• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas’ Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment

WillRockwell said:
You act as if the money you spend in taxes would be put to better use if there were no government providing services using your taxes. You can't possibly be that dense.
Click to expand...
Dense would be arguing from the presumption that government-provided services are inherently beneficial and not detrimental.

Dense would be arguing that the removal of federal agencies from the lives of citizens is a loss with no compensatory benefit.

Dense would be arguing that states cannot sustain themselves without the putative benevolence of Washington, DC.
 
WillRockwell said:
You act as if the money you spend in taxes would be put to better use if there were no government providing services using your taxes. You can't possibly be that dense.
Click to expand...

Who, other than actual anarchists, argues for "no government services"? (And even some of the anarchists are wishy-washy on the point, but that's a different discussion.)
 
Goshin said:
What do you do with retarded people who are proven dangerous then? Use harsh language? Lock them up in a mental institution perhaps... not much better than prison, but a better chance to be released or escape, and to perhaps kill again.

There are degrees of retardation and different types of intellectual disability --- some don't know right from wrong, but most do. It's not all black and white, and its not quite that simple.
Click to expand...

1.) If a person has an IQ below 70, they are considered retarded and are NOT responsible for their actions.

2.) The best option is to put these people in a high security mental health facility.

3.) You mindless nonsense about escaping is just prattle and scare tactics. They do not escape and the do not get ass-raped by bubba because they are in a MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

4.) Quit making excuses for murdering mentally retarded people.
 
Goshin said:
Shakespeare said, "Treason doth never prosper; for if it prosper, then none dare call it treason."

Pragmatically, if you seceed and succeed, then you established your "right" to do so. The Founders and the 13 colonies had no legal right to "seceed" from England that would have been recognized under English law. They did it anyway, and now we celebrate their successful secession on Independence Day. :mrgreen:

Patriot or traitor, depends on your POV.



What do you do with retarded people who are proven dangerous then? Use harsh language? Lock them up in a mental institution perhaps... not much better than prison, but a better chance to be released or escape, and to perhaps kill again.

There are degrees of retardation and different types of intellectual disability --- some don't know right from wrong, but most do. It's not all black and white, and its not quite that simple.
Click to expand...

Naturally --- the catholic mafia would be brown-nosing.
 
celticlord said:
It does matter.

Ultimately, taxpayers fund all these wonderful things. A state which secedes loses these agencies and their presumed benefits....but that state's citizens gain by the taxes they no longer send to the Federal government.
Click to expand...
Except that without jobs, taxes become pretty thin. What would probably happen the taxes paid to the fed would need to be paid to the state to compensate so the average citizen wouldn't see a lower tax rate. Of course, the fed employees would look to the state for jobs in areas that were federal.

How many military families live in Texas? They'd be leaving since the military would be pulled out. The Tejas would have to form it's own military and buy F-16s and Tanks... in order to be secure they would have to tax the people to pay for the military expenditures... Hell removing all fed money, programs and resources would basically do in the Tejas ecomony right out of the gate.

This is even presuming that the agencies you cited provide meaningful benefit to a state. Several of those agencies arguably provide nothing of value to any state.
Click to expand...
Arguably is right. If they aren't beneficial why do they have them or better, why don't the citizens get rid of them first and then bloviate about secession?

As for the Texas economy cratering because of a mass exodus of people.....if secession were to occur today, that is likely to be the case: 75% of Texans are opposed to secession. Should that percentage ever turn in favor of secession, that argument necessarily becomes suspect because the mass exodus in question becomes unlikely--people aren't going to vote to secede from the US then rush to move to the US.
Click to expand...
Like I said, just removing the military and building their own security force/military would bankrupt them even if the vote were to pass.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Arguably is right. If they aren't beneficial why do they have them or better, why don't the citizens get rid of them first and then bloviate about secession?
Click to expand...
So your argument is that these agencies exist, therefore they must be beneficial?:roll:
 
Slippery Slope said:
Like I said, just removing the military and building their own security force/military would bankrupt them even if the vote were to pass.
Click to expand...
Oh? Countries with economies smaller than Texas' have managed to handle their security needs without becoming bankrupt? On what basis do you presume Texas could not do likewise?

Or are you envisioning a Beijing/Taipei style of tension between Washington and Austin, necessitating a massive arms buildup?
 
celticlord said:
So your argument is that these agencies exist, therefore they must be beneficial?:roll:
Click to expand...
At one time, yes. They may have become bloated or unnecessary since their inception but if your argument is that the people of texas just beg for useless federal bureaucracies then...

celticlord said:
Oh? Countries with economies smaller than Texas' have managed to handle their security needs without becoming bankrupt? On what basis do you presume Texas could not do likewise
Click to expand...
Not after having their government and it's funding pulled out.

Or are you envisioning a Beijing/Taipei style of tension between Washington and Austin, necessitating a massive arms buildup?
Click to expand...
More like Mexico vs Austin, do you seriously doubt that mexicans wouldn't FLOCK to Texas and then as a majority of the population ask to be annexed? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom