Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

Fucking idiots. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

+1

One small data point showing Dems are better at small government than any Republican so far:

As a percent of total employed people in our economy, the number of government workers is actually far lower than it used to be. About 16% of us now work for the government.

I spend quite a bit of time in Austin and always find it to be quite pleasant. Originally Posted by bigtex

BigKoTex hangs with the other Congress Avenue Bridge ding-bats.

You don't understand Ekim, the people can leave but the base and equipment stay. Same thing with the nuclear missiles and stealth bombers in Missouri. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What makes you think the equipment stays? How is Texas going to keep it?

When the President of the US orders the military to close its bases and remove its equipment, who is going to stop them? The Texas National Guard? Half of them will quit and refuse to follow Rick Perry's orders.

The military personnel stationed in Texas are from all 50 states, not just Texas. They aren't going to listen to Rick Perry or some other shit-for-brains "Republic of Texas" head of gummint.

All the folks with brains will leave Texas and that includes folks that are native Texans. The rump that would be left will be the high-school dropout trailer trash with Confederate flag bumper stickers. How are they going to make a country run?

All the tech companies in Austin/SA, DFW, and Houston will leave even if they didn't want to. If all of their employees leave and go to other states, they would have no choice. Many of them will end up going back to California. A Texas secession will be the best thing to happen to California.

The only industry Texas would retain would be oil and the rest of the country is much less dependent on Texas thanks to fracking.

You may laugh about this but what will happen when California petitions the US (the states and the people) to make good on their $600 billion debt. You want to pay your irresponsible neighbors debts? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes, we certainly are laughing. REAL HARD.

When California asks, we will vote "NO".

My ancestors fought for independence from the national government from 1861-1864 and unlike the struggle from 1776-1780 we lost, but not because our cause was wrong. The struggle from 1776-1780 was only won because of foreign intervention, and the war from 1861-1864 would also have been won if we'd had foreign support.

Every people or state has the right to determine it's own form of government, and for any foreign or central authority to impose their will is simple tyranny.

IMHO all the former Confederate states should take their case for independence to the Supreme Court and separate themselves from the national government.

The forcable retention of the United States into a single union led to a trail of carnage and horror unleashed on the world which never would have happened if the Confederate cause for self-governance would have prevailed. As it is the total war waged against the rebellion of the South became the first campaign in a whole series of IMPERIAL AGGRESSIONS the national government thereafter waged, including:

1.the Spainish-American war
2.the Phillipines civil war, in which the US killed over 300,000 civilians
3.the Boxer Rebellion in China
4.the invasion of Nicaragua
5.the invasion of the Dominican Republic
6.the invasion of Guatamala
7.the invasion of Panama
8.intervening in the Great War in 1917 on the British side and drafting the Treaty of Versalle
9.intervening in the Second World War on the side of the Soviet Union and England, including the massive war crimes of killing millions of civilians through aerial bombardment.
10.prosecution of the "cold war" against the Soviet Union, in which 60 million people were unnecessarily killed by US actions
11.invasion of Afghanistan
12.invasion of Iraq

The founders intended their country to be a republic, not an empire.

Oh please, Texas is not even for a minute considering leaving the US

However I'm sure there are a number of Texans, that Texas would love to see the US

This thread is just another example by good ol' COG...trying to stir up some emotions. And based upon the some of the replies, he is suceessful

Oh please, Texas is not even for a minute considering leaving the US

However I'm sure there are a number of Texans, that Texas would love to see the US

This thread is just another example by good ol' COG...trying to stir up some emotions. And based upon the some of the replies, he is suceessful Originally Posted by vkmaster

You are dead wrong.

If it were put to a vote most Texans would vote for independence.

We would reap a windfall of prosperity by getting rid of the old, decrepid welfare states of the rustbelt and Atlantic seaboard and midwest with their political corruption, mafia crime syndicates, etc etc....

We can at last rule ourselves and have freedom.

And the above quote coming from someone who thinks Hilter and Elvis are having brunch on Veterans Day.....

Yea, I'm sure there are a number of Texans that Texas would like to see leave, lol

My ancestors fought for independence from the national government from 1861-1864 and unlike the struggle from 1776-1780 we lost, but not because our cause was wrong. The struggle from 1776-1780 was only won because of foreign intervention, and the war from 1861-1864 would also have been won if we'd had foreign support.

Every people or state has the right to determine it's own form of government, and for any foreign or central authority to impose their will is simple tyranny.

IMHO all the former Confederate states should take their case for independence to the Supreme Court and separate themselves from the national government.

The forcable retention of the United States into a single union led to a trail of carnage and horror unleashed on the world which never would have happened if the Confederate cause for self-governance would have prevailed. As it is the total war waged against the rebellion of the South became the first campaign in a whole series of IMPERIAL AGGRESSIONS the national government thereafter waged, including:

1.the Spainish-American war
2.the Phillipines civil war, in which the US killed over 300,000 civilians
3.the Boxer Rebellion in China
4.the invasion of Nicaragua
5.the invasion of the Dominican Republic
6.the invasion of Guatamala
7.the invasion of Panama
8.intervening in the Great War in 1917 on the British side and drafting the Treaty of Versalle
9.intervening in the Second World War on the side of the Soviet Union and England, including the massive war crimes of killing millions of civilians through aerial bombardment.
10.prosecution of the "cold war" against the Soviet Union, in which 60 million people were unnecessarily killed by US actions
11.invasion of Afghanistan
12.invasion of Iraq

The founders intended their country to be a republic, not an empire. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Pardon, but your Noam Chomsky is showing again. It's notable that you claim the U.S. "drafted" the Treaty of Versailles as if the British, French and Italians played no part in its construction. It should also be remembered that the U.S. did not sign the Treaty of Versailles. Furthermore, didn't Stalin, Krushchev and Brezhnev play some *minor role* in causing those sixty million deaths?

My ancestors fought for independence from the national government from 1861-1864 and unlike the struggle from 1776-1780 we lost, but not because our cause was wrong. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Your ancestors fought to maintain their power (not their right, their power) to own another human being and to steal the product of his life. And by referring to it as "our cause" you embrace it as your cause and you claim it was not wrong.

So, I take it then, you think you can own other human being? I know you own an escort agency and are something of a pimp, but damn. This is rather blatant.

And please don't give me any shit about defending state's rights. The ONLY state right the Confederacy was willing to fight for was the "right" to hold slaves.

The struggle from 1776-1780 was only won because of foreign intervention, and the war from 1861-1864 would also have been won if we'd had foreign support. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Really? The ONLY reason we won the Revolutionary War was because of foreign intervention. I think you need to re-read your history books.

Aid from the French in the final year of the war certainly helped, but the war had already dragged on for years and the English were growing tired of it. They, too, realized they were not winning it and it could go on for more years. Many folks don't realize this, but the 13 colonies were not very lucrative for the British. The real crown jewels were the islands in the Caribbean where they made tons of money from the sugar cane and rum. I read somewhere long ago that in the late 1700s, the GDP of Britain's Caribbean holdings were greater that the GDP of the 13 colonies. So the English just gave up on us.

And even with foreign support, the South would have lost. It just would have taken a few more years. The US navy might have been small at the start of the Civil War, but it was one of the largest in the world by the end of the war. That's why the Union was able to maintain a blockade and why the Brits did not want to risk the bloodbath of running it. And we were the only navy with ironclads other that the Confederacy.

Every people or state has the right to determine it's own form of government, and for any foreign or central authority to impose their will is simple tyranny. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I guess that depends on whose defining the state boundaries, huh? What happens if Collin County, Tarrant County, and other northern Texas counties decide to secede from Texas and join Oklahoma or become a completely new state in the USA. Does the rest of Texas just accept that? Will Texas stand idly by while individual regions breakoff because they are not on-board with Texas independence idea?

What happens when the region across the street from you decides to secede from Texas and stay in the Union?

Every people or state has the right to determine it's own form of government, and for any foreign or central authority to impose their will is simple tyranny. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Hmm. But owning slaves is not simple tyranny, right?

IMHO all the former Confederate states should take their case for independence to the Supreme Court and separate themselves from the national government. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

They'd lose. The SC is not doing to side with secessionists.

The forcable retention of the United States into a single union led to a trail of carnage and horror unleashed on the world which never would have happened if the Confederate cause for self-governance would have prevailed. As it is the total war waged against the rebellion of the South became the first campaign in a whole series of IMPERIAL AGGRESSIONS the national government thereafter waged, including:

1.the Spainish-American war
2.the Phillipines civil war, in which the US killed over 300,000 civilians
3.the Boxer Rebellion in China
4.the invasion of Nicaragua
5.the invasion of the Dominican Republic
6.the invasion of Guatamala
7.the invasion of Panama
8.intervening in the Great War in 1917 on the British side and drafting the Treaty of Versalle
9.intervening in the Second World War on the side of the Soviet Union and England, including the massive war crimes of killing millions of civilians through aerial bombardment.
10.prosecution of the "cold war" against the Soviet Union, in which 60 million people were unnecessarily killed by US actions
11.invasion of Afghanistan
12.invasion of Iraq Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Yeah, that right. Everything that happened after 1865 was the fault of the Union because the south lost. And of course the southern states would never have caused any trouble, right?

And on point 10, could you please tell us how 60 million people died "unnecessarily" by US actions? The whole reason it is called a "Cold War" was because we were trying to avoid a full scale "Hot War". The number of deaths in Vietnam and Korea do not add up to anything near that number. So where do 60 million deaths come from?

Pardon, but your Noam Chomsky is showing again. It's notable that you claim the U.S. "drafted" the Treaty of Versailles as if the British, French and Italians played no part in its construction. It should also be remembered that the U.S. did not sign the Treaty of Versailles. Furthermore, didn't Stalin, Krushchev and Brezhnev play some *minor role* in causing those sixty million deaths? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The biggest influence on the drafting of the Treaty was Wilson. He ultimately had a check on everything the others put into the Treaty.

As for Chomsky he would not agree with me about the US role in the Second World War, and I agree more with General Butler's critics on the imperial motives of the US eastern establishment than I do Chomsky.

The cold war was completely unnecessary and total folly by the US.

The US failed in every attempt to role back communism in eastern Europe, where it was truely justified and needed.

So thereafter the US exaggerated the communist threat all over the third world and supported monsterous alternatives merely because they were opposed to communism, most of the time in places where communism wasn't a factor or the local communists weren't alligned with the Soviets or Chinese. For example, after Vietnam fell to local communists they went to war with the Chinese, and provided no assistance at all to the Soviets. Tito in Yougoslavia was their model, not the satellites of Poland or Hungary.

In this way the US played a horrible role in aiding virtual genocide against whole rural populations in places like indochina, Indonesia and central America.

I disagree with Chomsky that the US prosecution of the cold war was for imperial rather than security motives, but he's right in that the Bush administration was motivated by naked imperialism in the attacks on Afhanistan and Iraq. But only a group like those around Bush would have done so. If anyone else would have been in power after 9-11 it never would have happened.

My critic is that of Butler's --- it's the eastern banking establishment which is behind all this imperialism, and much of the rest of the country is just swept along.

You are dead wrong.

If it were put to a vote most Texans would vote for independence.

We would reap a windfall of prosperity by getting rid of the old, decrepid welfare states of the rustbelt and Atlantic seaboard and midwest with their political corruption, mafia crime syndicates, etc etc....

We can at last rule ourselves and have freedom. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

You need to go outside and meet people.

I know lots of Texans, including proud native-born Texans. I don't know anyone who would vote to leave the US, no matter how much they hate Obama.

The population of Texas has swelled by many millions over the last 30 years or so. That growth was largely due to immigration to the state from other parts of the US and from other nations. And those people don't give a shit about the Confederacy or Texas independence.

They DO however, create many billions of dollars of wealth here in Texas. And when they leave Texas, the eoonomy of Texas will be ruined

And believe me they WILL leave. They are not going to hang around and be governed by a bunch of redneck, good-ole boys who are looking to put the gays, the blacks and the Messicans in their place.

YOU LOSE. Just like your ancestors.

It was a dumb idea then. It is a worse idea now.

Your ancestors fought to maintain their power (not their right, their power) to own another human being and to steal the product of his life. And by referring to it as "our cause" you embrace it as your cause and you claim it was not wrong.

So, I take it then, you think you can own other human being? I know you own an escort agency and are something of a pimp, but damn. This is rather blatant.

And please don't give me any shit about defending state's rights. The ONLY state right the Confederacy was willing to fight for was the "right" to hold slaves.


Really? The ONLY reason we won the Revolutionary War was because of foreign intervention. I think you need to re-read your history books.

Aid from the French in the final year of the war certainly helped, but the war had already dragged on for years and the English were growing tired of it. They, too, realized they were not winning it and it could go on for more years. Many folks don't realize this, but the 13 colonies were not very lucrative for the British. The real crown jewels were the islands in the Caribbean where they made tons of money from the sugar cane and rum. I read somewhere long ago that in the late 1700s, the GDP of Britain's Caribbean holdings were greater that the GDP of the 13 colonies. So the English just gave up on us.

And even with foreign support, the South would have lost. It just would have taken a few more years. The US navy might have been small at the start of the Civil War, but it was one of the largest in the world by the end of the war. That's why the Union was able to maintain a blockade and why the Brits did not want to risk the bloodbath of running it. And we were the only navy with ironclads other that the Confederacy.


I guess that depends on whose defining the state boundaries, huh? What happens if Collin County, Tarrant County, and other northern Texas counties decide to secede from Texas and join Oklahoma or become a completely new state in the USA. Does the rest of Texas just accept that? Will Texas stand idly by while individual regions breakoff because they are not on-board with Texas independence idea?

What happens when the region across the street from you decides to secede from Texas and stay in the Union?


Hmm. But owning slaves is not simple tyranny, right?


They'd lose. The SC is not doing to side with secessionists.


Yeah, that right. Everything that happened after 1865 was the fault of the Union because the south lost. And of course the southern states would never have caused any trouble, right?

And on point 10, could you please tell us how 60 million people died "unnecessarily" by US actions? The whole reason it is called a "Cold War" was because we were trying to avoid a full scale "Hot War". The number of deaths in Vietnam and Korea do not add up to anything near that number. So where do 60 million deaths come from? Originally Posted by ExNYer

99% of the people of the South who fought and supported independence didn't own slaves, and were actually economically harmed by slavery. Slavery was an economic harm to free laborers everywhere it existed. The elites in the South would never have sought independence if it were not for their percepetion [a correct one as it turned out] that Lincoln's real agenda was to abolish slavery. But whatever the reason behind it, the central government had no moral or legal right to invade other states to impose their inclusion any more than the Crown and Parliament had a right to invade the colonies and force their inclusion.

Self-determination is the only principle that applies here.

You can try to spin all kinds of arguments to seek to justify imperialism and taking others' self-determination by force and terror, but it's all simply TYRANNY.

ExNYer. You need to read the Constitution. You can't take land from a current state to make a new state. That's why DC isn't a state, the land was taken from Maryland and Virginia.

ExNYer. You need to read the Constitution. You can't take land from a current state to make a new state. That's why DC isn't a state, the land was taken from Maryland and Virginia. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Once upon a time, there was one Virginia. And now there are two.

West Virginia broke away from Virginia in 1863, during the Civil War. Also, Nevada separated from Utah Territory and became a state during the Civil War. So apparently it can happen.

Re-read my post above. I didn't say the US would take land away from Texas. I said "what if" regions in Texas decided FOR THEMSELVES to break away from Texas.

So you need to read the Constitution. And then cite the Article and Clause that says "you cannot just take land from a current state to make a new state". Because if that is true, West Virginia and Nevada are unconstitutional.

Once upon a time, there was one Virginia. And now there are two.

West Virginia broke away from Virginia in 1863, during the Civil War. So apparently it can happen.

Re-read my post above. I didn't say the US would take land away from Texas. I said "what if" regions in Texas decided FOR THEMSELVES to break away from Texas.

So you need to read the Constitution. And then cite the Article and Clause that says "you cannot just take land from a current state to make a new state". Because if that is true, West Virginia is unconstitutional. Originally Posted by ExNYer

An FYI, many "extra-legal" things occured during the Lincoln administration: West Virginia was but one of those "things".