• 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

Slippery Slope said:
:rofl You righties crack me up.

Where was this nonsense when Bush was dragging us into two wars, increasing the size of government, spending us into oblivion and shredding the Constitution?

You guys are the worst sore losers ever. More than half the country rejected the right wing philosophy and you just can't bear to "take it like a man". :2wave:
Click to expand...
As for me, right here.

Where was your filibuster? Or did your leftists forget to use it?
 
Slippery Slope said:
:rofl You righties crack me up.

Where was this nonsense when Bush was dragging us into two wars, increasing the size of government, spending us into oblivion and shredding the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Not a conservative but I was against the massive spending under Bush but he doesn't deserve 100% of the blame. The Democrats were just as bad, in addition whenever I spoke up about it, I was called a communist, terrorist sympathizer, etc.

You guys are the worst sore losers ever. More than half the country rejected the right wing philosophy and you just can't bear to "take it like a man". :2wave:
Click to expand...

Would make sense but we havent had Fiscal Conservativism in years, where have you been?
 
Slippery Slope said:
You guys are the worst sore losers ever. More than half the country rejected the right wing philosophy and you just can't bear to "take it like a man"
Click to expand...

You're exactly right! All those who voted for someone other than Obama should silently and graciously accept his policies for the next four years... just as silently and graciously as those who opposed Bush did during his terms in office.

;)
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
California just doubled it's car property tax and registration fees, and increased it's state sales tax by 25%.
Click to expand...
Car registration fee's doubled? My tax and registration fees for all 3 of my cars have been roughly the same for years. I still have one that is due in May. It's slightly more then last year by $8.

The whole sales tax increase is bull****. Schwarzenegger is an idiot when it comes to budgeting.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And in the face of the looming bankruptcy of the state, the Guvernator and the Democrats are pushing a special election this May to get the sucker voters to pass ballot initiatives to allow all the spending the Republicans managed to trim in their compromise, and further increase the tax burden on the state.
Click to expand...

What compromise are you speaking of?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That's what happens when people vote Democrat.
Click to expand...
I didn't know Schwarzenegger was a Democrat.
 
Re: Wake up call: Texas gov. Back resolution affirming sovereignty

I imagine Governor Perry is now on DHS's list of 'rightwing extremists.'

:shock:
 
Slippery Slope said:
:rofl You righties crack me up.
Click to expand...
Amusement can be found in the strangest ways... using the strangest thought processes... I'd have used "logic" instead of "thought processes" but there's nothing logical there.

Where was this nonsense when Bush was dragging us into two wars, increasing the size of government, spending us into oblivion and shredding the Constitution?
Click to expand...
We tried to resolve the problem peacefully for 12-years.
After 911 and the Anthrax attacks that followed right after changed the world.

You could say... "we tried peace, give war a chance"... and it worked.
Iraq, America and the world is way better off today due to Bush 43's acting on the support given to him by Congress... more support than Bush 41 received for going into Gulf War 1.

You Libs are a difficult lot to please. Always shifting the goal posts.

After GW1 we fulfilled the UN Mandate and YOU folks cried that Bush 41 should have gone in and got rid of Saddam then. (And had he done it you folks would have screamed bloody murder and that 41 was the worst kind of "war monger".

Clinton guts the military, says we can fight a 2-front war and then you complain the Forces aren't ready for battle... vehicles aren't up-armored; complain when Rummy said you go with the army you have... not the one you wish for. Complain we don't have enough troops... despite Clinton claiming we could fight on two fronts.

You vote for a war and then move the posts again, this time crapping on the troops, generals, and Commander in Chief. Using it as a political weapon.

That Slippery One, is the left's behavior and an example of real "nonsense".

You guys are the worst sore losers ever. More than half the country rejected the right wing philosophy and you just can't bear to "take it like a man".
Click to expand...
Yes, Obama won... but how?
Media Malpractice How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted

Remember, The Iraq War was put to a vote in 2004... Bush won handily.
Talk about sore losers! Add to that... 2000... where Algore tried to thieve an election ... an election he was minutes from conceding. (Nixon didn't even sink that low when he had extremely good cause to dispute a close election and blatant corruption in The Community Organizer's city and state.

We did not vote for the war and turn our backs on the troops when they needed our support the most; you folks did that... and how!

We're not sore... we're simply being the loyal opposition.
You don't require one of our votes... the only way to slow or stop Obama's nonsense is to inform the public the enormous costs that come with "Change".
To illustrate the wrongheadedness of his ideas.

It's our only "Hope".
You think we should lie down and keep quiet in such a circumstance?

Has the Left ever done this?
Hell no, you folks are willing to sink so low as use war votes as political votes.

.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Don't mess with my Texas pride:mrgreen:

Alaska really does that? why? I seriously thought Texas was the only State allowed to do that.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by allowed?
 
There's no legal penalty for flying a flag any way you want.

However, there's this myth that under official flag display protocols, the Texas flag may be flown at the same height as the US flag, whereas every other state should be lower. The supposed rationale behind it is that Texas was once an independent republic, its own country.

Well, so were Vermont, California, and Hawaii.

In reality, the flag protocols recognize NO state as being "allowed" to fly at the same height as the US flag. All states are equal in that regard, and subordinate to the US.
 
If anyone were to sucede, Texas would be the number one canidate.

They bring in as much GDP as Canada, and on average every $1.90 a Texan pays in federal taxes, they get a dollar back in entitlements.
 
thabigred said:
If anyone were to sucede, Texas would be the number one canidate.

They bring in as much GDP as Canada, and on average every $1.90 a Texan pays in federal taxes, they get a dollar back in entitlements.
Click to expand...

Prior to the civil war we did have the right to secede.
 
thabigred said:
If anyone were to sucede, Texas would be the number one canidate.

They bring in as much GDP as Canada, and on average every $1.90 a Texan pays in federal taxes, they get a dollar back in entitlements.
Click to expand...

It takes much more then GDP to secede.

California has a GDP about $500 billion higher then Texas and is on the same GDP level as France, Italy, and Spain. Texas is on the same level of Canada, Mexico, and South Korea.

California also has some of the largest, if not the largest, international trade, agriculture, technology, and entertainment sectors to further it's ability to be self-sustaining. There really isn't much California imports from other states.

I must say Texas is a much better place to hold a business for the average person. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
thabigred said:
If anyone were to sucede, Texas would be the number one canidate.

They bring in as much GDP as Canada, and on average every $1.90 a Texan pays in federal taxes, they get a dollar back in entitlements.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that the second part is wrong at least based on the stats I have seen. Table: Per-Capita Tax Burden and Return on Tax Dollar

According to that it looks like Texas gets back 97 cents for every dollar, so for $1.90 it seems like they would be getting $1.84 back.
 
winston53660 said:
Prior to the civil war we did have the right to secede.
Click to expand...

We still do, but would Obama do as Lincoln did and try no compromise?

Since Obama talks so highly of Lincoln I would think he would do the same as Lincoln.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements"]There are large very active successionist movements in Spain, Italy and just about every country in the world.[/ame]

On average countries are suceding and making new countries more than they used to.

It all matters on how much they want it and if conditions are suitable for succession.

If Texas wants it enough, they can take it.
 
thabigred said:
We still do, but would Obama do as Lincoln did and try no compromise?

Since Obama talks so highly of Lincoln I would think he would do the same as Lincoln.

There are large very active successionist movements in Spain, Italy and just about every country in the world.

On average countries are suceding and making new countries more than they used to.

It all matters on how much they want it and if conditions are suitable for succession.

If Texas wants it enough, they can take it.
Click to expand...

If it was just Texas I think it would result in a bloody conflict, that would be over relatively quickly with the defeat of Texas. I think that if there was a legitimate attempt at secession Obama would likely be more hard line than Lincoln. It has now been established that unilateral secession is unconstitutional so it would not be as hard a justification as for Lincoln. This time it would actually be more likely that the Union would attack first.
 
Gibberish said:
It takes much more then GDP to secede.

California has a GDP about $500 billion higher then Texas and is on the same GDP level as France, Italy, and Spain. Texas is on the same level of Canada, Mexico, and South Korea.

California also has some of the largest, if not the largest, international trade, agriculture, technology, and entertainment sectors to further it's ability to be self-sustaining. There really isn't much California imports from other states.

I must say Texas is a much better place to hold a business for the average person. :2wave:
Click to expand...
Well actually compared to Texas, California is very dependent on federal taxes, for every .97$ they pay they get a dollar back.

They are not in a position to want to sucede, Texans are getting shafted daily.
YamiB. said:
I'm fairly certain that the second part is wrong at least based on the stats I have seen. Table: Per-Capita Tax Burden and Return on Tax Dollar

According to that it looks like Texas gets back 97 cents for every dollar, so for $1.90 it seems like they would be getting $1.84 back.
Click to expand...

I just read Juan Enriquez book United States of America, and he gave that $1.90 amount, he was head of havard business school, so I will take his word for it.

His information was probably more recent.
 
YamiB. said:
If it was just Texas I think it would result in a bloody conflict, that would be over relatively quickly with the defeat of Texas. I think that if there was a legitimate attempt at secession Obama would likely be more hard line than Lincoln. It has now been established that unilateral secession is unconstitutional so it would not be as hard a justification as for Lincoln. This time it would actually be more likely that the Union would attack first.
Click to expand...

Well if Texas's 10th Amendment rights are not being uphold, why should they not unilaterally succede?

Is that in the 11th amendment, or is am I thinking of something else?
 
Gibberish said:
California also has some of the largest, if not the largest, international trade, agriculture, technology, and entertainment sectors to further it's ability to be self-sustaining. There really isn't much California imports from other states.
Click to expand...
How much of that would go away if CA was no longer part of the US?
 
Goobieman said:
How much of that would go away if CA was no longer part of the US?
Click to expand...

It's the averave Californian talking out of his ass, he probably lives in Berkley.
 
thabigred said:
Well if Texas's 10th Amendment rights are not being uphold, why should they not unilaterally succede?

Is that in the 11th amendment, or is am I thinking of something else?
Click to expand...

The US Supreme Court Ruled that the Constitution did not allow for Unilateral secession. It was apparently based on the Constitution saying it wanted to form a perfect union and on Article 4 of the Constitution where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of government by the federal government.

It makes sense when you think that a main point of going to the Constitution rather than the Articles of Confederation was to create a stronger central government so all of the states weren't just acting independently. This doesn't happen if a state can unilaterally secede since they would be able to leave anytime they disagree with how the government is going.

I just read Juan Enriquez book United States of America, and he gave that $1.90 amount, he was head of havard business school, so I will take his word for it.

His information was probably more recent.
Click to expand...

After a quick look around his book is from 2005 so the numbers should be the same. Looking around the net I'm seeing numbers for Texas ranging from 94-97 cents on the dollar. It would need to be more like 50 cents on the dollar to get $1 for every $1.90.

It actually looks like my state is the one closest to this level of disparity between taxes and returns in investment. I do find it odd that many of the states who seem to complain about government spending and such most seem to get some of the higher returns for their dollar.
 
YamiB. said:
The US Supreme Court Ruled that the Constitution did not allow for Unilateral secession.
Click to expand...
In what case, and was that casre before or after the civil war?

It was apparently based on the Constitution saying it wanted to form a perfect union and on Article 4 of the Constitution where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of government by the federal government.
Click to expand...
The obvious counter-argument is that the 10th amendment reserves to the states the right to undertake actions not prohibited to the states by the Constitution. Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution.
 
What does the 10th amendment have to do with secession?

Secession is, in my opinion, an idiotic idea and based on the events of the Civil War and should never be tolerated by any American with a brain.

What possible benefit would it be to have a bunch of separate countries? Europe is spending vast sums to attempt to create a united European Union in an effort to compete with the US.

I can't imagine anyone thinking that secession is what this is all about. This is about State's rights and the effort to prevent the Federal Government from placing unfunded mandates on the States which violate the Constitution.

There are limits to this as well; but basically it is wrong for the Federal Government in its effort to do its Constitutional duty to prevent unauthorized and illegal entry by foreign nationals by delegating the responsibility onto the States without funding them.

At least that is how I view the debate.
 
Goobieman said:
In what case, and was that casre before or after the civil war?
Click to expand...

I believe the case was Texas v. White. It was relatively soon after the civil war ended.

The obvious counter-argument is that the 10th amendment reserves to the states the right to undertake actions not prohibited to the states by the Constitution. Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Unless your view of the Constitution through the sections I mentioned does have it prohibiting secession. Mentioning the 10th amendment isn't a counter-argument. It would be a follow-up to a counter-argument in which it was reasoned why those reasons were wrong.

In the legal sense I think the point it moot until a case is actually brought to the SOCTUS and the precedent is overturned for unilateral secession being unconstitutional. Until that point Obama or any other president would be legally justified in preventing states from seceding.
 
YamiB. said:
I believe the case was Texas v. White. It was relatively soon after the civil war ended.
Click to expand...
I will look.

Unless your view of the Constitution through the sections I mentioned does have it prohibiting secession.
Click to expand...
Whish would be unsupportable. Compare that 'prohibition' to those found in Article I Sec 10 or the various amendments. The argument you suppose isnt a prohibition against the action sof the states, but a misapplication and misconstruance of clauses unrelated to secession in an attept to create said prohibition.

For instance, the guarantee of a republican form of government for each state only applies to states that are part of the union. If a state is not part of the union, the guarantee doesnt apply. This doesnt in any way create a limitation on states from LEAVIING the union any more than nay other part of the Constitition, as NO part of the Constiution applies to states that are NOT pat of the union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom