and only raises $75 in taxes, then it's going to have to find a way to meet that $25 deficit. If it lowers taxes to the point that it only raises $50 in tax revenue, then it's going to have to find a way to pay for the additional $25 in lost tax revenue in order to meet its obligations. You can argue that the "obligations" side of the equation should be altered, but that's an entirely another matter. But as long as the obligations remain in place, then lower tax revenues must somehow be paid for (or accrued to additional debt). |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Nov 11, 2010 10:09:26 GMT -5
That's not what I said. I said the term "paying for tax cuts" is a dumbass idea. It's not a dumbass idea; it's reality. If the government has a $100 obligation and only raises $75 in taxes, then it's going to have to find a way to meet that $25 deficit. If it lowers taxes to the point that it only raises $50 in tax revenue, then it's going to have to find a way to pay for the additional $25 in lost tax revenue in order to meet its obligations. You can argue that the "obligations" side of the equation should be altered, but that's an entirely another matter. But as long as the obligations remain in place, then lower tax revenues must somehow be paid for (or accrued to additional debt). If your employer cuts your hourly rate do you then have to "pay for the pay cut"? If Walmart cuts their prices do they have to "pay for the price cut"? If your hourly rate is cut by10% but you then are given the opportunity to work 20% more hours or if Walmart cuts prices by 2% and increases sales by 10% what is being "paid for"? Did the "Bush Tax Cuts" (actually "tax rate cuts") actually reduce the income to the federal government? Were the deficits due to the tax rate cuts or due to the huge increase in spending, especially military spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? |
|
|
|
Post by mincerray on Nov 11, 2010 10:27:48 GMT -5
If your employer cuts your hourly rate do you then have to "pay for the pay cut"? Yes, I do. Assuming I am obligating 100% of my revenues, if I get a pay cut, then I have to find some external source of funding to pay for the shortfall in order to meet my obligations (mortgage, food, bills, etc.). For public institutions like the US government, the only means of doing that is through issuing more debt. Here's a good discussion on that. voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/cherry-picking_season.htmlTreasury indicates that extending the Bush tax cuts will result in a loss of $3.7 trillion in revenue over 10 years. If you want to be taken seriously as a deficit hawk, you simply can't support tax cuts like this and then fail to address rising Medicare/Medicaid costs and other non-discretionary obligations. |
|
|
|
Post by coffeeshooter on Nov 11, 2010 11:38:40 GMT -5
If it weren't for some Tennessee boys, they'd all be Mexicans. Amen Brutha! I was on Davy Crockett Highway yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Nov 11, 2010 18:31:16 GMT -5
Really? Pray tell with WHOM?
Employers who have to shoulder the bill, seniors who have to get past the death panels for "needed" care, or the rest of us who are now required to pay for insurance whether we want it or not at the point of a Law?
|
|
tq8oBMsj(qiGRg~~_3.JPG)
