• 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!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon


  • Total voters
    133
I understand completely.



It would be interesting if the Texas GOP seceded and the next day all the rich little GOP kids @ their 100k+ office jobs promptly were fired due to the complete economic collapse of Texas and the reality that Houston, Dallas and San Antonio Texas would all be on fire as the Democrat minorities would burn those cities and their economies overnight.


I do agree that would be an amusing week on CNN, Fox, MSNBC. Seeing the extinction of the GOP would definitely be amusing to witness nobody can easily deny that.


Democrats would run this country for the next 100 years. I guess the rich GOP kids would get their 24-72 hours of infamy though right before they lost everything politically and economically.

Very interesting post.
 
I don't care what you suspect... it's irrelevant.:

Apparently you do care because you replied.



if you want to consider not falling for your abject dishonesty as "dodging" .. call me a dodger any day of the week.
and yes, you've made it obvious you are ignorant of our founding document... perfectly obvious.

So stand up and quit insulting me and provide a provable and indisputable fact about the Constitution - just one fact - that I have been wrong about and thus can be accused of being ignorant. Back up your insults with verifiable evidence.

Of course, you cannot and you will not do so.

i'm just a nice enough guy to point it out for you so you can work on correcting the falsehoods you try to sell...

You have not presented any FALSEHOODS I stated. But I challenge you to do so.

And I ask you directly one more time - an you tell me why you and others on the far right feel it necessary to sneak in snide personal comments like the last line of nonsense you previously included? People of maturity and intelligence realize that one can look at things differently without ignorance being a factor. People who disagree with you are not ignorant - they are educated and informed and simply see things differently that you do. In this case, they know how to read the entire PREAMBLE instead of just cherry picked words that they then twist to fit their own extremist ideology.
 
Last edited:
You stuck your nose in it and in doing so you FAILED to provide the answer to the question that you were so incredulous about me asking.
yes, I commented on your stupid question... which in no ways means the question was posed to me.
I'm far to smart to be taken in by your dishonesty



Who do you think exercises the various rights the Constitution provides for us?
no one.
the Constitution doesn't provide any rights for us.... it provides for protections for rights by limiting what government can and cannot do.

Who do you think is voting in the five different times the Constitution discusses the right to vote?
it doesn't matter.. in every case the right to vote is addressed, it is addressed pertaining to govt behavior/action.
for example, the 15th amendment is pretty clear on voting rights...

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
no right is granted by this amendment,nor does this apply to the people...this amendments entire purpose is to set forth a boundary for the govt.

at best it can be argued that certain legal rights ( voting, jury trial) are established by providing direct protections for them in the US constitution.... at best.
these protections are ALWAYS in the form of limiting government action... always.

this is a pretty clear example of the Constitution limiting the governments behavior in relation to a right( though voting is not a natural right , at face value)....this is exactly how the document operates throughout it's entirely.

it's is not extreme or even controversial to say our founding document is a document that limits government...it does not limit the people.


the entire document,..every word of it... pertains to government... without fail, without exception.
 
yes, I commented on your stupid question... which in no ways means the question was posed to me..

When you stuck your nose in it - you bought it and now own it.
 
Voting in public elections are actions by CITIZENS - not actions by governments.

Thrilla said this concerning the Constitution and elections

in every case the right to vote is addressed, it is addressed pertaining to govt behavior/action.

Voting rights involve CITIZENS acting in public elections. And the right to vote in those elections is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution at least five different times.

the entire document,..every word of it... pertains to government... without fail, without exception.

The right to vote in public elections - a right held by PERSONS provided to them by the Constitution - proves you wrong.
 
Last edited:
Apparently you do care because you replied.





So stand up and quit insulting me and provide a provable and indisputable fact about the Constitution - just one fact - that I have been wrong about and thus can be accused of being ignorant. Back up your insults with verifiable evidence.

Of course, you cannot and you will not do so.



You have not presented any FALSEHOODS I stated. But I challenge you to do so.

And I ask you directly one more time - an you tell me why you and others on the far right feel it necessary to sneak in snide personal comments like the last line of nonsense you previously included? People of maturity and intelligence realize that one can look at things differently without ignorance being a factor. People who disagree with you are not ignorant - they are educated and informed and simply see things differently that you do. In this case, they know how to read the entire PREAMBLE instead of just cherry picked words that they then twist to fit their own extremist ideology.

stop whining and get to providing a argument.

one fact you got wrong?... that the US Constitution applies to the people instead of being a limiting documented applying only to govt.
that's a big ass fact to screw up....massive.

another one.... that the US Constitution grants rights to the people... it does not.
 
yes, I commented on your stupid question... which in no ways means the question was posed to me.
I'm far to smart to be taken in by your dishonesty



no one.
the Constitution doesn't provide any rights for us.... it provides for protections for rights by limiting what government can and cannot do.



Citizens getting the right to vote in PUBLIC ELECTIONS is CITIZEN ACTION. Not government action. Get it straight.

I have it perfectly straight... primarily because I read all the words in a sentence to fully understand what that sentence means

the 15th amendment limits the government from abridging the right to vote.....that's it's purpose.

civics 101, my man....Constitution is a limiting document pertaining only to government...deal with it.
 
If Texas would take Alabama and Mississippi with them, I would donate to the cause!
 
I understand completely.



It would be interesting if the Texas GOP seceded and the next day all the rich little GOP kids @ their 100k+ office jobs promptly were fired due to the complete economic collapse of Texas and the reality that Houston, Dallas and San Antonio Texas would all be on fire as the Democrat minorities would burn those cities and their economies overnight.


I do agree that would be an amusing week on CNN, Fox, MSNBC. Seeing the extinction of the GOP would definitely be amusing to witness nobody can easily deny that.


Democrats would run this country for the next 100 years. I guess the rich GOP kids would get their 24-72 hours of infamy though right before they lost everything politically and economically.

I don't see democrat minorities in Texas being that vocal, to be honest. Perhaps in Austin, however Austin is a small drop in a big bucket.

I agree that the rest of the United States would inevitably shift to the left if Texas and its electoral votes were removed from the equation. In a sense, that's the win/win scenario created by having two separate governments instead of jamming everyone in to one.
 
I don't see democrat minorities in Texas being that vocal, to be honest. Perhaps in Austin, however Austin is a small drop in a big bucket.

Not sure I would be that vocal about democrat leanings in Texas either.

My lady friend, a professor at Sam Houston State University is staunchly democrat. She supported Obama last election and had her Obama yard sign peppered not once, but twice with a shotgun. In fact, I challenge anyone to go to Texas and have a group conversation and even suggest something positive about President Obama. You will surely be trounced upon verbally. The peer pressure to conform is enormous. It's as if there is some kind of competition to see who can be the reddest and wear the biggest hat.

Texas is a very unique place.
 
stop whining and get to providing a argument.

Again with the insults. And you did get an argument - you just ignored it.

one fact you got wrong?... that the US Constitution applies to the people instead of being a limiting documented applying only to govt.
that's a big ass fact to screw up....massive.

The only BIG ASS FACT there is that you are delusional if you truly believe that citizens voting is not a result of several Amendments effectively giving them the right to do so.

another one.... that the US Constitution grants rights to the people... it does not.

African Americans are people. How did they get the right to vote?

Women are people. How did they get the right to vote?

18 year olds are people. How did they get the right to vote?

You are delusional if you cannot admit that it was the Constitution which granted these groups the right to do so.
 
you don't decide these things for me...you might be a fascist dictator in your dreams, but this here is reality.

yup - you stuck your nose in it and now you own it. You decided that when you did so.
 
Again with the insults. And you did get an argument - you just ignored it.
stop whining .. and no, I didn't ignore your arguments... they're astonishingly wrong, but they are not ignored.



The only BIG ASS FACT there is that you are delusional if you truly believe that citizens voting is not a result of several Amendments effectively giving them the right to do so.
delusional?.. didn't you just whine about insults?
establishing limits on the federal govt from abridging a right is not the same as granting a right.
these amendments in conjunction with pertinent legislation are most assuredly used to establish the right, though.... that's the very nature of legal rights...without a doubt.



African Americans are people. How did they get the right to vote?

Women are people. How did they get the right to vote?

18 year olds are people. How did they get the right to vote?

You are delusional if you cannot admit that it was the Constitution which granted these groups the right to do so.
is there where i' get to whine about you being insulting?.. or am i not supposed to comment on your hypocrisy?

legal rights are granted by pertinent legislation in conjunction with the US Constitution...the Constitution limits govt. from infringing on legal rights, to one degree or another...
without pertinent legislation, the legal right to vote is nonexistent... without a limiting clause in the US Constitution, the legal right to vote is nonexistent.

again.. the US Constitution pertains only to govt....civics 101.
learn it, live it, know it.:cool:
 
which has exactly dick to do with anything I have said...

of course i would support it.... I would support any state seceding peacefully.

unlike so many here, I actually believe self determination is a great thing....and i'm no fan of holding people hostage to a government they don't want.

That isnt very far off from this: "Here in the United States, a new group of Southerners is calling for nothing more revolutionary than home rule for the states established by the U.S. Constitution. The Southern League was founded in 1994 at a meeting of scholars, journalists and political activists in Tuscaloosa, Ala. Our members are pledged to seek the well-being and independence of the Southern people by every honorable means. Far from wishing any ill to the rest of the nation, we believe that a renewed South will be an inspiration to other regions in search of their own identities and to all Americans who wish to lead their lives in peace." The New Dixie Manifesto: States' Rights Will Rise Again... by J. Michael Hill and Thomas Fleming

A peaceful split and the right to Govern themselves right? Its the self-determination/State Rights argument that is so prevalent in the neo-confederate crowd. Perhaps you dont belong to that crowd but one must wonder why then you replied to my post talking about neo-confederates. http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ort-right-texas-secede-19.html#post1064621735
Which I might add that your reply didnt have dick to do with what I said. Which was that the US Constitution is a document that foremost creates a Union and that secession is anti-Constitutional in nature and design. And it is the Constitution that is the main roadblock to those factions seeking to destroy the Union to impose their fascist utopia bull**** system.
 
That isnt very far off from this: "Here in the United States, a new group of Southerners is calling for nothing more revolutionary than home rule for the states established by the U.S. Constitution. The Southern League was founded in 1994 at a meeting of scholars, journalists and political activists in Tuscaloosa, Ala. Our members are pledged to seek the well-being and independence of the Southern people by every honorable means. Far from wishing any ill to the rest of the nation, we believe that a renewed South will be an inspiration to other regions in search of their own identities and to all Americans who wish to lead their lives in peace." The New Dixie Manifesto: States' Rights Will Rise Again... by J. Michael Hill and Thomas Fleming

A peaceful split and the right to Govern themselves right? Its the self-determination/State Rights argument that is so prevalent in the neo-confederate crowd. Perhaps you dont belong to that crowd but one must wonder why then you replied to my post talking about neo-confederates. http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ort-right-texas-secede-19.html#post1064621735
Which I might add that your reply didnt have dick to do with what I said. Which was that the US COnstitution is a document the foremost creates a Union and that secession is anti-Constitutional in nature and design. And it is the Constitution that is the main roadblock to those factions seeking to destroy the Union to impose their fascist utopia bull**** system.

none of this has dick to do with what i have said or responded too... nor will you be successful in your dishonest ploy to label me a neo-confederate...sorry.
I have no use for neo-confederates... though they do objectively hold the moral high ground in comparison to you and your compatriots.
( though i do believe you hold the legal high ground, according to the decision of SCOTUS)

you might want to start being honest in your discussion...it will be far more productive.

in addition, before you label anyone else "fascist", you might want to rethink your desire to kill them because of the "crime" of wanting to govern themselves....the insult might carry merit of you were, indeed, not so extreme and violent in your own position.... just sayin'
 
none of this has dick to do with what i have said or responded too... nor will you be successful in your dishonest ploy to label me a neo-confederate...sorry.
I have no use for neo-confederates... though they do objectively hold the moral high ground in comparison to you and your compatriots.
( though i do believe you hold the legal high ground, according to the decision of SCOTUS)

you might want to start being honest in your discussion...it will be far more productive.

in addition, before you label anyone else "fascist", you might want to rethink your desire to kill them because of the "crime" of wanting to govern themselves....the insult might carry merit of you were, indeed, not so extreme and violent in your own position.... just sayin'

The wanting to govern themselves part involves them tacking over a portion of this country for their own needs. Such a usurpation of power is what is known as treason which is punishable by death. As you point out legally them tacking over portions of this country is illegal. Hell its even Constitutionally impossible for any faction to take over a portion of the US. Not only is such action treasonous but a act of war.


ANd please dont lump me in with anyone, I think I have made you understand how that feels by now....
 
I have it perfectly straight... primarily because I read all the words in a sentence to fully understand what that sentence means

the 15th amendment limits the government from abridging the right to vote.....that's it's purpose.

civics 101, my man....Constitution is a limiting document pertaining only to government...deal with it.

You seem to be stuck in some time of time warp where you repeat yourself and do not speak to the posts I have written for you providing just the argument that proves you wrong.

Go back and read.

Open your mind and learn.

Put aside your faux ideology and join the 21st century of sane rational people.
 
stop whining and get back to arguing.

You seem to be stuck in your own delusional rewind.

establishing limits on the federal govt from abridging a right is not the same as granting a right.

Then do inform all of us how the African Americans held in a former condition of slavery got the right to vote?

And then tell us how females got the right to vote.

And then tell us how 18, 19 and 20 year olds got the right to vote.

And do tell us how all of that was accomplished WITHOUT benefit of the Constitution making it all possible for those people to have the RIGHT TO VOTE.

Go on. Do it.

And then tell us why the Constitution uses the phrase RIGHT TO VOTE or a variation of that term no less than FIVE TIMES in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES when there was no enabling legislation yet passed.

And then tell us how - by your claim the Constitution does not apply to people -

again.. the US Constitution pertains only to govt....civics 101.

how did people get the right to vote for their US Senators?

Read the Sixth Amendment and tell me who is that has those rights listed and explained there.

Your plate is full.

legal rights are granted by pertinent legislation in conjunction with the US Constitution..

You just admitted defeat as reality tells us that the legislation you speak of was only made possible by the Constitution itself.

You lost by your own words.

delusional?.

You do not like it when I use the word DELUSIONAL to describe your denial of reality. Sorry. It is a perfect word which describes a mental condition where a person denies fact and reality as you are doing here.
 
Last edited:
The wanting to govern themselves part involves them tacking over a portion of this country for their own needs. Such a usurpation of power is what is known as treason which is punishable by death. As you point out legally them tacking over portions of this country is illegal. Hell its even Constitutionally impossible for any faction to take over a portion of the US. Not only is such action treasonous but a act of war.


ANd please dont lump me in with anyone, I think I have made you understand how that feels by now....

secession is not inherently treason nor does it inherently mean war...that's merely your opinion and it ignores seceding by means other than how it was attempted in the past.

those whom would secede would only take that part of the nation that they already exercise an amount of sovereignty over....and I did not say their plans are illegal, I said the argument against secession has the legal high ground.. that high ground consists solely of a single SCOTUS decision.


who did i lump you in with ?
 
You seem to be stuck in some time of time warp where you repeat yourself and do not speak to the posts I have written for you providing just the argument that proves you wrong.

Go back and read.

Open your mind and learn.

Put aside your faux ideology and join the 21st century of sane rational people.

that was a poor alternative for an argument.. and utterly bereft of fact or accuracy.

in other words... just another post by Haymarket
 
please quotes the exact text of the Constitution that applies directly to the people and is not a limitation on government.


I'll wait.

SEE POST # 820. Its all there for you and you are ignoring it because it destroys you utterly and completely.

Why can't you answer the questions I posed to you in 820? Why are you unable to do so?

I just provided you in 820 many examples including the right to vote for African Americans, women, 18, 19 and 20 year olds, and Sixth Amendment rights.

Is it fair to assume you have a copy of the Constitution and can read those sections?

for example - the Sixth Amendment

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Every part of that tells us rights that a person accused of a crime has.

Go back and read.

Go back and learn.

Go back and stop pretending that you are clever looking for your next insult.
 
Last edited:
Statements of faith which cannot be proven to be true or exist are simply that - statements of faith and mean nothing in terms of evidence of reality.

So if I say I'm happy is that a statement of faith? Fine. I can live with that. On the other hand, where is your evidence that any aspect of the statement you wrote above is anything more than your opinion? You didn't even bother to offer up a reasonable argument to support it. Even if you had, I would have just quoted Rousseau: "Human reason much more easily takes the form of opinion than of truth and that when two men disagree, what one thinks he has proven is just a sophism to the other."
 
Back
Top Bottom