• 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

Basically what the Texans are saying is that they do not like the federal government curb-checking their blood lust.

You know what? Too damn bad. Texas should be banned from using the death penalty.

Texas is NOT going to execute mentally retarded people. If they don't like it, TOO DAMN BAD.
 
Basically what the Texans are saying is that they do not like the federal government curb-checking their blood lust.

You know what? Too damn bad. Texas should be banned from using the death penalty.

Texas is NOT going to execute mentally retarded people. If they don't like it, TOO DAMN BAD.

I read the article and I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion based on the article.

Could you point me to some other source that has more details? I ask because on the surface it sounds like a great idea in my opinion.
 
I read the article and I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion based on the article.

Could you point me to some other source that has more details? I ask because on the surface it sounds like a great idea in my opinion.

Texas is only asserting state's rights because they are tired of the federal government stepping on their necks whenever they [Texas] uses the death penalty.

Among other things ... Texas wants to circumvent federal oversight. This is the reason behind the entire movement.

In short, the government of Texas, except for their support for gun rights, can **** off.
 
Texas is only asserting state's rights because they are tired of the federal government stepping on their necks whenever they [Texas] uses the death penalty.

Among other things ... Texas wants to circumvent federal oversight. This is the reason behind the entire movement.

In short, the government of Texas, except for their support for gun rights, can **** off.

I don't think the Federal government should step in as each state should have a degree of sovereignty I feel the feds have over stepped. The penalty's for crimes in my opinion should be handled by the state unless it is a Federal crime. This would include sentencing and punishment.

I see your point and will just agree to disagree.
 
As long as California was still a trade partner of the US, not much.
There's more to it than that.
The US government provides various levels of stability and security to CA, in political, economic, financial, fiscal, diplomatic and military terms. These go a long way to support California's ability to have such a large economy.

Same with its large population -- what % of Californians do you suppose would choose to remain Americans, and leave?
 
Basically what the Texans are saying is that they do not like the federal government curb-checking their blood lust.

That's about as on point as someone arguing that Californians don't want the federal government interfering in the medical marijuana issue because it might curb-check their reefer madness. In fact the reefer madness argument would make more sense.

Of course, Californians have generally been praised by those on the left for fighting what they perceive to be overbearing federal intrusion into state affairs:

On October 29, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the right for doctors to recommend marijuana to their patients. The Justices emphasized that it is the role of the states, not the federal government, to regulate the practice of medicine.

And as anyone who's been following recent news recently understands, Gov. Perry's support of this resolution has little to do with the death penalty, but quite a bit to do with increased government regulations tied to the stimulus package...


Gov. Perry Sides with Texas Employers in Responding to Federal Stimulus Guidelines


When a liberal state rejects conservative federal authority, that's progress. When a conservative state rejects liberal federal authority, that's a sign that 'rightwing extremists' are elevating the domestic terrorism threat in the U.S. And that's exactly the type of mentality displayed by the "blood lust" quote above.

..
 
Last edited:
There's more to it than that.
The US government provides various levels of stability and security to CA, in political, economic, financial, fiscal, diplomatic and military terms. These go a long way to support California's ability to have such a large economy.

Same with its large population -- what % of Californians do you suppose would choose to remain Americans, and leave?

That argument could be used for every single state. For this hypothetical situation lets assume only federal entities leave the state (CA, Texas, etc.) after secession. That's basically just the Military and some government groups.

So assuming no companies leave CA (agriculture, import/export, san fran/silicon valley, hollywood) then CA would still do great and retain a major part of it's $1.8 trillion GDP. Of course the lack of military would still be an issue, but every seceding state would have this problem, but at least CA has the infrastructure to house several types of military with their various bases. They just need Californian volunteers, which should grow rather quickly given the 33 million population in California.

Also, what will happen to the US's trade routes when they lose 840 miles of it's 1293 mile continental coast line on the west? I would assume some very appealing trade partnerships would need to be in place that would bolster California's economy. Not to mention that the US also lost 13% of its GDP once California left.
 
Last edited:
That argument could be used for every single state.
Sure it could. I was simply addressing your assertions regarding CA.

For this hypothetical situation lets assume only federal entities leave the state (CA, Texas, etc.) after secession. That's basically just the Military and some government groups.
Physically, yes. This doesnt address the intangibles I noted.

So assuming no companies leave CA (agriculture, import/export, san fran/silicon valley, hollywood)
Given the beforementioned absence of the security and stability provided by the United States, why would you assume this?

They just need Californian volunteers, which should grow rather quickly given the 33 million population in California.
As touched on before:
What % of that 33 million will decide to remain Americans, and leave?

Also, what will happen to the US's trade routes when they lose 840 miles of it's 1293 mile continental coast line on the west?
I can speak from a knowledgeable position on this:
Presuming the CA ports weren't available for transit to the rest of the US, Portland and Seattle would become very busy.
 
I'd love to see Arnold saying, "Don't mess vit Kalifornia!"
 
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.
Did you mean to conflate the 'it's really the dems fault who weren't in power until january 20th 2007' with "whenever I spoke up about it, I was called a communist, terrorist sympathizer, etc."?

Would make sense but we havent had Fiscal Conservativism in years, where have you been?
Who's fault is that? I didn't vote for Bush. Oh, the cons did... those silly conservatives who didn't start whining about it until january 20th 2007... :roll:
 
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.

;)
Hmm... well you're right. The left sure did a lot of complaining about the stolen election.

I don't remember however, talks about secession, revolution, hoping for the president to fail, voting from the roof tops...
 
Did you mean to conflate the 'it's really the dems fault who weren't in power until january 20th 2007' with "whenever I spoke up about it, I was called a communist, terrorist sympathizer, etc."?


Who's fault is that? I didn't vote for Bush. Oh, the cons did... those silly conservatives who didn't start whining about it until january 20th 2007... :roll:

What planet have you spent the last 8 years on? Conservatives have had their issues with Bush all along. Just because they didn't foam at the mouth when bringing those issues up doesn't mean it didn't happen. I guess maybe if they had spoken in "hystericese" you might have understood that.
 
What planet have you spent the last 8 years on? Conservatives have had their issues with Bush all along. Just because they didn't foam at the mouth when bringing those issues up doesn't mean it didn't happen. I guess maybe if they had spoken in "hystericese" you might have understood that.
Well you/they sure are foaming at the mouth now and speaking "hystericese"... thanks for making my point. :applaud
 
But then, at no time in history, even over the last 8 years, was a deficit anything like this current one being debated (more than three times Bush's biggest one, and more than ten times the 2007 deficit) ever run. If there's a time for foaming, it's now.
 
Well you/they sure are foaming at the mouth now and speaking "hystericese"... thanks for making my point. :applaud

I'm not quite sure how you arrived at me making your point, but whatever. I've never known you to make a coherent post so far so I don't know why I thought that would change now.
 
What planet have you spent the last 8 years on? Conservatives have had their issues with Bush all along. Just because they didn't foam at the mouth when bringing those issues up doesn't mean it didn't happen. I guess maybe if they had spoken in "hystericese" you might have understood that.

Please Jallman....Conservatives practically creamed their jeans for Bush until it became clear that he wasn't going to be able to salvage his Presidency....then they started jumping like rats on a ship...trying to label Bush a liberal.
 
Please Jallman....Conservatives practically creamed their jeans for Bush until it became clear that he wasn't going to be able to salvage his Presidency....then they started jumping like rats on a ship...trying to label Bush a liberal.

And your perception has been known to be warped, too.
 
365974530v2_350x350_Front.jpg


Texas is the only State whose flag can fly even with the Stars and Stripes.

That's a dangerous sentiment. He is patronizing those people by dangling red meat before them and they are eating it up and swallowing it whole.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!"

An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.

Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package.

Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

"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. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.

Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Texas/Southwest
 
Please Jallman....Conservatives practically creamed their jeans for Bush until it became clear that he wasn't going to be able to salvage his Presidency....then they started jumping like rats on a ship...trying to label Bush a liberal.

Wrong interpretation.
 
Hmm... well you're right. The left sure did a lot of complaining about the stolen election.

I don't remember however, talks about secession, revolution, hoping for the president to fail, voting from the roof tops...

Actually, the left did for eight years pretty much exactly what the right did today...

r124236_403185.jpg

Jan, 2007

081106-gayMarriageProtest-459p.h2.jpg

Nov, 2008

bush-protesters.jpg

Inauguration, 2005

1499161443_b4be0c51a2.jpg

NYC

Need I go on??

Why is it that when angry liberals take to the streets it's a sign of horrible administration policy and a failed presidency. When angry conservatives take to the streets it's a sign of secession, revolution, hoping for the president to fail, etc... ???

:doh
 
Last edited:
Actually, the left did for eight years pretty much exactly what the right did today...

Need I go on??

Why is it that when angry liberals take to the streets it's a sign of horrible administration policy and a failed presidency. When angry conservatives take to the streets it's a sign of secession, revolution, hoping for the president to fail, etc... ???

:doh

People I talked to today were absolutely furious about these protests. They couldn't believe that all those rich stupid republicans were yelling in the street because they wanted to pay even less in taxes and take away money from police departments and garbage men, etc.

It was really surprising to see how angry liberals got over this.
 
I'm not surprised.
 
As far as I know, the right to protest/assemble peaceably is right in the Constitution. I wasn't on the side of those who protested the war in Iraq, nor am I on the side of the people protesting taxes. I am however glad to see some protesting at all. Too much apathy in this country.

And, maybe I'm oblivious, but I don't understand why liberals would get angry about this. It's a protest about something that the folks who are protesting believe in. Just like I had no idea why many conservatives got angry about folks protesting the war.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom