PDA

View Full Version : Texas To Leave the Union?


rockdawg21
04-17-2009, 03:59 PM
Gov. Perry continues to impress me. I didn't vote for the guy, but I love the fact that he has to balls to openly oppose the federal government!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30252723/?gt1=43001

Dems: Texas governor should reject secession
Perry says state doesn't want to secede but adds, 'who knows'

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif
updated 6:15 p.m. CT, Thurs., April 16, 2009

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.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Crisco
04-17-2009, 04:06 PM
I don't agree with this unless Obama does infact make real moves into socialism.

I will move to texas in this event and join the texan military.

rockdawg21
04-17-2009, 04:08 PM
I agree, but it's nice to see somebody in such a prominent position stepping up and voicing out against Obama.

Miss Foxy
04-17-2009, 04:09 PM
I agree, but it's nice to see somebody in such a prominent position stepping up and voicing out against Obama.
Nate does it all the time.. He's prominent and in a high position darn it! lol...:laugh:

CAVEMAN
04-17-2009, 04:22 PM
I'll be moving to Texas as well if they do!:)

NateR
04-17-2009, 04:47 PM
I don't think anyone in Texas wants to secede from the Union, however they might have no other choice if they want to defend their freedoms against the socialist Corruptocrats in power right now.

I think the Obama administration should see this as a wake up call, meaning that we, the American people, are not powerless and are not just going to sit here idly while the liberals strip us of our freedoms and taxes us into bankruptcy. Obama needs to realize that having 22% of the American population vote for him is not a mandate from the masses to do whatever he likes. We, the people of America, are still in charge. Obama is our employee, not our dictator, so he needs to slow down and start listening to us.

Anyways, if Texas does secede, then I'll be happy to move down there. Better to be hungry and free than Obama's fat slave.

rockdawg21
04-17-2009, 04:57 PM
I don't think anyone in Texas wants to secede from the Union, however they might have no other choice if they want to defend their freedoms against the socialist Corruptocrats in power right now.

I think the Obama administration should see this as a wake up call, meaning that we, the American people, are not powerless and are not just going to sit here idly while the liberals strip us of our freedoms and taxes us into bankruptcy. Obama needs to realize that having 52% of the American population vote for him is not a mandate from the masses to do whatever he likes. We, the people of America, are still in charge. Obama is our employee, not our dictator, so he needs to slow down and start listening to us.

Anyways, if Texas does secede, then I'll be happy to move down there. Better to be hungry and free than Obama's fat slave.
Fixed :)

NateR
04-17-2009, 05:01 PM
Fixed :)

Wrong, 52% of the people who voted, 66 million people total, voted for Obama. There are an estimated 303 million Americans alive today. Meaning that only 21.7% of the American population voted for Obama. The other 78.3% either voted for someone else or didn't vote at all.

huan
04-17-2009, 05:02 PM
Fixed :)

There's a difference between population and voting population.

rockdawg21
04-17-2009, 05:05 PM
Wrong, 52% of the people who voted, 66 million people total, voted for Obama. There are an estimated 303 million Americans alive today. Meaning that only 21.7% of the American population voted for Obama. The other 78.3% either voted for someone else or didn't vote at all.
My bad, thought it was a fat finger considering the 2 is below the 5 on the keypad. :laugh:

Vizion
04-18-2009, 04:05 PM
If Texas were to become a country, it would see a large population surge...I think Americans are ready to get the hella outta here. Its time to start over.

Tyburn
04-18-2009, 04:15 PM
Whilst I admire Texas for sticking to principles...IF she ever excersised her power and left the Union...firstly...I'm not sure there would be the war everyone thinks there would be...after all, she does have a legal get out clause unlike any other State, she is permitted to leave if she wants.

HOWEVER...if she left, and was a success, (this might not be the best financial climate to try going it alone)

then TRUST ME, other States will want Independance aswell.

Texas is in the best possible Geographic Location, except for Hawaii, and the one up near Canada....is it Alaska?? those Three I reckon could break away and be fine...however...without allied forces consistant to the Civil War divides, many States on their own could not break free, because they are landlocked by the United States...and they wouldnt be able to break as cleanly in a legal fashion as Texas.

Coastal and those States with North Boarder to Canada, and a South Boarder to Texas would be those with the most potential...better still if you have coast AND one of these boarders.

Tyburn
04-18-2009, 04:17 PM
if it does happen...someone must let me know...so I can get the quick-unpick out to snip off one of the stars on my flag :cry:

xSubmission
04-18-2009, 04:35 PM
Republic of Texas sounds good. Would be very interesting to see how it all turns out if they were to declare independance. I agree with NateR this should be a wake up call to the Obama administration

NateR
04-18-2009, 07:35 PM
if it does happen...someone must let me know...so I can get the quick-unpick out to snip off one of the stars on my flag :cry:

If Texas goes, it's not going alone. More than likely the surrounding states would follow as well.

ufcfan2
04-18-2009, 09:09 PM
Wrong, 52% of the people who voted, 66 million people total, voted for Obama. There are an estimated 303 million Americans alive today. Meaning that only 21.7% of the American population voted for Obama. The other 78.3% either voted for someone else or didn't vote at all.
:scared0015:

I don't wanna go into this politics stuff as everyone is so fierce to defend their position...when I first heard this, I said 'Trader' boot is ass out of the office. If hes got issues with current policies,voice them to the president man to man,don't threaten or even hint about leaving the Union. I think this is serious enough issue whether he meant it or not,to have a sit down w/Obama and speak his mind...
I mean is it okay for the previous regime to put us in this mess and its a pretty serious mess. So, its taking serious actions to fix whether we like them or not. We may not agree on how hes getting there,as long as he and we can get there..
I don't wanna go back to buisness as usual when a Republican gets back in office we just can't afford to do it..I don't personally agree with deregulate everything with no accountability someones gotta be,and it seems we've gotten away with no accountability for too long....anywho,getting off topic..
O,wait if Texas breaks away that means NO MORE COWBOYS FOOTBALL,WOOOT!!!!! Get Lost Texas!!!! Take George Bush's with ya :) That means we could invade Texas for the 'OIL',err we could invade them to say we are trying to preserve our Union,but really do it for the OIL :)

NateR
04-18-2009, 09:22 PM
Im at odds with this guy even saying that type of stuff..To even hint of leaving the Union is kindof 'treason' talk to me and honestly some type of action needs to be taken. You just don't talk about it or even hint about taking ur state and leaving the union....If he has strong views on the current administration say them,but don't take it to that extreme.

If we were to go back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, then Obama would be the one guilty of treason.

It's kind of funny, when there's a Republican President, the liberals believe that publicly opposing the government is the purest form of patriotism. However, when the liberals are in charge, then any difference of opinion with the liberal agenda is attacked fiercely and those who protest the government are seen as traitors or unpatriotic.

Which tells me that the liberals are only interested in power, nothing else.

atomdanger
04-18-2009, 09:23 PM
I am honestly amazed Alaska has not tried more successfully to become its own country yet.

If you've never been, you should go.
Its amazing up there, and most people have a very different way of thinking,
and way of life than the rest of us

rockdawg21
04-18-2009, 10:07 PM
That means we could invade Texas for the 'OIL',err we could invade them to say we are trying to preserve our Union,but really do it for the OIL :)
Good luck with that. Virtually everybody here owns guns, and we also have a VERY large population of military stationed in this state.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/statefacts/bltx.htm

You can also be sure there would be plenty of other surrounding states to follow.

Crisco
04-21-2009, 09:34 PM
If this country ever got to the point where Texas would choose to leave you better believe it is BAD!

In that event I would move to Texas and fight to defend American freedom somewhere the real America can still exist.

Tyburn
04-21-2009, 10:14 PM
If this country ever got to the point where Texas would choose to leave you better believe it is BAD!

In that event I would move to Texas and fight to defend American freedom somewhere the real America can still exist.
Texan actually

It wouldnt be America. :unsure-1:

Crisco
04-21-2009, 10:20 PM
Texan actually

It wouldnt be America. :unsure-1:

It would be what was left of real America is what I ment by what I said.

Tyburn
04-21-2009, 10:25 PM
It would be what was left of real America is what I ment by what I said.
until the next State gained independance.

Trust me...if Texas ever leaves...the rest will slowly follow. :)

VCURamFan
04-22-2009, 04:49 AM
until the next State gained independance.

Trust me...if Texas ever leaves...the rest will slowly follow. :)Yeah, if TX leaves, then a lot of the South will follow. It'd be like the Civil War all over again.

Crisco
04-22-2009, 04:59 AM
except this time the south would actually be in the right

NateR
04-22-2009, 05:28 AM
except this time the south would actually be in the right

While obviously slavery was bad, I wouldn't say that the South was completely wrong. In fact, many leaders in the South were preparing for the abolition of slavery long before the war. It was considered just a matter of time. What really set the process back was Darwin's book The Origin of Species. After that was published, there was suddenly a scientific endorsement of slavery and racism and that destroyed much of the progress that the Abolitionists had made up to that point.

What the Civil War was really fought over was State's rights, not slavery. They didn't want a strong centralized federal government, they wanted each individual state to be it's own center of power. And if you watch what's happened since the Civil War ended, you can kind of understand why the South feared a strong centralized government.

Putting the issue of slavery aside (since it wasn't what the war was fought over), you could almost say that we might be a lot better off if the South had won the war. We definitely wouldn't have this problem that we have today of a federal government that's just grasping for more and more power like a kid in a candy store.

Hughes_GOAT
04-22-2009, 05:47 AM
somebody has been reading "The Real Lincoln"

VCURamFan
04-22-2009, 05:47 AM
except this time the south would actually be in the rightPretty much.

Neezar
04-22-2009, 12:15 PM
While obviously slavery was bad, I wouldn't say that the South was completely wrong. In fact, many leaders in the South were preparing for the abolition of slavery long before the war. It was considered just a matter of time. What really set the process back was Darwin's book The Origin of Species. After that was published, there was suddenly a scientific endorsement of slavery and racism and that destroyed much of the progress that the Abolitionists had made up to that point.

What the Civil War was really fought over was State's rights, not slavery. They didn't want a strong centralized federal government, they wanted each individual state to be it's own center of power. And if you watch what's happened since the Civil War ended, you can kind of understand why the South feared a strong centralized government.

Putting the issue of slavery aside (since it wasn't what the war was fought over), you could almost say that we might be a lot better off if the South had won the war. We definitely wouldn't have this problem that we have today of a federal government that's just grasping for more and more power like a kid in a candy store.

Exactly.

Did you know that the new Homeland Security thing mentions favoring local or state law over Federal as an issue? :huh: So, they are definitely thinking about it now.

p.s. Everybody should read the Real Lincoln.

Tyburn
04-22-2009, 12:45 PM
While obviously slavery was bad, I wouldn't say that the South was completely wrong. In fact, many leaders in the South were preparing for the abolition of slavery long before the war. It was considered just a matter of time. What really set the process back was Darwin's book The Origin of Species. After that was published, there was suddenly a scientific endorsement of slavery and racism and that destroyed much of the progress that the Abolitionists had made up to that point.

What the Civil War was really fought over was State's rights, not slavery. They didn't want a strong centralized federal government, they wanted each individual state to be it's own center of power. And if you watch what's happened since the Civil War ended, you can kind of understand why the South feared a strong centralized government.

Putting the issue of slavery aside (since it wasn't what the war was fought over), you could almost say that we might be a lot better off if the South had won the war. We definitely wouldn't have this problem that we have today of a federal government that's just grasping for more and more power like a kid in a candy store.
Indeed. As I understand it, thats pretty much the truth, hard to say who was right and who was wrong. The North represented a Centralized form of Government, then South wanted a De-Centralized form of Government.

You can claim that the South started the war when they began to create a Confederate and directly oppose the North...but there are also arguments that say that the Constitution veirs more towards a group of independants, then a number of doors to the same government.

Distinct difference.

For in one, the Federal Government becomes merely a regulator of sorts needed only because there are so many independants...in the other, effectively the Federal Government RUNS the States....well in that case..why bother having States in the first place, as rather then being autonomous but united...they are actually the SAME thing. "United" implies more then one part. A Centralized Federal Government does not.

rearnakedchoke
04-22-2009, 02:19 PM
I am honestly amazed Alaska has not tried more successfully to become its own country yet.

If you've never been, you should go.
Its amazing up there, and most people have a very different way of thinking,
and way of life than the rest of us

They are like Canadians .. so bad mouth us, but Alaskans are okay? LOL

rearnakedchoke
04-22-2009, 02:20 PM
somebody has been reading "The Real Lincoln"
off topic, don't ever change that av

rockdawg21
04-22-2009, 02:30 PM
I'm not sure about the other neutral states, but Missouri would still pretty much be a neutral state if this were to occur. Mostly because there is a lot of people who live in the cities and vote liberal, so they would go with the north. The rest of the state, would go toward the south. Those tensions are still present today, as I see it in my own small community back home.

However, the majority of the number of states are still Republican states, they would side with Texas.