NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_re_us/perry_secession


Democrats: Texas gov should disavow secession talk
By KELLEY SHANNON, Associated Press Writer Kelley Shannon, Associated Press Writer – 1 min ago

AUSTIN, Texas – In a state that once was its own nation, a Republican governor who talked about secession without completely dismissing the idea has Democratic lawmakers in an uproar.

Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday, never did advocate Texas breaking away from the United States but suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to leave the union. That was enough to feed opinions for and against secession on Web sites, cable TV and talk radio across the nation.

At the Texas Capitol on Thursday, Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, joined by several fellow Texas House Democrats, said some people associate talk of secession with racial division and the Civil War and that Perry should disavow any notion of seceding.

"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement," Dunnam said at a news conference.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, said that by not rejecting the possibility of secession out of hand, Perry "is taking a step down a very dangerous and divisive path encouraged by the fringe of Texas politics."

The Democrats are proposing a House resolution expressing "complete and total disagreement with any fringe element advocating the 'secession' of Texas or any other state from our one and indivisible Union."

Perry emphasized Thursday that he is not advocating secession but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration with Washington, D.C. He said it's fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments.

Perry's remarks Wednesday were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the Austin rally, where some in the audience had shouted "Secede!" during his speech. The governor said he didn't think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea.

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot," Perry said Wednesday.

A day later, Perry said he found the fascination with the remark interesting.

"I refer people back to my statement and I got a charge out of it," he said. "I was kind of thinking that maybe the same people that hadn't been reading the Constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said. Clearly I stated that we have a great union. Texas is part of a great union. And I see no reason for that to change."

Texas was a republic from 1836, when it declared independence from Mexico, to 1845, when it became a U.S. state.

Perry has been speaking out against the federal government lately over federal economic stimulus spending. He's also in a tough race for re-election against a fellow Republican, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom he is trying to portray as a Washington insider.

Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle criticized Dunnam, saying he was "trying to distract from the fact that yesterday thousands of Texans, including many in his own district, expressed their extreme displeasure at Washington's rampant taxation, big spending and bloated government."

Dunnam suggested Perry is positioning himself for his political future.

"We all knew he wanted to be president. I just didn't know it was president of the Republic of Texas," he said to chuckles from onlookers.

Splendid. So, liberals spend the last 8 years being called anti-American. And yet, the Republican Texas GOVERNOR - so, no, not a small name - begins talking about secession the moment the other guy gets elected.

Fort Sumter, Rick Perry, you son of a bitch?

Don't blame me for Prick Erry. I voted Kinky.

Don't blame me for Prick Erry. I voted Kinky.

I don't care about your location. Nobody does. :p

http://idrewthis.org/comics/idt20070420-2lw4.gif

:D

http://idrewthis.org/comics/idt20070420-2lw4.gif

:D

I said this once and I'll say it again: You folks should have let the South secede.

I don't care about your location. Nobody does. :p

Kinky was a Jewish cowboy(comedian) that ran Governor.

Texas is the true America, all other states are anti-American. So it's simply a case of separating America from anti-America, thus you only love America if you support the secession.

Tom "Why is this Has-Been on TV Again" Delay is on Chris Matthew's show on MSNBC right now trying to defend this jackass. Matthews is calling it "nut talk" plain and simple. Delay is squirming like a 5-post NSG troll, and typically, he won't give up even though he has already admitted to Matthews, "No, Texas can't secede."

1) He claims that Perry is not talking about secession, despite being played the tapes of Perry talking about secession.

2) He claims that Perry is just "standing up for his state" and defending "state sovereignty," which is somehow not talking about secession, even though Perry talks about seceding.

3) He claims that Texas joined the union originally by a treaty and, if Texas "invokes" it, then the US will kick Texas out of the union, and that then won't be secession even though Perry calls it secession.

4) He also takes a few moments to ad hominem attack Matthews, starting with "Chris, this is so typical of you..."

:D

Kinky was a Jewish cowboy(comedian) that ran Governor.

I know, was playing with Gaut's location. ;)

Texas is the true America, all other states are anti-American. So it's simply a case of separating America from anti-America, thus you only love America if you support the secession.

It's not secession; it's kicking all the traitor states out!

Well, well, well!

Maybe he's a secret NSGer and read my after-election post :D

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!!!

Tom "Why is this Has-Been on TV Again" Delay is on Chris Matthew's show on MSNBC right now trying to defend this jackass. Matthews is calling it "nut talk" plain and simple. Delay is squirming like a 5-post NSG troll, and typically, he won't give up even though he has already admitted to Matthews, "No, Texas can't secede."

1) He claims that Perry is not talking about secession, despite being played the tapes of Perry talking about secession.

2) He claims that Perry is just "standing up for his state" and defending "state sovereignty," which is somehow not talking about secession, even though Perry talks about seceding.

3) He claims that Texas joined the union originally by a treaty and, if Texas "invokes" it, then the US will kick Texas out of the union, and that then won't be secession even though Perry calls it secession.

4) He also takes a few moments to ad hominem attack Matthews, starting with "Chris, this is so typical of you..."

:D

Keep me posted about this, bitte. I translate better when I'm SEETHING WITH PURE-RED RAGE...

Well, well, well!

Maybe he's a secret NSGer and read my after-election post :D

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!!!

1- Screw Texas, Leeroy.

2- Keep dreaming, Leeroy.

3- That's anti-American, Leeroy.

4- You claimed "Fort Sumter" wasn't about "literal" secession, Leeroy. Remember, Leeroy? What happened to that, Leeroy?

And now Delay is bitching about how much all us other states owe Texas to justify how "fed up" with us they are. "Texas is a huge donor state" he says. "We get back only about 70 cents of every dollar we send to the federal government in taxes."

Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. In this morning's paper I read that, in fact Texas gets back more than 80 cents on the dollar, whereas Minnesota (I think) only gets back 48 cents out of every federal tax dollar paid. By Delay and Perry's idiot-logic, how much does Texas owe Minnesota then? Enough to get them to shut the fuck up for five minutes if Minnesota asks them to?

georgia got there first
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/04/16/georgia-senate-threatens-dismantling-of-usa/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

the Republican Texas GOVERNOR - so, no, not a small name - begins talking about secession the moment the other guy gets elected.

I call Balkan rule and hereby acknowledge the independence of the Republic of Texas. And if the federals send in the FBI (a special police force), the NATO should bomb Washington.

:rolleyes:

Keep me posted about this, bitte. I translate better when I'm SEETHING WITH PURE-RED RAGE...
Sorry, the segment has ended. With my luck, they'll come back with some bootlicking water-carrier like Frank Gafney, and there will go my blood pressure. I can't lunge for the mute button fast enough with some of these media-morons.

Sorry, the segment has ended. With my luck, they'll come back with some bootlicking water-carrier like Frank Gafney, and there will go my blood pressure. I can't lunge for the mute button fast enough with some of these media-morons.

Really. THESE are the guys that call us anti-American, un-American and America-haters.

I'm furious right now.

And yet, the Republican Texas GOVERNOR - so, no, not a small name - begins talking about secession the moment the other guy gets elected.

...Well, given all that the Texas state government does, the governor really couldn't be called a big name. But yeah, this is headbanging even for a Texas conservative like myself.

georgia got there first
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/04/16/georgia-senate-threatens-dismantling-of-usa/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

:$
I am so ashamed....

I promise I didn't vote for those guys!

I said this once and I'll say it again: You folks should have let the South secede.
So are you lambasting the Governor, or applauding him?

So are you lambasting the Governor, or applauding him?

Lambasting for his utter hypocrisy, but if Texas and all those hellhole Southern States want to get the fuck out, I'm volunteering to help them pack!

1- Screw Texas, Leeroy.

2- Keep dreaming, Leeroy.

3- That's anti-American, Leeroy.

4- You claimed "Fort Sumter" wasn't about "literal" secession, Leeroy. Remember, Leeroy? What happened to that, Leeroy?

I have come to your aid before NM, but it seems that I must respond to Heikoku's comment with a lulz and a y'know he's gotta point there!

"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement," Dunnam said at a news conference.
What a dick.

The very reason US is called the United States is that the States retain a certain autonomy - and thus, a potential right to secede.

Separating the commie crowd from the intelligently designed states could have a beneficial effect for both. The commies will get their kicks with regulations for every step, a 80% tax rate and hairpin control, while the American people could live the American way.

What a dick.

The very reason US is called the United States is that the States retain a certain autonomy - and thus, a potential right to secede.

Separating the commie crowd from the intelligently designed states could have a beneficial effect for both. The commies will get their kicks with regulations for every step, a 80% tax rate and hairpin control, while the American people could live the American way.

I don't have time to obliterate you right now. I'm certain some other poster will gladly undertake said easy task.

Lambasting for his utter hypocrisy, but if Texas and all those hellhole Southern States want to get the fuck out, I'm volunteering to help them pack!
I'm sure the citizens of "those hellhole Southern States" are happy you see them as one hive mind.

I don't have time to obliterate you right now.
In the name of the wee man...

Do you often have trouble fitting your head through the door?

Tom "Why is this Has-Been on TV Again" Delay is on Chris Matthew's show on MSNBC right now trying to defend this jackass. Matthews is calling it "nut talk" plain and simple. Delay is squirming like a 5-post NSG troll, and typically, he won't give up even though he has already admitted to Matthews, "No, Texas can't secede."

1) He claims that Perry is not talking about secession, despite being played the tapes of Perry talking about secession.

2) He claims that Perry is just "standing up for his state" and defending "state sovereignty," which is somehow not talking about secession, even though Perry talks about seceding.

3) He claims that Texas joined the union originally by a treaty and, if Texas "invokes" it, then the US will kick Texas out of the union, and that then won't be secession even though Perry calls it secession.

4) He also takes a few moments to ad hominem attack Matthews, starting with "Chris, this is so typical of you..."

:D I have heard, but do not know for certain, that the treaty by which Texas joined the Union included a clause which permits them to leave peacefully. Does anyone know that to be the case?

I'm sure the citizens of "those hellhole Southern States" are happy you see them as one hive mind.


In the name of the wee man...

Do you often have trouble fitting your head through the door?

1- Their Democratic population are welcome into whatever purple states remain.

2- It's not a merit to beat V10 in an argument.

:$
I am so ashamed....

I promise I didn't vote for those guys!

what kills me is that its 43-1. forty-fucking three to one. like, holy shit, that's some good governance.

Texans suck up a lot of American taxes.

We will move our bases where they are wanted and will benefit the economy: Michigan?

Let those cowboys pay for their own military.

What a dick.

The very reason US is called the United States is that the States retain a certain autonomy - and thus, a potential right to secede.

Separating the commie crowd from the intelligently designed states could have a beneficial effect for both. The commies will get their kicks with regulations for every step, a 80% tax rate and hairpin control, while the American people could live the American way.

This follows the same logic and thought stream which in fact underlies the 2nd amendment. It is all about states rights. Jefferson should have prevailed and we would be a great deal better off.

the typical liberal poster to this thread is prima facia evidence that liberalism may in fact be a mental disease or disorder

I have heard, but do not know for certain, that the treaty by which Texas joined the Union included a clause which permits them to leave peacefully. Does anyone know that to be the case?
Well, I wish someone would point that clause out to Perry and that criminal Delay to clue them that there's nothing stopping them. Just make sure they return the keys to the rest of the country before they go, or else we'll have to change all the locks.

And now Delay is bitching about how much all us other states owe Texas to justify how "fed up" with us they are. "Texas is a huge donor state" he says. "We get back only about 70 cents of every dollar we send to the federal government in taxes."

Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. In this morning's paper I read that, in fact Texas gets back more than 80 cents on the dollar, whereas Minnesota (I think) only gets back 48 cents out of every federal tax dollar paid. By Delay and Perry's idiot-logic, how much does Texas owe Minnesota then? Enough to get them to shut the fuck up for five minutes if Minnesota asks them to?

Prick Erry also proclaimed he was going to refuse the federal grant that all the states were getting because that would require going by federal regulations.

the typical liberal poster to this thread is prima facia evidence that liberalism may in fact be a mental disease or disorder

Flamebaiting. Reporting.

the intelligently designed states

nicely done

This follows the same logic and thought stream which in fact underlies the 2nd amendment. It is all about states rights. Jefferson should have prevailed and we would be a great deal better off.

the typical liberal poster to this thread is prima facia evidence that liberalism may in fact be a mental disease or disorder

Yeah, damn that Libby traitor Abe Lincoln for preventing states' rights in the name of "Preserving the Union".

Should this ever happen, Texas will be your Chechnya

This follows the same logic and thought stream which in fact underlies the 2nd amendment. It is all about states rights. Jefferson should have prevailed and we would be a great deal better off.

the typical liberal poster to this thread is prima facia evidence that liberalism may in fact be a mental disease or disorder
Nothing you said in the above post makes any sense except for the last sentence. THAT is clearly recognizable as a flame.

So...nonsense + flame - content = troll. Do Not Feed.

Well, I wish someone would point that clause out to Perry and that criminal Delay to clue them that there's nothing stopping them. Just make sure they return the keys to the rest of the country before they go, or else we'll have to change all the locks.

Many people have scanned the documents. No such clause exists.

Should this ever happen, Texas will be your Chechnya
Not ours. Mexico's.

Many people have scanned the documents. No such clause exists.
Shucks. I was hoping for an easy way out.

Should this ever happen, Texas will be your Chechnya

why? and who is playing the role of the russians?

why? and who is playing the role of the russians?

Chechnya - Republic of Texas

Russia - U.S.A.

Foreign Mujaheddin - Mexicans


You think the U.S. would just let a state secede?

You think the U.S. would just let a state secede?

why not? what do we gain by acting as an evil empire of doom?

I used to coach and judge Student Congress tournaments. For about three years in a row, at least one student would introduce a resolution to kick Texas out of the United States.

Neocons are all hypocrites through and through. Well, no, let me correct that. Right-wing talking heads are hypocrites through and through and neocons are brainless sheep who believe everything those talking heads say.

why not? what do we gain by acting as an evil empire of doom?

Has that logic ever stopped us in the past?

What a dick.

The very reason US is called the United States is that the States retain a certain autonomy - and thus, a potential right to secede.

Separating the commie crowd from the intelligently designed states could have a beneficial effect for both. The commies will get their kicks with regulations for every step, a 80% tax rate and hairpin control, while the American people could live the American way.

Responding to you would give you a measure of credibility. Any of the posters with an IQ above 80 have already figured out that you doing a great job of pretending to be an utter moron. Either that, or you flunked US History.

If you believe a state shouldn't be allowed to secede if they so desire (by referendum), then we should also return Kosovo to Serbia and South Ossetia to Georgia (the country one).

why not? what do we gain by acting as an evil empire of doom?

Nothing, but if you let one go, then others will want to follow. Balkanize me Cap'n :$

If you believe a state shouldn't be allowed to secede if they so desire (by referendum), then we should also have Kosovo returned to Serbia and South Ossetia to Georgia (the country one).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war

If you believe a state shouldn't be allowed to secede if they so desire (by referendum), then we should also return Kosovo to Serbia and South Ossetia to Georgia (the country one).

And let China have Taiwan again, don't forget! :D

Chechnya - Republic of Texas

Russia - U.S.A.

Foreign Mujaheddin - Mexicans
Nope. Because that scenario has two foreign powers fighting over a region that wishes to be autonomous.

Perry and Delay's scenario would have a bunch of foreign invaders claiming sovereignty and giving up US military protection over a piece of land that someone else -- Mexico -- has a prior claim to.

I mean...who do you think we stole that territory from in the first place?

You think the U.S. would just let a state secede?
A) No.

B) We don't have to "let" them, and we don't have to "stop" them, either. By Delay's own admission, they can't do it anyway. They have to ask the US to kick them out, which the US shows no interest in doing, regardless of what Heckle and Jeckle say is in that magic treaty they've got.

Unless the US recognizes their official withdrawal from the union, all Texas is, is a big state headed up by a few loudmouthed morons and some tax cheats.

If you believe a state shouldn't be allowed to secede if they so desire (by referendum), then we should also return Kosovo to Serbia and South Ossetia to Georgia (the country one).

Wow! I never knew that Kosovo was part of the United States, or South Ossetia! What's that? They weren't? Then why in the hell would the U.S. Constitution apply to them? Good grief.

And let China have Taiwan again, don't forget! :D
Or better, help them kick the Taiwanese secessionists back in line.

Oh, and make Finland return to Russia.

And surrender US to British rule.

why not? what do we gain by acting as an evil empire of doom?
Between Delay's Texax BS and, later in the hour, Buchanan's anti-gay BS, I had to call my mom to vent (Must. Save. Brain!), and she mentioned that someone at her job repeated a joke pointing out that the US has a history of invading oil-rich nations. ;)

I used to coach and judge Student Congress tournaments. For about three years in a row, at least one student would introduce a resolution to kick Texas out of the United States.
I would be surprised if they could actually get any argument against such a proposal.

Or better, let them kick the Taiwanese secessionists back in line.

Oh, and return Finland to Russia.

And surrender US to British rule.

And we should have let Germany keep the Sudetenland too! Oh and Vietnam ought to be given back to France and Spain can have Cuba again.

Nothing, but if you let one go, then others will want to follow. Balkanize me Cap'n :$

That seems doubtful. Most States have their noses in the air at other States sometimes, but Texas has always had a stronger independant streak.

Most States will also realize that they will be far worse off without the greater Federal component.

And we should have let Germany keep the Sudetenland too! Oh and Vietnam ought to be given back to France and Spain can have Cuba again.

Actually, for a while Germany "owned" most of Europe, if we gave it back to them, think of how much that would aid political/economic cohesion in Europe! ;)

Wow! I never knew that Kosovo was part of the United States, or South Ossetia! What's that? They weren't?
Kosovo was an occupied territory of the United States, taken away from Serbia. If the wrongdoings of secessionism should be undone, so should this one. And don't tell me US doesn't rule the world.


Actually, for a while Germany "owned" most of Europe, if we gave it back to them, think of how much that would aid political/economic cohesion in Europe! ;)
But haven't we half-done it already? I mean, with all the EU thing, all that remains to be done is to give higher weight to the superior races.

And don't tell me US doesn't rule the world.

OR ELSE YOU WILL DO WHAT?

The US doesn't rule the world.

Alright, I can see at least two angles to this.

1. As a Western Australian who is sick to death of Canberra's greedy hand taking and taking (mostly to feed NSW and Victoria) and never giving anything back, I can certainly sympathise with the desire for a State whose people feel that it's putting in a lot more than it's getting out to secede. Especially given that Obama is, for a variety of reasons (some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't) in the process of making Bush look fiscally responsible - at least, on the surface, which is what matters to a lot of people.

2. However, I see plenty of hypocrisy here. First, where were Gov. Perry's condemnations during Bush's tenure? I recall none. Second, to give a speech supporting the concept (at least) of secession, and then to accuse people who oppose you as anti-American is simply Orwellian.

OR ELSE YOU WILL DO WHAT?
Give you a heart attack?

Kosovo was an occupied territory of the United States, taken away from Serbia. If the wrongdoings of secessionism should be undone, so should this one. And don't tell me US doesn't rule the world.

If Kosovo was an occupied territory of the US doesn't that make is annexation rather than secession?

OR ELSE YOU WILL DO WHAT?
I think conquering Brazil would be about right, if there was anything in there to conquer other than stumps of rainforests.


The US doesn't rule the world.
Voicing this misconception makes you one of the most unamerican people on this already not very American board.

I think conquering Brazil would be about right, if there was anything in there to conquer other than stumps of rainforests.

Thank you.

Give you a heart attack?

I'm way closer to having a Death Note than he is. :p

Especially given that Obama is, for a variety of reasons (some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't) in the process of making Bush look fiscally responsible - at least, on the surface, which is what matters to a lot of people.

Wait wait wait . . .isn't the economy turning around? I mean my portfolio's up a good 30% over the last 2 weeks

I'm way closer to having a Death Note than he is. :p
So you watch Asian cartoons. And, apparently, have trouble telling them apart from the reality. That makes you doubleplusunamerican.

Ok, ok, ok. Everyone relax. There are a few problems I've seen reading through this thread.


1. Texas is not going to secede. They shouldn't, they won't and the American government wouldn't let them. And they don't really want to. They have alot to gain by being in America. Texas is not some backwater place. They have 3 to 4 major cities like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin that are highly interconnected into the American economy. Also Texas has alot of oil and other resources that America uses and military bases. It's unrealistic to think Texas will or even really wants to secede.

2. That said, there are obviously some certain individuals who may want to secede and they are nothing more than anti-American domestic terrorists, working for the dissolution of our great nation. That is a serious offense.

3. None of this makes the left wing talk during the Bush years of "He's not my President, he's your President!" and "let's secede from Jesusland" any better. Two wrongs do not make a right. Those people are just as anti-American as the individuals calling for the South (or Texas) to secede.

4. Those (looking at you Heikoku :p) who call the Southern states backwards or "hellholes" are seriously misinformed. Texas is quite an industrialzied center of production, commerce and education. As are Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas or Virginia for example. Also, many companies have moved re-located to the Southern states in favor of the more lax taxes down South. Parts of the South may have problems (looking at you Louisiana) but the South is far from a "hellhole that wishes to secede" and certainly overall is vastly happy staying in the union . . . and I'd ask you nicely Heikoku to relax with misinformed statements like these:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14707670&postcount=22

Edit: And I in no way consider myself a Southerner, by the way.

Edit 2: Showing the Confederate Flag does not make you un-American. It is a normal way in which many people show off their Southern culture or heritage. I've even known hispanic kids from Alabama who have a confederate flag on their truck. That said, I would never represent the confederate flag because I'm not Southern, so the whole issue is a non-issue to me.

As a Western Australian who is sick to death of Canberra's greedy hand taking and taking (mostly to feed NSW and Victoria) and never giving anything back, I can certainly sympathise with the desire for a State whose people feel that it's putting in a lot more than it's getting out to secede.
The irony is: in the US it is the "red" states (the South, through military bases; Great Plains, through agriculture subsidies) which receive much more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. It is states like Michigan which would be far better off leaving the US to join Canada-- but all the secession talk comes from the "reds".

Ok, ok, ok. Everyone relax. There are a few problems I've seen reading through this thread.


1. Texas is not going to secede. They shouldn't, they won't and the American government wouldn't let them. And they don't really want to. They have alot to gain by being in America. Texas is not some backwater place. They have 3 to 4 major cities like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin that are highly interconnected into the American economy. Also Texas has alot of oil and other resources that America uses and military bases. It's unrealistic to think Texas will or even really wants to secede.

2. That said, there are obviously some certain individuals who may want to secede and they are nothing more than anti-American domestic terrorists, working for the dissolution of our great nation. That is a serious offense.

3. None of this makes the left wing talk during the Bush years of "He's not my President, he's your President!" and "let's secede from Jesusland" any better. Two wrongs do not make a right. Those people are just as anti-American as the individuals calling for the South (or Texas) to secede.

4. Those (looking at you Heikoku :p) who call the Southern states backwards or "hellholes" are seriously misinformed. Texas is quite an industrialzied center of production, commerce and education. As are Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas or Virginia for example. Also, many companies have moved re-located to the Southern states in favor of the more lax taxes down South. Parts of the South may have problems (looking at you Louisiana) but the South is far from a "hellhole that wishes to secede" and certainly overall is vastly happy staying in the union . . . and I'd ask you nicely Heikoku to relax with misinformed statements like these:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14707670&postcount=22

1- I know.

2- Such as Leeroy.

3- And yet, people called others anti-American not for such statements, but for questioning Bush. I'm living proof.

4- I know it doesn't want to, I'm merely offering my help packing if it ever does. :p And the "in a jungle" stuff you kept throwing at me deserves some response, does it not? :p

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_re_us/perry_secession

Splendid. So, liberals spend the last 8 years being called anti-American. And yet, the Republican Texas GOVERNOR - so, no, not a small name - begins talking about secession the moment the other guy gets elected.

Fort Sumter, Rick Perry, you son of a bitch?
From the article you posted:

Perry emphasized Thursday that he is not advocating secession but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration with Washington, D.C. He said it's fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments.

Perry's remarks Wednesday were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the Austin rally, where some in the audience had shouted "Secede!" during his speech. The governor said he didn't think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea.

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot," Perry said Wednesday.

A day later, Perry said he found the fascination with the remark interesting.

"I refer people back to my statement and I got a charge out of it," he said. "I was kind of thinking that maybe the same people that hadn't been reading the Constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said. Clearly I stated that we have a great union. Texas is part of a great union. And I see no reason for that to change."
BTW, do you have any quote that confirms your suggestion that Rick Perry called liberals "anti-American" over the past 8 years?

Edit: Why didn't you include this part of the article that you quoted:

Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday, never did advocate Texas breaking away from the United States but suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to leave the union.

So you watch Asian cartoons. And, apparently, have trouble telling them apart from the reality. That makes you doubleplusunamerican.

So you ALSO watch them (or else you'd not know what a Death Note is). And, apparently, have trouble understanding a joke. That makes you two things, but I'm not gonna flame you.

Wow, I am now quite utterly in awe of the more left-wing of our brethren on NS. Or at least those dumb enough to have posted in this thread, for the most part.

Did a SINGLE ONE OF YOU actually bother to go and read the governor's actual statement? Because after all the shrieking you've been doing about the media getting it wrong, you're now acting like a bunch of sheep following that same media - and still getting it wrong.

The Governor did not advocate secession. He stated he was, in fact, opposed to that course of action. What he was saying was that the tax regime currently in existence was driving some people to consider it - which is an entirely reasonable concern for the executive of ANY state.

From the article you posted:


BTW, do you have any quote that confirms your suggestion that Rick Perry called liberals "anti-American" over the past 8 years?

Did his party not do it? Did Republicans not do it? With the shit I got over that goddamned war, the 8-ball says all signs point to yes.

The irony is: in the US it is the "red" states (the South, through military bases; Great Plains, through agriculture subsidies) which receive much more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. It is states like Michigan which would be far better off leaving the US to join Canada-- but all the secession talk comes from the "reds".
No, not all of it. Those leftist druggies up in Vermont like to chat about it a lot, too. It's kind of the state hobby. ;)

So you ALSO watch them (or else you'd not know what a Death Note is).
I used Google.

Google is an American, private, properly American corporation, so I did the American thing.
I've just earned a point in American while you lost two.

I used Google.

Google is an American, private, properly American corporation, so I did the American thing.
I've just earned a point in American while you lost two.

Shut up.

Wow, I am now quite utterly in awe of the more left-wing of our brethren on NS. Or at least those dumb enough to have posted in this thread, for the most part.

Did a SINGLE ONE OF YOU actually bother to go and read the governor's actual statement? Because after all the shrieking you've been doing about the media getting it wrong, you're now acting like a bunch of sheep following that same media - and still getting it wrong.

The Governor did not advocate secession. He stated he was, in fact, opposed to that course of action. What he was saying was that the tax regime currently in existence was driving some people to consider it - which is an entirely reasonable concern for the executive of ANY state.
Really? Was that what he said? Well, why don't you quote him then to show us the error of our ways?

Because I'm going by what I heard coming out of his own mouth in the news, and between his speech and then his comments to a reporter after that, it sure seemed like he was saying that if any Texans wanted to secede or otherwise be political extremists, he'd support them, while at the same time trying to deflect responsibility for such a position.

From the article you posted:


BTW, do you have any quote that confirms your suggestion that Rick Perry called liberals "anti-American" over the past 8 years?

Edit: Why didn't you include this part of the article that you quoted:
This^ That was going to be my next post . . . about how the Gov didn't actually call for secession.
2- Such as Leeroy.
I'm not really sure if he is a real life secessionist. If he is, rest assured he will have no support from me on that.

3- And yet, people called others anti-American not for such statements,
People absolutely did.

but for questioning Bush. I'm living proof.
I'm not saying that people didn't make false accusations of being anti-American, though that doesn't negate the above. Also, I don't remember exactly what you said, but its in the past.

And the "in a jungle" stuff you kept throwing at me deserves some response, does it not? :p
Touché.

I'm not saying that people didn't make false accusations of being anti-American, though that doesn't negate the above. Also, I don't remember exactly what you said, but its in the past.

I was against the war. I in a chatroom, and many people elsewhere, were called anti-Americans, US-haters and so on for being against it. By people like mr. Perry.

Touché.

;)

Shut up.

He's trollan you braaaah, just ignore him and he'll stop.

Really? Was that what he said? Well, why don't you quote him then to show us the error of our ways?

Because I'm going by what I heard coming out of his own mouth in the news, and between his speech and then his comments to a reporter after that, it sure seemed like he was saying that if any Texans wanted to secede or otherwise be political extremists, he'd support them, while at the same time trying to deflect responsibility for such a position.

How about right in the middle of the posted OP?

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

Shut up.
You've lost.

You object to being called anti-American?

Really. THESE are the guys that call us anti-American, un-American and America-haters.

I'm furious right now.
The following comments are pro-American? :tongue:

I said this once and I'll say it again: You folks should have let the South secede.

Lambasting for his utter hypocrisy, but if Texas and all those hellhole Southern States want to get the fuck out, I'm volunteering to help them pack!

1- Their Democratic population are welcome into whatever purple states remain.

4- I know it doesn't want to, I'm merely offering my help packing if it ever does. :p And the "in a jungle" stuff you kept throwing at me deserves some response, does it not? :p

Now back to this anti-American slant you have taken, I guess the following holds true for a different reason, as attested to by your remarks above?

3- And yet, people called others anti-American not for such statements, but for questioning Bush. I'm living proof.
So it is not just "questioning Bush" that has earned you your stripes, but also your talk of breaking up the US of A?

Now back to this anti-American slant you have taken, I guess the following holds true for a different reason, as attested to by your remarks above?

This is about Hillary.

You've lost.

Shut up.

He's trollan you braaaah, just ignore him and he'll stop.

It's why I'm telling him to shut up. ;)

Did his party not do it? Did Republicans not do it? With the shit I got over that goddamned war, the 8-ball says all signs point to yes.
Then post your proof or sit down.

This is about Hillary.
This has zero to do with Hillary....now defend your posts.

Then post your proof or sit down.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=unamerican

This has zero to do with Hillary....now defend your posts.

This has quite a bit to do with Hillary. You'd have no other reason to call me anti-American for supporting notions that A LOT of people in this board support.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=unamerican
What does this have to do with Rick Perry?

This has quite a bit to do with Hillary. You'd have no other reason to call me anti-American for supporting notions that A LOT of people in this board support.
You trying to hijack your own thread? :tongue: Stay on topic please.

Let 'em go. Oil's gone, they ruin public schools simply by being the largest textbook adopter in the nation (thereby exerting considerable influence over other states' decisions), they produce Enron, "Goodhair" Perry, and W. -- I'll miss the barbecue and much of the rest of the food, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

What does this have to do with Rick Perry?

He's a Republican. They are the motherfuckers who started this whole "agree with the President or you're anti-American" idiocy.

This has quite a bit to do with Hillary. You'd have no other reason to call me anti-American for supporting notions that A LOT of people in this board support.
All I am suggesting to you is that your comments that favour breaking up the US of A would be considered by most logical people as being anti-American.

Let 'em go. Oil's gone, they ruin public schools simply by being the largest textbook adopter in the nation (thereby exerting considerable influence over other states' decisions), they produce Enron, "Goodhair" Perry, and W. -- I'll miss the barbecue and much of the rest of the food, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

So, wanna call him anti-American as well, CH?

Responding to you would give you a measure of credibility. Any of the posters with an IQ above 80 have already figured out that you doing a great job of pretending to be an utter moron. Either that, or you flunked US History.

I think conquering Brazil would be about right, if there was anything in there to conquer other than stumps of rainforests.

Voicing this misconception makes you one of the most unamerican people on this already not very American board.

Neocons are all hypocrites through and through. Well, no, let me correct that. Right-wing talking heads are hypocrites through and through and neocons are brainless sheep who believe everything those talking heads say.

the typical liberal poster to this thread is prima facia evidence that liberalism may in fact be a mental disease or disorder

Plus sundry Heikoku posts that I'm not quoting to avoid this post becoming a thread in itself, including the Leeroy one.

*sings* One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is not quite the same ...

Yes, it's TPH's post. That's so general that it can't be seen as directed at a specific poster or a specific group of posters, ie, not flaming or trolling.

Others named above, warned to CUT. IT. OUT.

That includes flaming, trolling, threadjack, spamming and anything else I may have missed.

Posters not named, but knowing damn well they're included, stop the nonsense. Play nice or don't play.

EDIT: CanuckHeaven, Heikoku, drop it.

He's a Republican. They are the motherfuckers who started this whole "agree with the President or you're anti-American" idiocy.

So, you're responding to "Democrats are anti-American" idiocy with "Republicans are anti-American" idiocy?

So, you're responding to "Democrats are anti-American" idiocy with "Republicans are anti-American" idiocy?

No. I'm responding to "Democrats are anti-American" idiocy with "Republicans have a governor who made openly anti-American remarks, after spending the last 8 fucking YEARS calling Democrats anti-American."

No. I'm responding to "Democrats are anti-American" idiocy with "Republicans have a governor who made openly anti-American remarks, after spending the last 8 fucking YEARS calling Democrats anti-American."

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it's not exactly what he said.

I'm confused what the big-hoo-ha about this is. Democrats clamored for succession when we were unhappy. It's not surprising that the Republicans want to as well. This country is horribly stratified politically, we already know that. There's no real point about getting upset about unhappy Republicans.

Plus, he didn't actually advocate (http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1320077.html) secession, as pointed out earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14707977&postcount=75):

Although Perry made it clear that he doesn’t see the need to secede and isn’t advocating it, he said there’s no question that it’s on the mind of some Texans. That was obvious at tea parties around the state, where "Secede" was a popular sign slogan.

[...]

Perry stressed later in an interview with the Star-Telegram that he never specifically said that Texas should consider trying to secede.

"America is a great country, and Texas wants to stay in that union and help our way out of this" economic downturn, Perry said. "I’m trying to make Washington pay attention to the 10th Amendment. We are Americans, proud Texans, and we will do everything we can to get America back on track."

Or it could even just be an electoral ploy:

Perry’s statements were likely delivered with an eye toward the 2010 race, Riddlesperger said.

"Gov. Perry, like others in the country, are frustrated with tax rates and the growth of the national government," Riddlesperger said. "Certainly that’s understandable.

"But for him, Kay Bailey Hutchison is probably going to run against him, and he wants to position himself so that he can say she’s part of the big government in Washington and he is not."

According to the article "Riddlesperger" is Jim Riddlesperger, a Professor at TCU.

And on the topic of "anti-American" stuff - it's Republican propaganda. Propaganda's usually hypocritical and nonsensical - that's the point of it being, you know, propaganda. That's in the definition or something.

How about right in the middle of the posted OP?

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
That sounds like a deflection of personal responsibility while at the same time agreeing with secession to me. It sounds like "If we secede, it'll be you guys' fault".

Let 'em go. Oil's gone, they ruin public schools simply by being the largest textbook adopter in the nation (thereby exerting considerable influence over other states' decisions), they produce Enron, "Goodhair" Perry, and W. -- I'll miss the barbecue and much of the rest of the food, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
A lot of people think Memphis barbeque is better anyway. ;)

That sounds like a deflection of personal responsibility while at the same time agreeing with secession to me. It sounds like "If we secede, it'll be you guys' fault".

Oh, goodie, so Perry's not only anti-American, but he's also an anti-American passive-aggressive pansy.

Oh, goodie, so Perry's not only anti-American, but he's also an anti-American passive-aggressive pansy.

We are Texas. We joined the country willingly, and if we so chose can leave it willingly.

That sounds like a deflection of personal responsibility while at the same time agreeing with secession to me. It sounds like "If we secede, it'll be you guys' fault".

Probably was a bit of that - he is a politician/weasel after all. But it was hardly the call to secession it's been made out to be, and I'd hardly call "There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it." to be anything less than strong support for the Union.

We are Texas. We joined the country willingly, and if we so chose can leave it willingly.

By all means.

I'm confused what the big-hoo-ha about this is. Democrats clamored for succession when we were unhappy.
I honestly do not remember that.

What I remember is some people making a joke out of a mocked-up map of the politically fractured US -- the very famous "Jesusland" map -- that was floating around the intertubes.

And I remember a lot of individual Dems, liberals, and leftists saying they were considering emmigrating if the country did not change course soon.

But that was individuals making personal plans. NOT calls for any state to secede from the union. If we were going to pick up our marbles and leave, we were not proposing to take any of the land with us.

And I do not remember any state governors making speeches in favor of secession and anti-government political extremism.

The only people I heard talking about secession at all seriously during the Bush admin were those Vermonters, but they do that all the time anyway. And the Vermont secessionists are not the governor.

Can you remind me of the incidents you're referring, which I obviously missed?

I just don't understand the anti-Texas sentiment. Is it because President Bush is from Texas? So does that mean if you dislike President Obama you're supposed to hate on illinois now? This is retarded, there is nothing wrong with Texas . . . in fact it's quite a good state.

I just don't understand the anti-Texas sentiment. Is it because President Bush is from Texas? So does that mean if you dislike President Obama you're supposed to hate on illinois now? This is retarded, there is nothing wrong with Texas . . . in fact it's quite a good state.

Our economy didn't go to crap.
our land prices only dropped by 4%.
And if independent we would be an oil exporting nation.

I just don't understand the anti-Texas sentiment. Is it because President Bush is from Texas? So does that mean if you dislike President Obama you're supposed to hate on illinois now? This is retarded, there is nothing wrong with Texas . . . in fact it's quite a good state.

This isn't about Texas. If this idiot were the governor of Mississipi, Idaho or Alaska my reaction would be the same: Republicans spent the last 8 years calling us anti-American, and now a governor of their party is calling for secession.

Lambasting for his utter hypocrisy, but if Texas and all those hellhole Southern States want to get the fuck out, I'm volunteering to help them pack!
What are these hell-holes in comparison to? Texas has the most Fortune 500 companies of any state (58), has the second largest workforce in the country, no income tax (leading to an influx of persons and a continual growth in the state's population), a GSP (Gross State Product) of $1.09 trillion -- second largest in the nation -- and a GSP per capita of $42,975. Texas also contains some of the largest cities in the country: Houston (4), San Antonio (7), Dallas (9), Austin (16), Ft. Worth (17), and El Paso (22). Dallas-Ft. Worth also makes up the 4th most populous metroplex in the nation.

If that is your definition of a hell-hole, surely your nation qualifies -- at a GDP only $600 billion more than Texas as a state, and with a far lower GDP per capita. Either way, troll on elsewhere with your leftist garbage: what Perry is calling for is related neither to the Democratic or Republican party, but is in respect to the Constitution. That is, the Constitution which legally binds the United States, and which the Federal Government continues to infringe upon in endeavours that violate rights specifically delegated to the states. Perry, specifically, opposes Federal coercion of states via state-law requirements in order to receive Federal funding: an example being the Federal refusal of funding to states for roads and repairs if they do not set their drinking age at 21.

Likewise, you seem to have neglected this part of his statement:

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that."

It's a matter of Constitutional authority, for which the current administration has a lack of regard.

I just don't understand the anti-Texas sentiment. Is it because President Bush is from Texas? So does that mean if you dislike President Obama you're supposed to hate on illinois now? This is retarded, there is nothing wrong with Texas . . . in fact it's quite a good state.

Texas is a strong, politically powerful and economically powerful state that doesn't kowtow to either the East or West coast elites who feel they should be running the country. They resent that.

We are Texas. We joined the country willingly, and if we so chose can leave it willingly.
Like I said before, just make sure you return all your copies of the keys to the rest of the country before you leave, because we don't want to have to change all the locks. Ciao! *waves*

Probably was a bit of that - he is a politician/weasel after all. But it was hardly the call to secession it's been made out to be, and I'd hardly call "There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it." to be anything less than strong support for the Union.
Apparently, he's not the only one who's good at weaseling. I stand by my reading of his statement as read in the context of all his recorded remarks that day.

Our economy didn't go to crap.
our land prices only dropped by 4%.
And if independent we would be an oil exporting nation.
I refer you back to the joke I referenced earlier about how the US has a history of invading and taking over oil-rich nations.

I honestly do not remember that.

What I remember is some people making a joke out of a mocked-up map of the politically fractured US -- the very famous "Jesusland" map -- that was floating around the intertubes.

Hehe, I wasn't even thinking of that ;)

And I remember a lot of individual Dems, liberals, and leftists saying they were considering emmigrating if the country did not change course soon.

But that was individuals making personal plans. NOT calls for any state to secede from the union. If we were going to pick up our marbles and leave, we were not proposing to take any of the land with us.

Where are you from? I can tell you that up here in Chicago people certainly advocated (rather seriously) that they constantly talked about leaving the United States. In my brief time in Oregon, it was even worse - part of it might have been that I was in hippyville, but I can certainly recall a clear majority of people with the attitude "We [the area] should just leave the US" (this was right after Abu Gharaib, btw).

It's all anecdotal, to be sure, but I can't find an article via Google or anything - everything with the word "secession" talks about this.

And I do not remember any state governors making speeches in favor of secession and anti-government political extremism.

I tried to point out in my quoted post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14708151#post14708151) that he wasn't actually "in favor" of secession. I think the second quote that I have their is more likely his motivation.

I'm a Democrat, if you care. A Chicago Democrat. I just oppose us being as bad as they were.

Snip.

My country teaches Evolution.

Thus, your threadjack ends here.

the typical liberal poster to this thread is prima facia evidence that liberalism may in fact be a mental disease or disorder

This is trolling. Do not do this; in theory and in practice, it is and always will be a bad idea.

What are these hell-holes in comparison to? Texas has the most Fortune 500 companies of any state (58), has the second largest workforce in the country, no income tax (leading to an influx of persons and a continual growth in the state's population), a GSP (Gross State Product) of $1.09 trillion -- second largest in the nation -- and a GSP per capita of $42,975. Texas also contains some of the largest cities in the country: Houston (4), San Antonio (7), Dallas (9), Austin (16), Ft. Worth (17), and El Paso (22). Dallas-Ft. Worth also makes up the 4th most populous metroplex in the nation.

If that is your definition of a hell-hole, surely your nation qualifies -- at a GDP only $600 billion more than Texas as a state, and with a far lower GDP per capita. Either way, troll on elsewhere with your leftist garbage: what Perry is calling for is related neither to the Democratic or Republican party, but is in respect to the Constitution. That is, the Constitution which legally binds the United States, and which the Federal Government continues to infringe upon in endeavours that violate rights specifically delegated to the states. Perry, specifically, opposes Federal coercion of states via state-law requirements in order to receive Federal funding: an example being the Federal refusal of funding to states for roads and repairs if they do not set their drinking age at 21.

Likewise, you seem to have neglected this part of his statement:

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that."

It's a matter of Constitutional authority, for which the current administration has a lack of regard.
You guys just love to jump on that one little cherry and claim it exonerates Perry. His speech is on record, as are all the remarks that came before and after that little "saving grace." I am confident in characterizing Perry as a cheap huckster who openly pandered to a public hysteria that is crossing the line into treason, and that he did so only to gain political points with his local electorate. That makes him a fucktard.

My country teaches Evolution.

This is called "ignoring the substance of an entire post". :wink:

Like I said before, just make sure you return all your copies of the keys to the rest of the country before you leave, because we don't want to have to change all the locks. Ciao! *waves*


Apparently, he's not the only one who's good at weaseling. I stand by my reading of his statement as read in the context of all his recorded remarks that day.

I've read the transcripts (we don't get coverage on minor politicos in the US here) and I can't agree. Still, your interpretation is your interpretation.

I refer you back to the joke I referenced earlier about how the US has a history of invading and taking over oil-rich nations.

They are welcome to come and try to take it.
We will make the war agaist Texas go worse then the Iraq War I assure you.

Texas is a strong, politically powerful and economically powerful state that doesn't kowtow to either the East or West coast elites who feel they should be running the country. They resent that.

Our economy didn't go to crap.
our land prices only dropped by 4%.
And if independent we would be an oil exporting nation.

I'm not Texan but I really like your state and find it ridiculous when people spout ignorant hate about it . . . :rolleyes:

This is called "ignoring the substance of an entire post". :wink:

Close, but not quite. This is called "ignoring an entire post with no substance".

Hehe, I wasn't even thinking of that ;)



Where are you from? I can tell you that up here in Chicago people certainly advocated (rather seriously) that they constantly talked about leaving the United States. In my brief time in Oregon, it was even worse - part of it might have been that I was in hippyville, but I can certainly recall a clear majority of people with the attitude "We [the area] should just leave the US" (this was right after Abu Gharaib, btw).

It's all anecdotal, to be sure, but I can't find an article via Google or anything - everything with the word "secession" talks about this.
See the bolded part. People talked about leaving the United States. People? Or the State of Illinois?

In other words, were they talking secession, or just making moving plans for them and their families? You know, like I said?

I tried to point out in my quoted post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14708151#post14708151) that he wasn't actually "in favor" of secession. I think the second quote that I have their is more likely his motivation.
I've already attacked that BS defense twice. I refer you to recent earlier posts.

I'm a Democrat, if you care.
I don't care.

I'm not Texan but I really like your state and find it ridiculous when people spout ignorant hate about it . . . :rolleyes:

We were one of the few states with the will to turn down portions of the Stimulus package. most notable the unemployment section.

I have come to your aid before NM, but it seems that I must respond to Heikoku's comment with a lulz and a y'know he's gotta point there!

Thanks for your support ;)

I hadn't responded because (a) H2 might have confused me with a friend of mine who actually lives in Texas and is in fact named LeRoy, (b) I try to ignore flamebait (not always successfully), especially from H2, and (c) if I did respond, I might be influenced by the tone of the post in question to address H2 as "boy" or some other equivalently condescending title.

But since it's you who raises the issue, it should be obvious to anyone familiar with things like advertising slogans and the use of all caps that I'm not being serious. But H2, being a mere Freelance Translator, can't be expected to appreciate that.

Next time I'll try to use more exclamation points.

BTW: Texas tried secession once before and it didn't stick. Don't see it happening again (literally, that is).

They are welcome to come and try to take it.
We will make the war agaist Texas go worse then the Iraq War I assure you.
You'll wave your balls at us? What's that clanging noise?

Close, but not quite. This is called "ignoring an entire post with no substance".

I think when someone spends quite a while citing statistics regarding the economic prosperity of one's state, to respond to a mis-characterization of that state as a "hell-hole", that's substance.

Or is "substance" perhaps a one-line, non-responsive answer? I'm of the opinion that it is not.

The problem is that you never actually *warrant* your argument. They're just blippy and often non-responsive. Someone like Muryavets, on the other hand, actually *responds* to stuff, which is usually helpful in an online shouting match (I don't think one-liners that don't actually address anything deserve to be an "argument", let alone a "debate", since they don't actually have any depth or analysis to them).

That's just my opinion, though.

My country teaches Evolution.

Thus, your threadjack ends here.
What United States are you talking about? The United States certainly does as well -- they certainly taught in it my high school.

Though, the fact that your state forces views upon its citizens without regard for their opinion isn't particularly admirable (whatever moral high ground you were attempting to gain from that comment) -- whether you believe in evolution (which I do) or not.

Likewise, that was hardly a thread-jack, and you neglected the critical point of Perry not calling for secession.

/leftist, democratic rant about being "unamerican"

Try again.

But H2, being a mere Freelance Translator, can't be expected to appreciate that.

Even if I were a mind reader, NM, I'd have better things to do with my time than read yours.

BTW: Texas tried secession once before and it didn't stick. Don't see it happening again (literally, that is).

This time we learned our lesson. Expect a Vietnam style guerrilla war if we leave the Union.

Also technically during the Civil war The Union was never able to hold onto land in Texas we always ran them off.

I said this once and I'll say it again: You folks should have let the South secede.

Idk why I even bother.... >.>

Close, but not quite. This is called "ignoring an entire post with no substance".

Ok, come on, dude. This isn't personal but there was a hell of alot of substance, facts and points in that that showed how Texas really is.

Also, I beleive that Texas does indeed teach evolution? ? ?

The Science Teachers Association of Texas (STAT), representing over 5,500 Texas science educators, from kindergarten through college level, adopts and endorses, along with affiliate Texas Association of Biology Teachers (TABT), the following National Teachers Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) position statement regarding the teaching of evolution. Go here to access the NABT Position Statement.

http://www.statweb.org/positions/STATEvolution.html

This time we learned our lesson. Expect a Vietnam style guerrilla war if we leave the Union.

Also technically during the Civil war The Union was never able to hold onto land in Texas we always ran them off.
What will you do if you "secede" and the US does nothing about it?

What if we just let you go? Who will you have your pissing contest with then?

What if you "secede" and the US just re-reads that magic treaty, sees that it ain't real if we don't say so, and just keeps on taxing you and putting liens on your properties and assets and freezing your bank accounts when you don't pay up?

This time we learned our lesson. Expect a Vietnam style guerrilla war if we leave the Union.

Also technically during the Civil war The Union was never able to hold onto land in Texas we always ran them off.
Yeehaw. :hail:

What will you do if you "secede" and the US does nothing about it?

What if we just let you go? Who will you have your pissing contest with then?

What if you "secede" and the US just re-reads that magic treaty, sees that it ain't real if we don't say so, and just keeps on taxing you and putting liens on your properties and assets and freezing your bank accounts when you don't pay up?

Theyll come bitching our way, lol

This time we learned our lesson. Expect a Vietnam style guerrilla war if we leave the Union.

Also technically during the Civil war The Union was never able to hold onto land in Texas we always ran them off.

Er, no. While there was little actual fighting out west (the Texas strike against Denver was notable), by the end of the war there were a significant number of Union troops in Texas. They were just operating on a "gentleman's agreement" not to take action against Confederate forces, as both sides recognized that the west was nothing but a sideshow. Nobody wants to get killed in a sideshow.

See the bolded part. People talked about leaving the United States. People? Or the State of Illinois?

I think that my reference to "that area" under the Oregon example leads to this. Perhaps my wording was bad. Here in Chicago people talked about leaving the United States. I.E., the community. Not individuals. Although, given that the majority of these people are hippies/ex-hippies, they're the type of people who might just pack up and leave on their own. It's not really important - I think that the important part of this is the next paragraph.

In other words, were they talking secession, or just making moving plans for them and their families? You know, like I said?

I don't think it matters. Chances are it was more likely the latter, but that could easily be due to it being more widespread in Texas. The point is that it is *comparable*, and thus not an isolated phenomenon, and thus it is silly to rant about republicans being anti-American. I'm not defending them. I still think they're very wrong.

I've already attacked that BS defense twice. I refer you to recent earlier posts.

Erm, to quote you earlier:

I am confident in characterizing Perry as a cheap huckster who openly pandered to a public hysteria that is crossing the line into treason, and that he did so only to gain political points with his local electorate.

My bold. Now read what I wrote:

I think the second quote that I have their is more likely his motivation.

Ignoring the bad grammar for a sec, here's the second quote (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14708151#post14708151):

Perry’s statements were likely delivered with an eye toward the 2010 race, Riddlesperger said.

"Gov. Perry, like others in the country, are frustrated with tax rates and the growth of the national government," Riddlesperger said. "Certainly that’s understandable.

"But for him, Kay Bailey Hutchison is probably going to run against him, and he wants to position himself so that he can say she’s part of the big government in Washington and he is not."

We're saying the same thing. My main point is that I think he's an ass who's trying to exploit his community, not someone who actually believes in secession. Ergo, he's not "in favor" of secession, but is trying to exploit others. Sorry if that didn't come across (I have tried to keep a thread through my posts - I think if you trail through them, I've maintained my stance).

I don't care.

:( That was a bit harsh. Was just for informational purposes - I don't actually agree with the guy, I just think your criticism of him is based in the wrong thing (blaming him for being "in favor" of secession).

That clear things up a bit?

What will you do if you "secede" and the US does nothing about it?

What if we just let you go? Who will you have your pissing contest with then?

What if you "secede" and the US just re-reads that magic treaty, sees that it ain't real if we don't say so, and just keeps on taxing you and putting liens on your properties and assets and freezing your bank accounts when you don't pay up?

Sell our Oil to Europe and switch to a Euro backed currency banking system.

Er, no. While there was little actual fighting out west (the Texas strike against Denver was notable), by the end of the war there were a significant number of Union troops in Texas. They were just operating on a "gentleman's agreement" not to take action against Confederate forces, as both sides recognized that the west was nothing but a sideshow. Nobody wants to get killed in a sideshow.

Besides, MS penetrated deeper into Union Territory than all other units,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-water_mark_of_the_Confederacy

Represent! :p

And now Delay is bitching about how much all us other states owe Texas to justify how "fed up" with us they are. "Texas is a huge donor state" he says. "We get back only about 70 cents of every dollar we send to the federal government in taxes."

Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. In this morning's paper I read that, in fact Texas gets back more than 80 cents on the dollar, whereas Minnesota (I think) only gets back 48 cents out of every federal tax dollar paid. By Delay and Perry's idiot-logic, how much does Texas owe Minnesota then? Enough to get them to shut the fuck up for five minutes if Minnesota asks them to?

NY and NJ (I pay taxes in both) get a raw deal as well

Besides, MS penetrated deeper into Union Territory than all other units,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-water_mark_of_the_Confederacy

Represent! :p
High Tide of the South -- represent indeed! :D

Texas is a strong, politically powerful and economically powerful state that doesn't kowtow to either the East or West coast elites who feel they should be running the country. They resent that.

Yes, it's all that. Absolutely nothing to do with religious discrimination entrenched into law, or institutional homophobia, or racism in the judiciary, or the execution of the mentally retarded, or continual attempts at teaching creationism.

I think that my reference to "that area" under the Oregon example leads to this. Perhaps my wording was bad. Here in Chicago people talked about leaving the United States. I.E., the community. Not individuals. Although, given that the majority of these people are hippies/ex-hippies, they're the type of people who might just pack up and leave on their own. It's not really important - I think that the important part of this is the next paragraph.



I don't think it matters. Chances are it was more likely the latter, but that could easily be due to it being more widespread in Texas. The point is that it is *comparable*, and thus not an isolated phenomenon, and thus it is silly to rant about republicans being anti-American. I'm not defending them. I still think they're very wrong.
In other words, you cannot show that there were calls for secession "comparable" to a state governor encouraging a crowd shouting "secession" during his speech, compared to a few disgruntled hippies speculating about Illinois or Vermont going it alone (for a change or again, depending on where they were), and some very unhappy people planning privately to emmigrate. And being unable to carry your original point, you are now trying to shrug it off as immaterial.

Well, I'll just take that as a retraction of your original claim that Democrats were yelling for secession during Bush just as much as this Republican minority are now.

Erm, to quote you earlier:



My bold. Now read what I wrote:

Yes, I read all that. We are not saying precisely the same thing. My point is that his weaseling little "well, who can blame people, considering how we're being treated....?" act is a tacit support for calls to secede, and his open statement during his speech that "if you're a political extremist, I'm with you" while members of the crowd shout "secede!" is an open encouragement/invitation to treason. I am not willing to let him off the hook for that.

:( That was a bit harsh. Was just for informational purposes - I don't actually agree with the guy, I just think your criticism of him is based in the wrong thing (blaming him for being "in favor" of secession).

That clear things up a bit?
There is no need to clear up things I have said I don't care about. Your personal political bona fides are not relevant to what I see as wrong with your argument. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or anything else, will not change my objections to your statements in this thread.

Now I understand there is some cultural thing within Texas and them being an independent country and the wish to return to this independence. Could a current Texan clue me in on this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_re_us/perry_secession

Splendid. So, liberals spend the last 8 years being called anti-American. And yet, the Republican Texas GOVERNOR - so, no, not a small name - begins talking about secession the moment the other guy gets elected.

Fort Sumter, Rick Perry, you son of a bitch?

And, the democrats who called the term Anti-American wrong and offensive now also uses the term. It seems the hypocrisy goes both ways.

Sell our Oil to Europe and switch to a Euro backed currency banking system.
I believe Europe is mostly a mix of nuclear and Russian natural gas, both of which I think (though I don't know for sure) are cheaper for them than buying oil from North America.

I believe Europe is mostly a mix of nuclear and Russian natural gas, both of which I think (though I don't know for sure) are cheaper for them than buying oil from North America.

The real question is, wholl buy the Texan Oil if they secede? The CSA ran into the same problem with Cotton the first time around...

Yes, it's all that. Absolutely nothing to do with religious discrimination entrenched into law, or institutional homophobia, or racism in the judiciary, or the execution of the mentally retarded, or continual attempts at teaching creationism.
And don't forget their constant -- constant! -- bragging about themselves. That just adds a luster to all that other shit.

You know, the more I think about Texas, the less opposed to secession I become.

Er, no. While there was little actual fighting out west (the Texas strike against Denver was notable), by the end of the war there were a significant number of Union troops in Texas. They were just operating on a "gentleman's agreement" not to take action against Confederate forces, as both sides recognized that the west was nothing but a sideshow. Nobody wants to get killed in a sideshow.

In 1862 Union troops took a mostly undefended Galveston(then the largest port in Texas and i think largest city too). Then were defeated and after 3 months.
The north also attempted to seize Laredo, Corpus Christi, and Sabine pass These were met with failure. Most notable of these failures was the battle of Sabine Pass in which 46 Texans defeated an armada from containing over 4,000 Troops and force them to retreat to New Orleans.
The last battle of the civil war was the Battle of Palmito Ranch, fought in Texas with a Texas victory.
The battle was actually important because it gave time for the state of Texas to distribute most Confederate property to civilians to prevent the Union from seizing it. One of the major reason to this day Texas only has 2 very small Indian Reservations as the Federal government owned next to no land to give the Indians here.

As for the importance of Texas. We were vital to the South war effort for two reasons.
1. food. Texas was the largest producer of cattle, and with the limited rail connections in the south Cattle allowed was vital as it moved itself.
2. Mexico. Texas was the major supplier of weapons and shipper of cotton for the Confederacy after the blockade. Because we could go south put out cotton on Mexican ships sail to France or Britain and come back with rifles and cannon.
With out Texas in the Confederacy I doubt the war would have lasted half as long.

The real question is, wholl buy the Texan Oil if they secede? The CSA ran into the same problem with Cotton the first time around...
The best laid plans...

"Yeah, we've got this stuff that's fucking golden! We'll sell it for Big Profit! We'll be rich! Those losers over there will be poor! We'll laugh, and they'll cry! Let's secede!!!"

I believe Europe is mostly a mix of nuclear and Russian natural gas, both of which I think (though I don't know for sure) are cheaper for them than buying oil from North America.

They don't have Cars in Europe ?
And I don't think Airbus's Planes are designed to run on nuclear or Propane.

The real question is, wholl buy the Texan Oil if they secede? The CSA ran into the same problem with Cotton the first time around...

Europe's reaction to the CSA was hilarious. They actually thought that they'd get help from Europe because they had cotton, but Europe basically went "You have slaves, go fuck yourselves".

With out Texas in the Confederacy I doubt the war would have lasted half as long.

Oh, the Irony, lol...

Europe's reaction to the CSA was hilarious. They actually thought that they'd get help from Europe because they had cotton, but Europe basically went "You have slaves, go fuck yourselves".

That was in the making for a long time. the UK had been working to produce cotton in Europe for well over a decade.
Seems free labor has a larger profit margin the slave labor.

This isn't about Texas. If this idiot were the governor of Mississipi, Idaho or Alaska my reaction would be the same: Republicans spent the last 8 years calling us anti-American, and now a governor of their party is calling for secession.

What would you be saying if the governor was a democrat?

In other words, you cannot show that there were calls for secession "comparable" to a state governor encouraging a crowd shouting "secession" during his speech, compared to a few disgruntled hippies speculating about Illinois or Vermont going it alone (for a change or again, depending on where they were), and some very unhappy people planning privately to emmigrate.

No, I can't. Let's go back to my original post: "I'm confused what the big-hoo-ha about this is. Democrats clamored for succession when we were unhappy.". I think I've upheld that...? The point being that it is *comparable* in terms of the very presence of the argument, so it is, as I stated in my last post "not an isolated phenomenon, and thus it is silly to rant about republicans being anti-American". I'm not saying it's comparable on magnitude (I think my explanation of the impact of the argument (namely that it is not an "isolated phenomenon", which doesn't require at all equivalence on magnitude) explained that? Perhaps not. I'll be more clear next time.). I'm not sure how I haven't upheld that?

And being unable to carry your original point, you are now trying to shrug it off as immaterial.

Not really. I think you misunderstood the magnitude of my argument - if you read what I said, I never specifically have ever stated that Republicans and Democrats have advocated for secession at the same level (in fact, in my last post, I actually admitted that Republicans are worse: "but that could easily be due to it being more widespread in Texas"). If you read what I've said, I've never directly stated any "state governor" or anyone advocated the Democrats leaving the United States. That never happened.

Well, I'll just take that as a retraction of your original claim that Democrats were yelling for secession during Bush just as much as this Republican minority are now.

That's cool. Given that I never said the bolded portion (and, actually, as above, said the opposite), you can see it as a "retraction".

Yes, I read all that. We are not saying precisely the same thing. My point is that his weaseling little "well, who can blame people, considering how we're being treated....?" act is a tacit support for calls to secede, and his open statement during his speech that "if you're a political extremist, I'm with you" while members of the crowd shout "secede!" is an open encouragement/invitation to treason. I am not willing to let him off the hook for that.

That's your choice - I happen to disagree with you. This is, in fact, an argument we haven't had yet. We seem to agree that he's doing it to garner votes - you just seem to think he's a lot worse than that (in that he personally believes in advocating for secession). I think we can agree to disagree here (I have to run, so I think we'll have to).

There is no need to clear up things I have said I don't care about. Your personal political bona fides are not relevant to what I see as wrong with your argument. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or anything else, will not change my objections to your statements in this thread.

Naturally. I'm simply giving background so you don't lump me together with random Republican trolls (as others are prone to do). As stated, "[w]as just for informational purposes".

EDIT: Probably my last post tonight - sorry. If you want to respond, feel free, but I doubt I'll get to you until at least the same time tomorrow, by which time this thread will either a) be dead or b) be filled with more posts.

This has zero to do with Hillary....now defend your posts.

I'm actually agreeing with CH and ATI in this regard. Also, How do you feel about Hill as SOS?

What would you be saying if the governor was a democrat?

Probably the same thing, Id reference Joe Lieberman, while not advocating secession, he was much scorned for his support of John McCain...

I'm actually agreeing with CH and ATI in this regard. Also, How do you feel about Hill as SOS?
C'est moi?

This is about Hillary.

This has zero to do with Hillary....now defend your posts.

I'm actually agreeing with CH and ATI in this regard.
:)

Also, How do you feel about Hill as SOS?
I think she is doing a great job....she sure has the required skill sets.

:)


I think she is doing a great job....she sure has the required skill sets.

Other than questionable talk about an Assault Weapons ban, Im okay with her...

That was in the making for a long time. the UK had been working to produce cotton in Europe for well over a decade.
Seems free labor has a larger profit margin the slave labor.

Actually the majority of the UK's cotton came from India, and when the CSA was blockaded the rest of Europe simply followed suit...

Napoleon III was actually a big supporter of the Confederacy, but without the UK's support, it was a moot point...

They don't have Cars in Europe ?
And I don't think Airbus's Planes are designed to run on nuclear or Propane.
Not as many and not used as widely as in the US. Plus they have stricter environmental controls, thus higher mileage engines.

Not as many and not used as widely as in the US. Plus they have stricter environmental controls, thus higher mileage engines.

and since the majority of their Oil comes from Russia and the Middle East, Im not seeing how it matters in the slightest...

and with alot of that Oil from Texas coming from the Gulf of Mexico, one wonders how Texas is even going to maintain control over the supposed product...

Europe's reaction to the CSA was hilarious. They actually thought that they'd get help from Europe because they had cotton, but Europe basically went "You have slaves, go fuck yourselves".

Well, in the case of the British Empire it was a little more layered than that. It's certainly true that a large faction in the British government did feel that way. But it's also pretty clear that if the South had managed to demonstrate the capacity for independence - say for example winning a major victory on Northern soil - then the CSA would have been recognized and given aid. (Of course they wouldn't need it in that case). I guess the whole Oregon territory thing was still an issue.

And Britain did give some sub rosa aid to the South. Things like the CSS Alabama.

But yeah. The CSA totally overestimated how interested people were in its cotton.

No, I can't. Let's go back to my original post: <snip>

Let's not but say we did.

I get it that you want to make sure you get your point across. Now, I would ask you to please try to get that I don't care what point you think I've missed. You have stated your point several times, and as far as I can see, the parts I have objected to remain under objection and the rest is stuff I am not arguing about because either (a) I don't disagree or (b) I don't think it's relevant.

So, the part of your statement I objected to was the part where you suggested that Democrats once did what Republicans are doing now. We have established that you cannot defend that assertion. We're done as far as I'm concerned.

See you tomorrow.

and since the majority of their Oil comes from Russia and the Middle East, Im not seeing how it matters in the slightest...

and with alot of that Oil from Texas coming from the Gulf of Mexico, one wonders how Texas is even going to maintain control over the supposed product...
I suggested early in this thread that Mexico can't wait for them to secede, seeing as how they seem never to have forgiven us for stealing that territory in the first place. :D

Not as many and not used as widely as in the US. Plus they have stricter environmental controls, thus higher mileage engines.

Not saying we can sell as profitable as we can in the US.
But if they froze bank accounts, We have a valued commodity to back our currency in. Not to mention taxing the daylights out of the oil shipments from Mexico to the US.

So, the part of your statement I objected to was the part where you suggested that Democrats once did what Republicans are doing now. We have established that you cannot defend that assertion. We're done as far as I'm concerned.

See you tomorrow.

While it would be an entirely smart ass thing to do, Democrats have in fact done something very similar to what the Republicans are doing now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(Confederate_States_of_America)

It was formed after the Confederate States declared independence and was thus the southern variant of the United States Democratic Party. After the end of the Confederacy, Confederate Democrats rejoined the United States version of the party. The party represented southern Democrats and held a conservative ideology.

I suggested early in this thread that Mexico can't wait for them to secede, seeing as how they seem never to have forgiven us for stealing that territory in the first place. :D

I was thinking more along the lines of the US Navy immediately seizing all the Oil Platforms, cutting Texas off from supply...

Although, Mexico taking it would be equally as funny, lol...

Yes, it's all that. Absolutely nothing to do with religious discrimination entrenched into law, or institutional homophobia, or racism in the judiciary, or the execution of the mentally retarded, or continual attempts at teaching creationism.

Dude, I live outside the US, and I'm an Atheist. From where I'm standing, you just described the United States of America.

Dude, I live outside the US, and I'm an Atheist. From where I'm standing, you just described the United States of America.

Im just glad there's one man who says otherwise, and, ironically, he's related to Jefferson Davis...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Popped in for a sec. Thought it was 10:30 instead of 9:30. I feel smart.

I get it that you want to make sure you get your point across. Now, I would ask you to please try to get that I don't care what point you think I've missed. You have stated your point several times, and as far as I can see, the parts I have objected to remain under objection and the rest is stuff I am not arguing about because either (a) I don't disagree or (b) I don't think it's relevant.

Understood. The argument is pointless at the level where I think something is relevant and you don't because it doesn't go anywhere. Thanks for getting me back on the same page. :)

So, the part of your statement I objected to was the part where you suggested that Democrats once did what Republicans are doing now. We have established that you cannot defend that assertion.

Indeed.

See you tomorrow.

You too. Good night. I think, if anything, this is good place to end off. :)

Im just glad there's one man who says otherwise, and, ironically, he's related to Jefferson Davis...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Well, I think there's more than one man. I can't imagine millions of people confused "Barack Obama--Democratic Party" for "Chuck Baldwin--Constitution Party" at the polls.

In 1862 Union troops took a mostly undefended Galveston(then the largest port in Texas and i think largest city too). Then were defeated and after 3 months.
The north also attempted to seize Laredo, Corpus Christi, and Sabine pass These were met with failure. Most notable of these failures was the battle of Sabine Pass in which 46 Texans defeated an armada from containing over 4,000 Troops and force them to retreat to New Orleans.
The last battle of the civil war was the Battle of Palmito Ranch, fought in Texas with a Texas victory.
The battle was actually important because it gave time for the state of Texas to distribute most Confederate property to civilians to prevent the Union from seizing it. One of the major reason to this day Texas only has 2 very small Indian Reservations as the Federal government owned next to no land to give the Indians here.

As for the importance of Texas. We were vital to the South war effort for two reasons.
1. food. Texas was the largest producer of cattle, and with the limited rail connections in the south Cattle allowed was vital as it moved itself.
2. Mexico. Texas was the major supplier of weapons and shipper of cotton for the Confederacy after the blockade. Because we could go south put out cotton on Mexican ships sail to France or Britain and come back with rifles and cannon.
With out Texas in the Confederacy I doubt the war would have lasted half as long.

All true. But it's also a simple fact that the Union was able to interdict shipments from Texas for the final year of the war, despite failing to take any of the major cities. Once that occurred, Texas just stopped being important to the war effort, and both sides knew it. Thus, the sideshow aspect.

If either side had been willing to, the whole west could have been burning like Kansas was, with raiders operating at will and bloody fighting across the frontier. I actually admire the level-headedness of both sides on the Texas front that this did not happen.

Well, I think there's more than one man. I can't imagine millions of people confused "Barack Obama--Democratic Party" for "Chuck Baldwin--Constitution Party" at the polls.

YOU MEAN MY VOTE DIDNT GO TO CHUCK!? :p

YOU MEAN MY VOTE DIDNT GO TO CHUCK!? :p

Sorry Skallvia, the Democrats stole all the votes from Chuck Baldwin and gave them to Barack Obama. They were hoping to steal all the votes from John McCain, but then they realized it would take more than two bucketfuls, and they really didn't want to make more than one trip.

While it would be an entirely smart ass thing to do, Democrats have in fact done something very similar to what the Republicans are doing now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(Confederate_States_of_America)
Yeah, smart ass is the word for what you just did there.

But to be a plonk about it -- did this happen under Bush, as SC suggested and which is what I was objecting to? No? Okay then.

:tongue:

I was thinking more along the lines of the US Navy immediately seizing all the Oil Platforms, cutting Texas off from supply...

Although, Mexico taking it would be equally as funny, lol...
Oh, come on. Funnier. You know what I mean. ;)

Who's clipping the azaleas now, Bubba?

Oh, come on. Funnier. You know what I mean. ;)

Who's clipping the azaleas now, Bubba?



¿Quién es el recorte azaleas ahora, Bubba?


....Uh, Massuh? :p

All true. But it's also a simple fact that the Union was able to interdict shipments from Texas for the final year of the war, despite failing to take any of the major cities. Once that occurred, Texas just stopped being important to the war effort, and both sides knew it. Thus, the sideshow aspect.

If either side had been willing to, the whole west could have been burning like Kansas was, with raiders operating at will and bloody fighting across the frontier. I actually admire the level-headedness of both sides on the Texas front that this did not happen.

Once they cut off shipments from Texas, Texas just shifted to using Mexico and Mexican ships. the government under Maximilian loved the civil war because it was an excellent opportunity to profit.
The reason Texas became irrelevant at the end was because the Union occupied the Mississippi, then it became impossible for Texas to resupply Virgina. It is also why Lee began to adopt a much more aggressive strategy.
because he knew his ability to get Resupply from Texas would be very limited.

Once they cut off shipments from Texas, Texas just shifted to using Mexico and Mexican ships. the government under Maximilian loved the civil war because it was an excellent opportunity to profit.
The reason Texas became irrelevant at the end was because the Union occupied the Mississippi, then it became impossible for Texas to resupply Virgina. It is also why Lee began to adopt a much more aggressive strategy.
because he knew his ability to get Resupply from Texas would be very limited.

Yep, dead on. Unfortunately, the Mexican vessels could really only get into New Orleans (perfect smuggler's country), and Union control of the Mississippi made that less than useful.

Don't get me wrong, something always got through; no blockade can be perfect. It just wasn't enough.

Anyone who advocates secession is a hero in my book, provided they don't wish to secede for an immoral or stupid reason (i.e., to protect the institution of slavery; I doubt that's why Texas wants to secede today, I was just using that as an example).

Yep, dead on. Unfortunately, the Mexican vessels could really only get into New Orleans (perfect smuggler's country), and Union control of the Mississippi made that less than useful.

Don't get me wrong, something always got through; no blockade can be perfect. It just wasn't enough.

IT WAS SO!! WE TOTALLY WO---oh wait, lol...

Yep, dead on. Unfortunately, the Mexican vessels could really only get into New Orleans (perfect smuggler's country), and Union control of the Mississippi made that less than useful.

Don't get me wrong, something always got through; no blockade can be perfect. It just wasn't enough.

The union couldn't blockade Mexico it was a neutral country.
Carry the cotton south, sail out of Matamoros. Bring weapons back from Europe.
Deliver Weapons and cattle over land to the east. Once the Mississippi river fell that became impossible.
The economy of Matamoros doubled during the US Civil war.

And it obviously was insufficient, as the Union still won, largely due to lack of Confederate logistics. Can we all please get back to the original point?

And it obviously was insufficient, as the Union still won, largely due to lack of Confederate logistics. Can we all please get back to the original point?

Republicans will kill for any constituency at this point?

The union couldn't blockade Mexico it was a neutral country.
Carry the cotton south, sail out of Matamoros. Bring weapons back from Europe.
Deliver Weapons and cattle over land to the east. Once the Mississippi river fell that became impossible.
The economy of Matamoros doubled during the US Civil war.

You misunderstand - the blockade wasn't of Mexico, it was of the CSA. And they did indeed board and seize Mexican ships attempting to run it (as they did British and French ships, btw).

In the last year of the war, the (very much needed) shipments from Texas, whether carried on barges or rail or road or ship, largely failed to reach their destinations in the other states of the Confederacy. What did get through largely reached New Orleans and environs, and then had to be tracked through increasingly Union-controlled areas to reach the fighting. Simply, not enough was getting through for Texas to have any further real influence on the war.

You misunderstand - the blockade wasn't of Mexico, it was of the CSA. And they did indeed board and seize Mexican ships attempting to run it (as they did British and French ships, btw).

In the last year of the war, the (very much needed) shipments from Texas, whether carried on barges or rail or road or ship, largely failed to reach their destinations in the other states of the Confederacy. What did get through largely reached New Orleans and environs, and then had to be tracked through increasingly Union-controlled areas to reach the fighting. Simply, not enough was getting through for Texas to have any further real influence on the war.

My point being the loss of the civil war was clearly the other states inabilty to prevent the union form seizing the Mississippi.

My point being the loss of the civil war was clearly the other states inabilty to prevent the union form seizing the Mississippi.

To a certain extent. I would also say the CSA'a inability to match the Union's shipbuilding program was a major contributor - if they'd been able to break the blockades of one or more of the major ports, they could have bypassed the Mississippi Valley and shipped directly.

My point being the loss of the civil war was clearly the other states inabilty to prevent the union form seizing the Mississippi.

To a certain extent. I would also say the CSA'a inability to match the Union's shipbuilding program was a major contributor - if they'd been able to break the blockades of one or more of the major ports, they could have bypassed the Mississippi Valley and shipped directly.

Funny, cause, personally, "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." -Major General George Pickett

Funny, cause, personally, "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." -Major General George Pickett

If we Texans had seceded on our own we could have taken on the rest of the country clearly.
It was those eastern southern states that were holding us down.

If we Texans had seceded on our own we could have taken on the rest of the country clearly.
It was those eastern southern states that were holding us down.

Idk, I saw what Mexico did to you guys without our help.....

Funny, cause, personally, "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." -Major General George Pickett

We're not talking about the loss of the war, but of the neutralization of the usefulness of Texas to the Confederacy. The enemy, in a war, will always do what he can to screw you up - that's why he's called "the enemy". It falls to your own side to counter that. In large part, whoever does the better job of not being screwed up will win.

Keeping trade lines going to Texas was possible, but the Confederacy's attempts to do so were spotty and local. It can be argued that they had more important things on their minds - but given the importance of Texas to their logistics train, I would reject that argument.

Idk, I saw what Mexico did to you guys without our help.....

You mean when they needed 4,000 troops to burn one church defended by 150 men ?
Or do you mean the battle of San Jacinto where an out numbered group of Texans killed or captured all of Santa's Anna's army ?
And then doubled the size of the state of Texas.

We're not talking about the loss of the war, but of the neutralization of the usefulness of Texas to the Confederacy. The enemy, in a war, will always do what he can to screw you up - that's why he's called "the enemy". It falls to your own side to counter that. In large part, whoever does the better job of not being screwed up will win.

Keeping trade lines going to Texas was possible, but the Confederacy's attempts to do so were spotty and local. It can be argued that they had more important things on their minds - but given the importance of Texas to their logistics train, I would reject that argument.

Well, as far as that is concerned, I place the blame on Johnston and Bragg...and poor leadership in general, Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet were the good Generals, and they were largely kept out of the Western theater, and when Longstreet was finally given a command, Bragg managed to fuck him over every chance he got...

You mean when they needed 4,000 troops to burn one church defended by 150 men ?
Or do you mean the battle of San Jacinto where an out numbered group of Texans killed or captured all of Santa's Anna's army ?
And then doubled the size of the state of Texas.

Well, actually, it was 2,400, not 4000, and anywhere from 180-260 rather than 150, but, its beside the point...

The real question is, what would have happened to you guys were it not for the Mexican War....

Well, as far as that is concerned, I place the blame on Johnston and Bragg...and poor leadership in general, Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet were the good Generals, and they were largely kept out of the Western theater, and when Longstreet was finally given a command, Bragg managed to fuck him over every chance he got...

I pretty much agree. The Confederacy's Grand Strategy left much to be desired. They relied too much upon Lee's genius in the field and the individual superiority of their troops - which cost them the war, ultimately, when the Northern forces got their troops properly trained (McClellan, in the only good that idiot managed) and generals like Sherman and Grant, who may not have been as brilliant, but were more than willing to do what needed to be done to neutralize the South's advantages.

Well, actually, it was 2,400, not 4000, and anywhere from 180-260 rather than 150, but, its beside the point...

The real question is, what would have happened to you guys were it not for the Mexican War....

We would have continued to be an independent country.
the boarder only became insecure when the Texas rangers lost the right to conduct counter raids.
Also without the Mexican American war California would likely be British and most of New Mexico would still be Mexican.

I pretty much agree. The Confederacy's Grand Strategy left much to be desired. They relied too much upon Lee's genius in the field and the individual superiority of their troops - which cost them the war, ultimately, when the Northern forces got their troops properly trained (McClellan, in the only good that idiot managed) and generals like Sherman and Grant, who may not have been as brilliant, but were more than willing to do what needed to be done to neutralize the South's advantages.

The problem with the south is they were trying for the Napoleonic strategy of win one major battle. The south won several major battles early on, but the north was able to produce more arms and conscript the Irish immigrants. If they had set up for a War of attrition and protected their supply lines. I doubt the Union would have been able to win.

The problem with the south is they were trying for the Napoleonic strategy of win one major battle. The south won several major battles early on, but the north was able to produce more arms and conscript the Irish immigrants. If they had set up for a War of attrition and protected their supply lines. I doubt the Union would have been able to win.

Yeah, I was just thinking of the irony in the fact that Lee idolized Napoleon, lol

Well, in the case of the British Empire it was a little more layered than that. It's certainly true that a large faction in the British government did feel that way. But it's also pretty clear that if the South had managed to demonstrate the capacity for independence - say for example winning a major victory on Northern soil - then the CSA would have been recognized and given aid. (Of course they wouldn't need it in that case). I guess the whole Oregon territory thing was still an issue.

And Britain did give some sub rosa aid to the South. Things like the CSS Alabama.

But yeah. The CSA totally overestimated how interested people were in its cotton.

Well, yeah, if they won Europe would have overlooked the slave thing, since at that point the inconvenience would outweigh any moral concerns. But until they won, or at least reached the point where victory was more or less inevitable, taking a moral stand wouldn't inconvenience Europe enough to warrant not taking a moral stand.

The secession was pretty amusing, honestly. One of the reasons was disgruntlement over being perceived as not having much importance towards the world at large, and in seceding they managed to demonstrate that the world at large really didn't give a damn about them. If so many of them weren't awful people, I'd feel sorry for them.

The problem with the south is they were trying for the Napoleonic strategy of win one major battle. The south won several major battles early on, but the north was able to produce more arms and conscript the Irish immigrants. If they had set up for a War of attrition and protected their supply lines. I doubt the Union would have been able to win.

That might have worked, but frankly I find it unlikely. The North had the manpower, but more importantly, they had the industrial capacity the South lacked. The US Civil War was pretty much the first industrial war, with the raw power of industry backing the troops. Winning against that sort of disparity was highly unlikely - though holding out long enough for a negotiated settlement would not have been out of the question.

That might have worked, but frankly I find it unlikely. The North had the manpower, but more importantly, they had the industrial capacity the South lacked. The US Civil War was pretty much the first industrial war, with the raw power of industry backing the troops. Winning against that sort of disparity was highly unlikely - though holding out long enough for a negotiated settlement would not have been out of the question.

I don't think it would have been so much the South had won just they would have prevented the Union from winning. No matter the industrial backing you eventually reach the point where your tired of your people dieing. And just opt to leave the place. You see it in the Chinese civil where the nationalist not only had all the industrial might, but large amounts of weapons from the US and Europe. Even the USSR felt the KMT would win and was sending them aid.
The CCP simply began a policy of tactical withdraw inflicting as many casualties as possible while doing it. Then turned the table after the KMT was bled dry.

If so many of them weren't awful people, I'd feel sorry for them.

Im actually into the history of all of it, and take alot of pride in the MS components....But, its the same problem I have with the current breed, I prettymuch hate everything they stand/stood for, its anathema to me, lol...

What does everyone have against Texas? We arn't all bad, and Perry doesn't speak for all of us. Come to Austin, you'll meet quite a few hippies, and plently of Democrats. It's a very blue city.

What does everyone have against Texas? We arn't all bad, and Perry doesn't speak for all of us. Come to Austin, you'll meet quite a few hippies, and plently of Democrats. It's a very blue city.

Yeah but austin is Walled off from the rest of the state. You even have to use your own currency there and go through a strip search when leaving to make sure your not smuggling out Communist propaganda.

I think Texas did fairly well in the Mexican War. I love the great State of Texas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_de_Santa_Anna

Like other states discontented with the central Mexican authorities, the Texas department of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas went into rebellion in late 1835 and declared itself independent on 2 March 1836. (See Texas Revolution and Republic of Texas.) Santa Anna marched north to bring Texas back under Mexican control. On March 6, 1836, at the Battle of El Alamo, Santa Anna's forces killed 187-250 Texan defenders and later executed over 350 Texan prisoners at the Goliad Massacre (March 27, 1836).

Following the defeat, the Texans were reorganized under Sam Houston. Santa Anna was soon defeated by Houston's soldiers at the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836, with the Texan army shouting "Remember Goliad, Remember the Alamo!" A small band of Texan forces captured Santa Anna, dressed in a dragoon private's uniform and hiding in a marsh, the day after the battle on 22 April.


Texas has always been sort of on the edge of seceding. I think the message was I understand how you feel but we need to work at this a while longer.

Alright, I can see at least two angles to this.

1. As a Western Australian who is sick to death of Canberra's greedy hand taking and taking (mostly to feed NSW and Victoria) and never giving anything back...

Please provide sources backing up this claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto

The Battle of San Jacinto, fought on April 21, 1836, in present-day Harris County, Texas, was the decisive battle of the Texas Revolution. Led by General Sam Houston, the Texas Army engaged and defeated General Antonio López de Santa Anna's Mexican forces in a fight that lasted just eighteen minutes. Hundreds of Mexican soldiers were killed or captured, while only nine Texans died.


Moral of the story Don't Mess With Texas.

Please provide sources backing up this claim.

Come now the former state Labour government in WA always complained about how they were screwed by the handing out of the GST revenue by the former liberal government.

What do you expect from a Bush cronie eh? I didn't vote for the bastard!

What I do despise however is the constant hate from certain members on this board, as well as inside the country, as well as the gross misrepresentation of an entire state's population based up a few individuals. Both are a disservice to those who are performing inside them and to those they are misrepresenting.

:$
I am so ashamed....

I promise I didn't vote for those guys!
They also are voting on an "All Embryos are babies" bill right now supposedly to "Stop stem cells". (Wouldn't that also conviently outlaw Abortion for ALL cases if some fundis found a way to overturn that pesky "Roe vrs Wade"?)
-----

You know what, I'm fed up with these nuts.

The "Liberals" sat through 8 years of ignorance and failure, now all of a suddenly the fringe right is out for Civil war because they didn't win.

What do you expect from a Bush cronie eh? I didn't vote for the bastard!

What I do despise however is the constant hate from certain members on this board, as well as inside the country, as well as the gross misrepresentation of an entire state's population based up a few individuals. Both are a disservice to those who are performing inside them and to those they are misrepresenting.

Again: I didn't say a thing about Texas. This isn't about Texas. If this moron were from Mississipi, Idaho or Alaska I'd say the same thing.

Come now the former state Labour government in WA always complained about how they were screwed by the handing out of the GST revenue by the former liberal government.

Since making that post I've been trawling the internet to get information. I haven't found anything relevant for the last year or so. Earlier this decade there was a campaign (with lots of sources) by NSW, Vic And WA (as the richer states) to end the subsidising of Qld, SA and Tas.

The poster was correct in that WA has been subsidising other states, but quite wrong when they named NSW and Vic as beneficiaries.

But Western Australians tend to get a bit strange when it comes to the eastern states.

I doubt Texas could survive economically as an independent country. It would struggle to access markets for its products if the remainder of the US chose to enforce an embargo. Without markets, as the confederates found in the civil war, you cannot survive. Those cotton backed bonds were always doomed, Europeans were smart enough to know they didn't need to buy them at the issue price and could just wait until the price dropped far enough that it was worth taking the risk.

I just can't wait for the July 4th Teabagger Parties that are currently being touted by Fox News.

What could be more patriotic than gathering together on the day of American independence to threaten to secede from the Union! :D

The "Liberals" sat through 8 years of ignorance and failure, now all of a suddenly the fringe right is out for Civil war because they didn't win.
John Stewart nailed it.

"Yes, tyranny. A.K.A. our democratically elected President. You know what guys….I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing."

I just can't wait for the July 4th Teabagger Parties that are currently being touted by Fox News.

What could be more patriotic than gathering together on the day of American independence to threaten to secede from the Union! :D

Gathering together on the day of American independence to secede from the Union?

What does everyone have against Texas? We arn't all bad, and Perry doesn't speak for all of us. Come to Austin, you'll meet quite a few hippies, and plently of Democrats. It's a very blue city.
I've got nothing against Texans, I just think the USA would be better if Texas (as a collective state) would either secede or shut the fuck up about it. Either one. Just pick.

Gathering together on the day of American independence to secede from the Union?

*Sigh* One can only dream...

I mean, let's face it, we're going through a rough patch economically right now. I know it's mean and unworthy of me to think it, but...all that money being poured into these would-be secessionist states...I mean it's a really lot of money. We could totally use that for stuff. Since, you know, they don't like us or anything. They could secede, and we could build some new schools. Everybody wins!

I doubt Texas could survive economically as an independent country. It would struggle to access markets for its products if the remainder of the US chose to enforce an embargo. Without markets, as the confederates found in the civil war, you cannot survive. Those cotton backed bonds were always doomed, Europeans were smart enough to know they didn't need to buy them at the issue price and could just wait until the price dropped far enough that it was worth taking the risk.

Their wouldn't be an embargo.
Too much of the refining capability of the US is tied up in Texas.
An embargo could put the US in a position to be awash with oil but have a shortage of gasoline.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_re_us/perry_secession



Splendid. So, liberals spend the last 8 years being called anti-American. And yet, the Republican Texas GOVERNOR - so, no, not a small name - begins talking about secession the moment the other guy gets elected.

Fort Sumter, Rick Perry, you son of a bitch?
But liberals are anti-American. They prove it every day by wiping their butts with the 10th amendment.

And Texas does have a lot of room. If I thought they were serious about withdrawing from the Union, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

I said this once and I'll say it again: You folks should have let the South secede.Hey, I LIVE in the South. I would very much like for the South to remain a part of the US, at least until I graduate college, anyway. :)

And Texas does have a lot of room. If I thought they were serious about withdrawing from the Union, I'd be there in a heartbeat.
Well that seals it. I'm founding the Give Texas Freedom Organization.

I've got nothing against Texans, I just think the USA would be better if Texas (as a collective state) would either secede or shut the fuck up about it. Either one. Just pick.
Um, we would lose alot if Texas (and other Southern States) were allowed to secede, not that they actually want to in reality though.

Texas has always been like sort of independent, in mentality. Who cares, honestly? Texas is like the Bavaria of America. It had a different culture/history and was sovereign and even till this day likes to talk about being different than the rest of the country and all that, but in reality. . . who cares? They don't hurt anyone by talking about "don't mess with Texas". . . and it doesn't actually really want to leave. Neither does the South.

Frankly, I am quite disturbed by all these Leftists calling for the dissolution of our country because of some made up prejudices against Texas and so.

Um, we would lose alot if Texas (and other Southern States) were allowed to secede, not that they actually want to in reality though.

Of course we would lose a lot. I've already memorized how to say the names of the states in alphabetical order, and I'd have to start completely over anew. But sometimes one must sacrifice in order to gain.


Texas has always been like sort of independent, in mentality. Who cares, honestly? Texas is like the Bavaria of Europe. It had a different culture/history and was sovereign and even till this day likes to talk about being different than the rest of the country and all that, but in reality. . . who cares? They don't hurt anyone by talking about "don't mess with Texas". . . and it doesn't actually really want to leave. Neither does the South.

Frankly, I am quite disturbed by all these Leftists calling for the dissolution of our country because of some made up prejudices against Texas and so.
Well no wonder you're disturbed, if that's what you think you're reading.

No, my friend, what you're reading is a bunch of folks who get a laugh from the pathetic tantrum-throwing routine that a certain group of states always seem to start with when they want attention.

Much as I joke about it, I don't particularly care whether or not the secessionist states decide to actually leave or not. I simply want them to shit or get off the pot. It is a bit embarrassing to be associated with the kind of losers who threaten to take their ball and go home every time they lose an election or are forced to acknowledge that brown people are citizens too. Because, see, they're either cowards for being unwilling to take action on their principles, or they're whining little babies who just want attention and don't actually believe their own press.

Um, we would lose alot if Texas (and other Southern States) were allowed to secede, not that they actually want to in reality though.

Texas has always been like sort of independent, in mentality. Who cares, honestly? Texas is like the Bavaria of Europe. It had a different culture/history and was sovereign and even till this day likes to talk about being different than the rest of the country and all that, but in reality. . . who cares? They don't hurt anyone by talking about "don't mess with Texas". . . and it doesn't actually really want to leave. Neither does the South.

Frankly, I am quite disturbed by all these Leftists calling for the dissolution of our country because of some made up prejudices against Texas and so.

Anytime someone not from Texas is the president We talk bout secession. It is just a Texas hobby, no one is going to vote that way.

Of course we would lose a lot. I've already memorized how to say the names of the states in alphabetical order, and I'd have to start completely over anew. But sometimes one must sacrifice in order to gain.
I love seeing leftis act like they are so much better than "those people" down there in "those states" . . . . :rolleyes:


Much as I joke about it, I don't particularly care whether or not the secessionist states decide to actually leave or not. I simply want them to shit or get off the pot. It is a bit embarrassing to be associated with the kind of losers who threaten to take their ball and go home every time they lose an election or are forced to acknowledge that brown people are citizens too. Because, see, they're either cowards for being unwilling to take action on their principles, or they're whining little babies who just want attention and don't actually believe their own press.
Right . . . so protesting against deficit spending and taxation = "we don't want to be forced to acknowledge that Brown people are citizens too" . . .?

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Texas is like the Bavaria of Europe. It had a different culture/history and was sovereign and even till this day likes to talk about being different than the rest of the country and all that
I can't believe I missed the founding of the United States Of Europe!

Anytime someone not from Texas is the president We talk bout secession. It is just a Texas hobby, no one is going to vote that way.
This. It's just like when some fellow Brits talk about fighting 'those damn colonials' and reincorporating America back into their Empire.

It doesn't actually mean, in reality, that they are threatening us with war nor attacking of sovereignty. . . it's just talk.

Same goes towards the notion that "Texas is gonna secede" or "The South will break away" . . . . :rolleyes:

I can't believe I missed the founding of the United States Of Europe!
Typo.

Anyway, you would have missed it because Switzerland most certainly would not have taken part in it.

This. It's just like when some fellow Brits talk about fighting 'those damn colonials' and reincorporating America back into their Empire.

It doesn't actually mean, in reality, that they are threatening us with war nor attacking of sovereignty. . . it's just talk.

Same goes towards the notion that "Texas is gonna secede" or "The South will break away" . . . . :rolleyes:

If the rest of the country doesn't want us to talk about secession they should pass a constitutional amendment that all president must come from Texas.

If the rest of the country doesn't want us to talk about secession they should pass a constitutional amendment that all president must come from Texas.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. :p

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. :p

And I think the US already knows what it meant to have a Texan as a president.:D

Typo.

Even if you wrote Germany instead of Europe, it still doesn't work because Bavaria, while Conservative, is actually a quite important touristic and financial Region.

And I think the US already knows what it meant to have a Texan as a president.:D
We obviously need another Californian . . .


I'm thinking:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/W/9/arnold_governatorsacto.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/-/1/arnold_seal.jpg

By the way, my favorite saying about Ahhhnie is:

"Arnie muss der einzige Mensch auf der Welt sein der keine Sprache richtig kann."

That means, "Arnie has to be the only person in the world that can't speak any language correctly." :D:D

Anytime someone not from Texas is the president We talk bout secession. It is just a Texas hobby, no one is going to vote that way.

This. It's just like when some fellow Brits talk about fighting 'those damn colonials' and reincorporating America back into their Empire.

It doesn't actually mean, in reality, that they are threatening us with war nor attacking of sovereignty. . . it's just talk.

Same goes towards the notion that "Texas is gonna secede" or "The South will break away" . . . . :rolleyes:

Jolly good chaps. Quite a lark. Now, we would like our tea please.

Even if you wrote Germany instead of Europe, it still doesn't work because Bavaria, while Conservative, is actually a quite important touristic and financial Region.
I wrote America instead of Europe, because I meant "Texas is the Bavaria of America" . . . and you act like Texas is not an important center for tourism, finance, production, education, military and resources.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

And I think the US already knows what it meant to have a Texan as a president.:D

Yes, we do:

1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964
1964: Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
1964: Wilderness Act
1964: Nurse Training Act
1964: Food Stamp Act of 1964
1964: Economic Opportunity Act
1965: Higher Education Act of 1965
1965: Social Security Act of 1965
1965: Voting Rights Act
1965: Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
1966: Freedom of Information Act
1967: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
1967: Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
1968: Bilingual Education Act
1968: Fair housing
1968: Gun Control Act of 1968

Sadly, it also meant the Vietnam War. Those people from Texas, if they ever get it right, might actually turn out okay.

And I think the US already knows what it meant to have a Texan as a president.:D

"Hey, hey, LBJ:
How many kids
Did you kill today?"

But liberals are anti-American. They prove it every day by wiping their butts with the 10th amendment.

So are conservatives. They prove it everyday by wiping their butts with every amendment but the second.

Really, if you want to pull this kind of crap, you might want to do it in a thread that isn't about a Republican calling for secession.

Oh lawls.

I hope Texas succeed and then fall into the bottom of the ocean.

<3

So are conservatives. They prove it everyday by wiping their butts with every amendment but the second.

Really, if you want to pull this kind of crap, you might want to do it in a thread that isn't about a Republican calling for secession.
I'll take my chances with the non-liberal, non-Democratic group... If it ever happens, color me Texan.

Really, if you want to pull this kind of crap, you might want to do it in a thread that isn't about a Republican calling for secession.
You still have not provided any proof that Rick Perry is "calling for secession". Your argument is bogus.

Oh lawls.

I hope Texas succeed and then fall into the bottom of the ocean.

<3

You mean secedes, and I didn't realise Texas was floating by itself on top of the sea.