Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Majority of Texans would rather seceed than have a Hillary presidency...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Before this entire thread becomes flame-bait, I'd like to take a shot at the somewhat factual stuff being presented-

    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    So just what would Texas lose if they seceded from the US?
    About a bazzilion Rules, Regulations, EPA demands and a whole host of intrusive laws that have such a crippling effect on the economy in the rest of the USA.
    That is really what this is all about, and I think this has been mentioned.

    They would also be free of ObamaCare, and health-costs would plummet. Comme-Corpse would vanish and Education would dramatically improve overnight.
    Moreover, they could enact laws that apply to their own situation and avoid the incredible situation where the DOJ is taking over the Police Departments of 30 major cities in the US simply because an Obama appointed bureaucrat feels that they are too racist.

    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    We know that the oil price collapse has affected a lot of the energy sector and Texas’ income. (As a sidenote, I saw Midland and Odessa, Texas during the last collapse in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The image of new shopping malls abandoned, still sticks with me. Ghostly see through buildings with weeds growing in and around them. My son, a Petroleum Engineer with fairly new credentials, had to move to Indonesia to make a living.)
    That will change the moment OPEC starts to close the taps again. At the behest of the insane King of S.A., they are doing that to put frakking out of business.
    This could change overnight, and those pricks will be out to make all the money they lost back, at our expense, bigtime.

    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    Would they lose the space technology base which has always been so important to their economy? Would the Medical industry lose if people from big US medical schools did not immigrate to Texas to take up jobs in the famous hospitals? Texas already has a really bad health care record. Would their big and famous universities lose if people did not immigrate to Texas to take up jobs in the educational field?
    There are no famous hospitals in Texas?
    Why would the US cut itself off from any of those industries? Spite? Econimic-warfare as practiced against Russia.... but not Iran or Cuba anymore, I guess.
    That is all it could be, when the US Govt is trying to by computers from China and has bought components from places like Taiwan for generations.

    A boycot of Texas would be nothing but pure hatred, and therefore very likely if a Democrat holds power.

    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    The cost to patrol their own borders might get pretty prohibitive...
    What makes you day that? California is in an economic shambles compared to Texas, and yet they still maintain Border Posts on every road leading into the state.

    And it would save a tremendous amount of money for Texas if their border patrol were actually allowed to DO SOMETHING about all the illegals pouring in.
    Expel them, in other words.


    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    I suspect that many people who are Texas transplants would want to leave to go back to the US, probably being employed by many of the main industries dependent on the US for funding—aeronautics and the space program, for example. Would the US contract with a foreign entity that had just proved its hostility to the US? All of the Federal money in many fields would leave and thus probably many people employed by those industries.
    I don't think that Texans would be very concerned about transplants leaving. A lot of them are the same Left-Wing neo-Socialists that ruined places like California & then went to Texas where jobs can still be found ... and are now trying to ruin Texaas with the same asinine garbage policies that ruined California.

    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    Would we see a big movement of folks into Texas? Especially those who agree with the premise of secession? That would be interesting to see. I understand when India and Pakistan split and there was a huge migration between the two entities many tragedies happened.
    The US has been losing close to 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month for years now.

    I know that the Left, especially the Media, has to brand any Christian as a lunatic (while at the same time portray Islam as simply wonderful) but even an atheist like me has to admit that the effect of Christianity as basically positive, overall.

    But if the US Govt and Media continues to be innately hostile to everyone that would dare to wear a cross with respect, Texas could become the most over-populated place in the world very quickly.
    ... leaving the rest of the US with too many unproductive people to be supported by fewer and fewer productive, tax-paying citizens.

    Which is inevitable in any case, but this could make it happen much more quickly. THAT is the reason why D.C. would oppose an independent Texas. The Brain-Drain would be tremendous.
    And that is why I think that the Fed would react with extreme violence to such a move. If assassinations and sabotage didn't work, there would be bombs falling in the middle of the night.

    So, to make this happen, Texas would have to have a Nuclear arsenal of its own, even a small one. That would have to be the first step.
    As the Ukraine shows, a smaller nation can't live side by side with a larger one that has territorial claims on them without such weapons.
    And neither Clinton nor Obama has one tenth the integrity or respect for other people that Putin does.
    "Why is the Rum gone?"

    -Captain Jack

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
      About a bazzilion Rules, Regulations, EPA demands and a whole host of intrusive laws that have such a crippling effect on the economy in the rest of the USA.
      That is really what this is all about, and I think this has been mentioned.

      They would also be free of ObamaCare, and health-costs would plummet. Comme-Corpse would vanish and Education would dramatically improve overnight.
      I've edited your post to include what I comment about. Hope you don't mind.

      Education would not change. The UK team in the Olympics proves you need 8 years to create winners in particular events.

      The problem with US healthcare is because it is monopolistic, not freemarket. Obama is being paid to keep it that way.
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        I've edited your post to include what I comment about. Hope you don't mind.
        I wish more people would. it sure makes getting to the point easier.

        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        Education would not change. The UK team in the Olympics proves you need 8 years to create winners in particular events.

        The problem with US healthcare is because it is monopolistic, not freemarket. Obama is being paid to keep it that way.
        It is an ongoing process, but reversing 60 years of dumbing it down is the best place to start.

        Of course it is, the insurance companies LOVE the idea of everyone being forced to buy their product. Its called CRONY capitalism for a reason.
        And hopefully, Texas would be far enough away from K Street to avoid some of that evil.
        "Why is the Rum gone?"

        -Captain Jack

        Comment


        • #79
          As long as Texas has well paying jobs, people will move here. My Mother's family were once farmers, but they left the farm and got skilled jobs (Pipefitters) where they could find them. The next generation got educations to keep getting good paying jobs. Out of four daughters, three ended up with college degrees and the oldest worked at an Oil Refinery into her seventies. Many of the Grandchildren also have got college degrees. Not all of the grandchildren could handle college. My little sister spent an entire semester at Louisiana Tech and managed to earn NO credits (how does one fail Freshman Orientation?). She did manage to go drinking in Grambling, LA almost every night she was up there! I have a number of degrees from college and VoTech school, yet my last job was dealing cards for almost ten years!

          Most of the extended family will probably end up in Texas. There are jobs here!

          Pruitt
          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by FTCS View Post
            What paragraph are you referring to?
            This one from post # 54:

            Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess guns for self-defense purposes. Instead, the most natural reading of the the Amendment is that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes but does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.

            That was a 1939 case and has little bearing on the point of my point which was basically you do not have to amend or remove the 2nd Amendment to completely change the rights of citizens to own firearms. My reason for this was the dissenting opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens
            Actually the 1939 case has great bearing on the Heller decision as the minority referred to it and based much of their opinion upon it.

            At this time the court is made up by justices:
            Ruth Bader Ginsburg (dissenting)
            John Roberts
            Sonia Sadomayor (her poliltics indicate she would dissent)
            Anthony Kennedy
            Samuel Alito
            Elena Kagan(dissenting)
            Stephen Breyer (dissenting)
            Clarence Thomas
            Once again, you are assuming Sonia Sotomayor would vote to support the dissenting opinion reached in the Heller case. Has she made an affirmative statement that supports your assumption?


            Again we are not making an assumption on how they would vote

            Actually you did make assumption, see above.
            ...only that you do not have to amend or remove the 2nd Amendment to completely change the rights of citizens to own firearms
            I agree. The individual states can and have enacted such legislation. For example, see the NY SAFE act that was referred to earlier in this thread or the recently passed legislation in Connecticut following the Sandy Hook atrocity.

            These were reversed by judicial means not Congressinal action.
            No. These were overturned as the enacted state laws did not meet the requirements of federal law.

            Again you do not understand the point of what I am putting forth which is you do not have to amend or remove the 2nd Amendment to change the rights of citizens to own firearms.
            I clearly understand, see above. The original verbiage that you employed in post # 54 quite clearly indicates you thoughts:

            Then if you have both houses of Congress controlled by the same ideology of the anti-gun crowd they can pass the same type laws put forward above.
            And as I stated in respose to the above, not every Democrat will vote to support such laws.

            So how about you give me your opinion on the ramifications of the following(paying particular attention to the highlighted parts:
            I'm not a legal expert by a wide margin, however, considering the opinions rendered in U.S. v Miller and more recently in the 2nd circuits upholding of the district court opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, No. 14-36 it appears to me to be a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I've got a hunch however, that you have a radically different viewpoint.



            Now how about you answering my question from post #55?

            Originally posted by Gorque View Post
            Originally posted by FTCS View Post
            Any your assumption that if Hillary is president she needs to take any action is invalid.
            Would you kindly expand upon this as I'm not quite sure what you are trying to communicate.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
              This one from post # 54:
              Actually the 1939 case has great bearing on the Heller decision as the minority referred to it and based much of their opinion upon it.
              I think we are talking about two different things. What I am attempting to say is that unfortunately the SCOTUS can interpret the 2nd Amendment to say that laws can be passed that restricts the rights of US citizens to own firearms.
              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
              Once again, you are assuming Sonia Sotomayor would vote to support the dissenting opinion reached in the Heller case. Has she made an affirmative statement that supports your assumption?
              Again I am not saying how a Supreme Court judge will vote, only that they can vote to interpret the 2nd Amendment to say that laws can be passed that restricts the rights of US citizens to own firearms.
              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
              No. These were overturned as the enacted state laws did not meet the requirements of federal law.
              Yes, but Congress did not overturn those states voting laws, the courts did
              http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...-voter-id-laws
              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
              And as I stated in response to the above, not every Democrat will vote to support such laws.
              Again I am not saying Congress will or will not pass laws that will restricts the rights of US citizens to own firearms. All I am saying is that unfortunately the SCOTUS can interpret the 2nd Amendment that would allow this to happen
              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
              I'm not a legal expert by a wide margin, however, considering the opinions rendered in U.S. v Miller and more recently in the 2nd circuits upholding of the district court opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, No. 14-36 it appears to me to be a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I've got a hunch however, that you have a radically different viewpoint.
              You are basing your argument on past rulings. What I am attempting (which it doesn't seem I'm doing) is saying the the 2nd Amendment does not have to be removed or modified by a Constitutional Congress, all it takes is for the SCOTUS to rule in favor of restrictive laws by interpreting the 2nd Amendment in a different manner than it has in the past. Now, I am worried that Hillary or anyone else in the future decides they want to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens to own certain firearms or even own firearms and all it would take is for the SCOTUS to rule in their favor. Now do I see that happening nation wide, I hope not, but I do foresee States passing more and more restrictive laws (like Kalifornia). I do not have that problem since I live in a State that takes the rights of citizens very seriously when it comes to firearm ownership and carrying of firearms

              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
              Now how about you answering my question from post #55?
              The following is post #55 edited to remove anything that is not a question



              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
              Would you kindly expand upon this as I'm not quite sure what you are trying to communicate.
              I think you were referring to this
              "Any your assumption that if Hillary is president she needs to take any action is invalid."
              First is should read And not Any

              What I attempted to say is that the Hillary does not have to try and change any laws concerning firearms by executive action or have a Constitutional Congress . All she has to have (which is considerable) is a SCOTUS that is open to changing the rights of citizens when it comes to firearms by either federal or various state laws and in the case of federal laws a compliant Congress or in the case of State laws a compliant state legislature.




              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
              You're assuming that a Congress controlled by the Democrats will all be of like mind and marching in-step, much akin to automatons or Daleks. I believe that the reality of such a situation will be quite different from your assumption.
              They have or they will? I don't have a crystal ball that can foresee future events or read into peoples minds and how they will opine. And there is the tendency to rely upon past rulings as well as the maintenance of the status quo in the rendering of future opinions.
              Again I am not saying it will happen all I'm saying is with a different Supreme Court it is possible to lose certain rights or all rights to own firearms.
              It all hinges on the attitude of the SCOTUS toward our present rights.

              Oh by the way I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and do not think that adding more laws will solve any problems concerning firearms. Just to be very clear
              Too Much To Do Too Little Time

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                Why is secession illegal? Assuming a state entered the Union freely, of its own volition, then shouldn't she be free to leave the same way? Not that I'm a supporter of secession, mind you, but the rationale behind secession's illegality always struck me as rather . . . . one-sided.
                I think it has to do with the philosophical principle that the created union resides in the People. The People as a whole. So a state can leave if the union of People agree, but a state can't do it unilaterally, and can't do it with only a minority of the People agreeing.

                The alternate view is that the union is a compact between states. This view is considered to have been determined to be not true by the events of the Civil War.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by mconrad View Post
                  I think it has to do with the philosophical principle that the created union resides in the People. The People as a whole. So a state can leave if the union of People agree, but a state can't do it unilaterally, and can't do it with only a minority of the People agreeing.

                  The alternate view is that the union is a compact between states. This view is considered to have been determined to be not true by the events of the Civil War.
                  It's the same both Northern Ireland and Scotland. If the majority in a vote want to leave, then they would be allowed leave.
                  Though the questions like currency etc that came up with Scotlands referendum would also come up, with Texas, as well as how much of the debt/deficit they as a country would also have take if they left. The SNP despite there shouting and wailing, couldn't answer those questions. Could Texas ?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by History fan View Post
                    It's the same both Northern Ireland and Scotland. If the majority in a vote want to leave, then they would be allowed leave.
                    I think you misunderstand Northern Ireland. There is no majority wanting to leave, there is a substantial minority want to join (or rejoin as they might put it) another entity and take the unwilling majority with them.
                    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Here is an interesting look on Texas seceding!

                      Talk of Texas secession is heating up again. More accurately, the movement is growing and maturing from its rather primitive born-again roots in the 1990s.

                      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...d_succeed.html
                      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by MarkV View Post
                        Always found Houston and Saudi very similar - the modern architecture much the same, the heat much the same, both were full of some very religious people and there were a lot of people who knew about oil. You could get a cold beer in Houston though
                        Houston is more humid, while Saudi boasts sand so fine it gets between your teeth. All told, they're both places to avoid.
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                          Houston is more humid, while Saudi boasts sand so fine it gets between your teeth. All told, they're both places to avoid.
                          Actually no - some parts of Saudi (on the gulf coast) can get up to 99 % humidity and much of it is stony desert. However Riyadh and Houston really do share some real similarities (apart from all those fundamentalists )
                          Last edited by MarkV; 22 Aug 16, 15:42.
                          Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                          Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by MarkV View Post
                            I think you misunderstand Northern Ireland. There is no majority wanting to leave, there is a substantial minority want to join (or rejoin as they might put it) another entity and take the unwilling majority with them.
                            I don't. Thats what I meant though it was worded badly. SF strategy is to wait for a Catholic majority in Northern Ireland and hope they vote leave. That also is doubtful

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              I would imagine that negotiating all the details of a Texit (terms of trade, ownership of Federal property, free movement of people, responsibility for defence installations etc etc) might make Brexit look simple - things have moved on since the 1860s
                              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by FTCS View Post
                                I think we are talking about two different things. What I am attempting to say is that unfortunately the SCOTUS can interpret the 2nd Amendment to say that laws can be passed that restricts the rights of US citizens to own firearms.
                                No. We are discussing the the exact same subject which is what the 1939 Miller case was about, an opinion regarding the 1934 National Firearms Act. Of course so can Congress as well as the various state legislatures.

                                Again I am not saying how a Supreme Court judge will vote, only that they can vote to interpret the 2nd Amendment to say that laws can be passed that restricts the rights of US citizens to own firearms.
                                I beg to differ as you strongly alluded that Sonia Sotomayor would vote to support a restriction on gun-ownership in post #60. Sonia Sadomayor (her poliltics indicate she would dissent)

                                Yes, but Congress did not overturn those states voting laws, the courts did
                                http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...-voter-id-laws
                                Yes, the courts overturned these laws as they were deemed in violation of federal law, in particular the Federally enacted Voting Rights Act. Here is the link to the pdf for the 4th circuits decision. Scroll down to page 9 and you will read that the plaintiffs deemed the North Carolina law to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments.

                                In regards to the Texas case the plaintiffs argued that the Texas law violated Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The pdf is here.

                                IMHO, you're viewing these decisions as if the federal courts are making law through the overturning of certain provisions of enacted state legislation when in reality they are comparing the legislation to federal legislation in order to determine whether or not the state legislation passes federal muster. In these cases, they did not.

                                Again I am not saying Congress will or will not pass laws that will restricts the rights of US citizens to own firearms. All I am saying is that unfortunately the SCOTUS can interpret the 2nd Amendment that would allow this to happen
                                No argument here. All one needs to do is view SCOTUS' finding in Plessy v. Ferguson and compare the results to what SCOTUS opined in Brown v. Board of Education for proof of the shifting nature of SCOTUS' opinions.

                                You are basing your argument on past rulings.
                                Which is quite rational and in tune with tenet of maintenance of the status quo Otherwise what are we supposed to do, argue whether or not murder is legal every so many years?


                                What I am attempting (which it doesn't seem I'm doing) is saying the the 2nd Amendment does not have to be removed or modified by a Constitutional Congress, all it takes is for the SCOTUS to rule in favor of restrictive laws by interpreting the 2nd Amendment in a different manner than it has in the past.
                                I've already agreed with your premise that this is possible in post # 80. I clearly understand, see above. The original verbiage that you employed in post # 54 quite clearly indicates you thoughts:



                                Now, I am worried that Hillary or anyone else in the future decides they want to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens to own certain firearms or even own firearms and all it would take is for the SCOTUS to rule in their favor. Now do I see that happening nation wide, I hope not, but I do foresee States passing more and more restrictive laws (like Kalifornia). I do not have that problem since I live in a State that takes the rights of citizens very seriously when it comes to firearm ownership and carrying of firearms
                                Anything is possible, however, as I previously stated, not all Democrats are of like mind and therefor, not all Democrats will vote in favor of such a bill. Just because she may become President does not necessarily mean that gun rights will be curtailed.

                                I think you were referring to this
                                "Any your assumption that if Hillary is president she needs to take any action is invalid."
                                First is should read And not Any

                                What I attempted to say is that the Hillary does not have to try and change any laws concerning firearms by executive action or have a Constitutional Congress . All she has to have (which is considerable) is a SCOTUS that is open to changing the rights of citizens when it comes to firearms by either federal or various state laws and in the case of federal laws a compliant Congress or in the case of State laws a compliant state legislature.
                                That's a possibility. A rather tall order as many state's legislatures would not dare to infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights of their citizens.

                                Again I am not saying it will happen all I'm saying is with a different Supreme Court it is possible to lose certain rights or all rights to own firearms.
                                It all hinges on the attitude of the SCOTUS toward our present rights.
                                I agree.

                                Oh by the way I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and do not think that adding more laws will solve any problems concerning firearms. Just to be very clear
                                I surmised as much.

                                I too believe in the right of the individual to own firearms, just not the current welter of them.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X