Federalization of the States

[Rotagilla]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

How are you oppressed?

Don't worry about that. It isn't relevant.
We WERE talking about the feasibility of breakaway states existing without dependence on the fed gvt...Remember?

You sure dropped that angle quickly, didn't you? LMAO..

I pointed out a few things that clearly made you uncomfortable and you completely abandoned your position.
Now you're trying to change the subject as a distraction. That might work on some people but not with me.

I'm not going to run in circles chasing your distractions because you got painted into a corner and can't get out.
I made my points...obviously... and your desperate attempts to evade and distract prove it.

If your mission is to utilize this section here:
Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

then I'm going to need to see a quick run down of your oppressions.

Because you will need to prove your shit by Locke which is where that comes from. See here:
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Furthermore, you will need to demonstrate that to the international community in order to be taken seriously.

No dear.. I don't dance when you pull the strings and I don't have to prove anything to you as a prerequisite.
Read it and take it at face value and you'll do a lot better.
You sure dropped the "no one can survive without the federal govt" angle, though, didn't you?

You don't have a case. If you cannot prove the usurpations and abuses through legitimate means- which is what I just gave you then you can kiss your trade good bye. You won't be considered legitimate via the international community.

Nation-states have studied US constitutional law and the constitution and John Locke.

I didn't back off anything.

You have your lawyer blinders on.
If secession were to occur, first of all, no one is going to ask the gvt for permission.
Also, many nations would be eager to help and become partners and none of them would be consulting with you or your law books to see if it were "legal". Be serious.

You don't seem to understand how the real world works.
Something like that won't be settled in courtrooms by lawyers chit chatting and shuffling papers.

..but for funsies, I believe a slick liar...oops...I mean LAWYER.... could find dozens of instances of actionable "usurpations and abuses" by the gvt.that would hold up.

LMAO..I notice you abandoned your tack of how a confederation of states couldn't survive w/out the fed gv blah...blah...and are now trying a different angle... comical.

You're the dingaling that decided to bring it up. I'm just educating you on what you are up against.

You won't make it. Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

You can try to turn it around all you like. That trick doesn't work on me.You're just creating another diversion and distraction to hide behind.
Declare "victory" or feign superiority or pretend to be above it all if you need to, but we both know you just got spanked.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I am sure that nobody in California and Texas would be in favor of leaving the union. After all, for at least 12 years in school each and every one of them pledged allegiance to the flag, including the words, "...one nation, indivisible..."

Of course, that assumes that they:
1. Understood what they were saying, and
2. Were not lying.

In the case of Texas, well, maybe yes to the later one....

 

[Disir]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

How are you oppressed?

Don't worry about that. It isn't relevant.
We WERE talking about the feasibility of breakaway states existing without dependence on the fed gvt...Remember?

You sure dropped that angle quickly, didn't you? LMAO..

I pointed out a few things that clearly made you uncomfortable and you completely abandoned your position.
Now you're trying to change the subject as a distraction. That might work on some people but not with me.

I'm not going to run in circles chasing your distractions because you got painted into a corner and can't get out.
I made my points...obviously... and your desperate attempts to evade and distract prove it.

If your mission is to utilize this section here:
Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

then I'm going to need to see a quick run down of your oppressions.

Because you will need to prove your shit by Locke which is where that comes from. See here:
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Furthermore, you will need to demonstrate that to the international community in order to be taken seriously.

No dear.. I don't dance when you pull the strings and I don't have to prove anything to you as a prerequisite.
Read it and take it at face value and you'll do a lot better.
You sure dropped the "no one can survive without the federal govt" angle, though, didn't you?

You don't have a case. If you cannot prove the usurpations and abuses through legitimate means- which is what I just gave you then you can kiss your trade good bye. You won't be considered legitimate via the international community.

Nation-states have studied US constitutional law and the constitution and John Locke.

I didn't back off anything.

You have your lawyer blinders on.
If secession were to occur, first of all, no one is going to ask the gvt for permission.
Also, many nations would be eager to help and become partners and none of them would be consulting with you or your law books to see if it were "legal". Be serious.

You don't seem to understand how the real world works.
Something like that won't be settled in courtrooms by lawyers chit chatting and shuffling papers.

..but for funsies, I believe a slick liar...oops...I mean LAWYER.... could find dozens of instances of actionable "usurpations and abuses" by the gvt.that would hold up.

LMAO..I notice you abandoned your tack of how a confederation of states couldn't survive w/out the fed gv blah...blah...and are now trying a different angle... comical.

You're the dingaling that decided to bring it up. I'm just educating you on what you are up against.

You won't make it. Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

You can try to turn it around all you like. That trick doesn't work on me.You're just creating another diversion and distraction to hide behind.
Declare "victory" or feign superiority or pretend to be above it all if you need to, but we both know you just got spanked.

You're projecting. How quaint.

 

[Rotagilla]

You're projecting. How quaint.

hahahaha...too funny..and now you completely abandon ALL your previous positions and try to change the subject and divert attention to me.

 

[RKMBrown]

And no, the North didn't rely on foreigners to fill out their ranks.

Where is fair share defined? Are you fucking kidding or what? Corporations pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about their profit?

Over 1/3 of the soldiers in the union army were non-native foreign fighters fresh off the boat.

No, not kidding. Where is fair share defined? Can you provide a link to the definition of fair share of taxes.

Most Individuals pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about you whining about corporations paying zero in taxes when corporations are merely a piece of paper describing a group of individuals, each of which already pay their taxes as individuals? Do you, or do you not understand the concept of a group?

Not much of a historian are you? Are you making a comparison with the Confederacy or merely stating a fact?

Who Fought?

Stop deflecting, and answer the questions. They are not hard questions, you can do it!

 

[RKMBrown]

Absolutely, unless the Texas constitution explicitly disallows it. That's what I would say, at any rate. However, I'm sure it could be argued. I'm not sure what mechanism a county would use to declare independence, though: counties don't have have their own legislature to pass such a resolution. I suppose they could stage a plebiscite, though again the authority to do so is open to question. A state, such as Texas, already has a complete government, more than adequate to govern themselves and determine such issues.

And what would be the advantage of breaking up the nation into bite size pieces? To make it easier for a foreign power to swallow them up?

The point was to get away from the leash of marxism extolled by communists like you.

 

[Discombobulated]

Absolutely, unless the Texas constitution explicitly disallows it. That's what I would say, at any rate. However, I'm sure it could be argued. I'm not sure what mechanism a county would use to declare independence, though: counties don't have have their own legislature to pass such a resolution. I suppose they could stage a plebiscite, though again the authority to do so is open to question. A state, such as Texas, already has a complete government, more than adequate to govern themselves and determine such issues.

And what would be the advantage of breaking up the nation into bite size pieces? To make it easier for a foreign power to swallow them up?

The point was to get away from the leash of marxism extolled by communists like you.

I had no idea they were communists.

 

[Discombobulated]

Holy shit, they sure do grow 'em stupid in Texas.

 

[Discombobulated]

And no, the North didn't rely on foreigners to fill out their ranks.

Where is fair share defined? Are you fucking kidding or what? Corporations pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about their profit?

Over 1/3 of the soldiers in the union army were non-native foreign fighters fresh off the boat.

No, not kidding. Where is fair share defined? Can you provide a link to the definition of fair share of taxes.

Most Individuals pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about you whining about corporations paying zero in taxes when corporations are merely a piece of paper describing a group of individuals, each of which already pay their taxes as individuals? Do you, or do you not understand the concept of a group?

Not much of a historian are you? Are you making a comparison with the Confederacy or merely stating a fact?

Who Fought?

Stop deflecting, and answer the questions. They are not hard questions, you can do it!

Your half wit diversions explain nothing about about the corporate tax rate, nothing at all.

 

[Youch]

The term is Balkanization. This is what the radicals want, a breakdown of the greatest social contract ever devised in human history.

Which nobody alive today is a signatory to.

Irrelevant. The law of the land is what it is, despite the progressive and anarchist desire to radically change it. What ignorant buffoonery to ignore both history and the best interests of yourself, the masses and my family.

 

[Youch]

Holy shit, they sure do grow 'em stupid in Texas.

And that advances the discussion in what way?

 

[Youch]

The term is Balkanization. This is what the radicals want, a breakdown of the greatest social contract ever devised in human history.

That "greatest social contract ever devised" ship sailed years ago.
This country is finished.

As far as balkanization, when it happens here we'll make them look like kids on a playground.

Bosnia is apparently your dream of Utopia.

Odd use of the word 'apparently.' I've not ever seen it used in such a way. Is that in some bizzaro-world dictionary?

 

[CitizenSeven]

And what would be the advantage of breaking up the nation into bite size pieces? To make it easier for a foreign power to swallow them up?

Well, first of all, it would hardly be "bite size". Texas, by itself, is larger than almost every european country. It would rank roughly in the middle of country size charts. Secondly, land size is not the best measure of a country's ability to defend itself, rather population and gdp. As I pointed out previously, the texas gdp by itself would put it in the top 30. As another poster is fond of pointing out, Texas currently has many USFG military contracts to develop and build weapon systems. Consequently, Texas military tech would be among the best in the world. Finally to the point of size and defense, what country would or could invade? Texas only borders the US and Mexico. The first would be a natural ally, much like the US and UK today. The second is not a credible threat militarily. Anybody else would require a transoceanic amphibious attack that would make Normandy look like a family beach day. No country currently has anything close to that capability, and developing it would be insanely expensive as well as relatively easily counterable by a combination of air and sea power.

Now, as to the advantage of Texas being independent, it would allow them to seek their own destiny free of the federal yolk. It's fairly obvious that the divides among the Usians are severe and irreconciable, so better for all concerned if a parting of the ways occurs orderly and peaceably. American gigantism, while a formidable military power, fails domestically.

Think of the advantages for the US: it would give the democrats unassailable control of the White House for the foreseable future, as well as the House of Reps. The Usians would have a much easier time implementing their domestic agenda without Texas. It would also remove a fair amount of the Mexican border from their concern , thus decreasing with no effort the Usian illegal immigration problem.

Everybody wins.

 

[longknife]

So sad. I thought the new software had gotten rid of this page-after-page of quote garbage.

Who can deal with a discussion with that crap?

 

[Rotagilla]

The term is Balkanization. This is what the radicals want, a breakdown of the greatest social contract ever devised in human history.

Which nobody alive today is a signatory to.

Irrelevant. The law of the land is what it is, despite the progressive and anarchist desire to radically change it. What ignorant buffoonery to ignore both history and the best interests of yourself, the masses and my family.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Declaration of Independence
1776
____________________________________________________________________________

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848

 

[Discombobulated]

The term is Balkanization. This is what the radicals want, a breakdown of the greatest social contract ever devised in human history.

That "greatest social contract ever devised" ship sailed years ago.
This country is finished.

As far as balkanization, when it happens here we'll make them look like kids on a playground.

Bosnia is apparently your dream of Utopia.

Odd use of the word 'apparently.' I've not ever seen it used in such a way. Is that in some bizzaro-world dictionary?

Tonto diction bad. You talk Kemosabe, him teach.

 

[Discombobulated]

And what would be the advantage of breaking up the nation into bite size pieces? To make it easier for a foreign power to swallow them up?

Well, first of all, it would hardly be "bite size". Texas, by itself, is larger than almost every european country. It would rank roughly in the middle of country size charts. Secondly, land size is not the best measure of a country's ability to defend itself, rather population and gdp. As I pointed out previously, the texas gdp by itself would put it in the top 30. As another poster is fond of pointing out, Texas currently has many USFG military contracts to develop and build weapon systems. Consequently, Texas military tech would be among the best in the world. Finally to the point of size and defense, what country would or could invade? Texas only borders the US and Mexico. The first would be a natural ally, much like the US and UK today. The second is not a credible threat militarily. Anybody else would require a transoceanic amphibious attack that would make Normandy look like a family beach day. No country currently has anything close to that capability, and developing it would be insanely expensive as well as relatively easily counterable by a combination of air and sea power.

Now, as to the advantage of Texas being independent, it would allow them to seek their own destiny free of the federal yolk. It's fairly obvious that the divides among the Usians are severe and irreconciable, so better for all concerned if a parting of the ways occurs orderly and peaceably. American gigantism, while a formidable military power, fails domestically.

Think of the advantages for the US: it would give the democrats unassailable control of the White House for the foreseable future, as well as the House of Reps. The Usians would have a much easier time implementing their domestic agenda without Texas. It would also remove a fair amount of the Mexican border from their concern , thus decreasing with no effort the Usian illegal immigration problem.

Everybody wins.

Why would it remain Texas? What would prevent it from breaking up into smaller pieces?

 

[Discombobulated]

I have to wonder about people who's concept of self determination comes from the back of a Tea Party pamphlet.

 

[RKMBrown]

And no, the North didn't rely on foreigners to fill out their ranks.

Where is fair share defined? Are you fucking kidding or what? Corporations pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about their profit?

Over 1/3 of the soldiers in the union army were non-native foreign fighters fresh off the boat.

No, not kidding. Where is fair share defined? Can you provide a link to the definition of fair share of taxes.

Most Individuals pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about you whining about corporations paying zero in taxes when corporations are merely a piece of paper describing a group of individuals, each of which already pay their taxes as individuals? Do you, or do you not understand the concept of a group?

Not much of a historian are you? Are you making a comparison with the Confederacy or merely stating a fact?

Who Fought?

Stop deflecting, and answer the questions. They are not hard questions, you can do it!

Your half wit diversions explain nothing about about the corporate tax rate, nothing at all.

We were talking about the fact that most corporations like most people pay practically zero in federal taxes. With regard to both corporations and people they pay near zero because they don't have taxable income. The tax rates are high for any corporations and/or people who have a decent amount of taxable income.

Face it. You are so mentally handicapped, you can't even answer easy questions that a 5 year old would understand.

 

[longknife]

So sad that so many posters have a need to hijack threads for their own narrow purposes.