Modern Day Civil War.

[Lonestar_logic]

Don't have to because the burden of proof is on you as it was on my Southern knucklehead ancestors for being so stupid in the first place.

In other words, you got nothing!

Sigh . . . you made the claim. Offer convincing evidence. Hint: you haven't.

My claim is seccession is not unconstitutional and even you should know that one cannot prove a negative.

By the way, you "sigh" like a little girl.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Government without the consent of the governed is tyranny.
Forcing states to remain in the union is akin to removing the right of people to consent or not.
Thus secession SHOULD be allowed.

However the proponents of BIG government realize they would be out of luck if states could follow the will of their people, hence they try to deny the people their right as enumerated by the 10th amendment.

 

[Zona]

Because once you secede you are no longer covered by the US Constitution

You are viewed as a Traitorous dog and treated accordingly....just like last time

Let em go. This way, Mexico can get Texas back. Kewl with me. Lets see how fast they call on the United States of America for protection then.

They were cool with spending all that money on a war based on a lie, but for us to help ourselves out is unheard of? Damn.

Sore losers.

What war was based on a lie?

And please provide proof of said lie.

The President of the United States said there were WMD's. He is he one responsible for us going to war based on that lie.

HE IS RESPONSIBLE, ACCOUNTABLE AND WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS KILLING ALL THOSE PEOPLE BASED ON A LIE. Period.

 

[Zona]

Let em go. This way, Mexico can get Texas back.

Mexico could not hold Texas in 1835, when they had a top general and veteran troops, what makes you think they could do better now when they can't even take out the drug dealers in their own country?

You are right in one thing though - the nation would be FAR better served by allowing states which decided to secede to leave peacefully than by listening to cowardly traitorous scum like Rightwinger who want ever more socialism and centralized power.

You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now? Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.

You mention someone who wants socialism and yet you are good with states seceding. Wow.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, you got nothing!

Sigh . . . you made the claim. Offer convincing evidence. Hint: you haven't.

My claim is seccession is not unconstitutional and even you should know that one cannot prove a negative.

By the way, you "sigh" like a little girl.

Some people claimed that about 150 years ago. Tried to back it up with guns. And they got the shit kicked out of them. Be silly to do a repeat of that.

 

[Cuyo]

Let em go. This way, Mexico can get Texas back.

Mexico could not hold Texas in 1835, when they had a top general and veteran troops, what makes you think they could do better now when they can't even take out the drug dealers in their own country?

You are right in one thing though - the nation would be FAR better served by allowing states which decided to secede to leave peacefully than by listening to cowardly traitorous scum like Rightwinger who want ever more socialism and centralized power.

You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now? Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.

You mention someone who wants socialism and yet you are good with states seceding. Wow.

Ya sure, they'll take down the whole damned Mexican army with their shotguns n' huntin' rifles.

You forget, if you secede, you don't get our army anymore.

I'd love it myself, looking forward to elections without 34 guaranteed electoral votes for the Party of Failing Values.

 

[Toro]

You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now? Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.

I'd still bet on Texas.

 

[saveliberty]

You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now? Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.

I'd still bet on Texas.

I wouldn't bet. I'd show up (with lots of friends in tow).

 

[rightwinger]

You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now? Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.

I'd still bet on Texas.

Mexico has 100 million people and an active Army. Texas has red neck secessionists. Mexico would kick their asses

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Mexico could not hold Texas in 1835, when they had a top general and veteran troops, what makes you think they could do better now when they can't even take out the drug dealers in their own country?

You are right in one thing though - the nation would be FAR better served by allowing states which decided to secede to leave peacefully than by listening to cowardly traitorous scum like Rightwinger who want ever more socialism and centralized power.

You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now? Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.

You mention someone who wants socialism and yet you are good with states seceding. Wow.

Ya sure, they'll take down the whole damned Mexican army with their shotguns n' huntin' rifles.

You forget, if you secede, you don't get our army anymore.

I'd love it myself, looking forward to elections without 34 guaranteed electoral votes for the Party of Failing Values.

I'm willing to bet that the state of Texas has more guns than the country of Mexico has soldiers, just let that sink in. Now with a regular army having to follow the Geneva Convention's weapon and munition restrictions would certainly hinder their capabilities of a force trying to overtake someone elses homeland by force when they're exploiting every weakness they have. Another factor to consider that would occur in this "what if" is that those hunting rifles have qualities that far exceed the capabilities that military small arms could ever compete with when properly incorporated. Ever heard of the term "turkey shoot"? This would lead to more weapons available to the Texans due to the amount of battle-field pick-ups, that is if they didn't get lost when they fell over dead in the Rio Grande in a failed invasion. Now since they are free and independent of U.S. Federal control they can now import or smuggle in foreign military grade weapons for little of nothing. Now here's another hypothetical, after Texans kick Mexico's ass 2.0, should they take Mexico City and then annex the country as part of the Texan empire or just settle for currently recognized boundaries? Historically speaking any nation that invades another and meets civilian resistance always looses. It's the reason we won WW2, the people wanted us there, the reason we lost Vietnam, some didn't want us there and the rest could give a shit less about the politics and government.

 

[saveliberty]

You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now? Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.

You mention someone who wants socialism and yet you are good with states seceding. Wow.

Ya sure, they'll take down the whole damned Mexican army with their shotguns n' huntin' rifles.

You forget, if you secede, you don't get our army anymore.

I'd love it myself, looking forward to elections without 34 guaranteed electoral votes for the Party of Failing Values.

I'm willing to bet that the state of Texas has more guns than the country of Mexico has soldiers, just let that sink in. Now with a regular army having to follow the Geneva Convention's weapon and munition restrictions would certainly hinder their capabilities of a force trying to overtake someone elses homeland by force when they're exploiting every weakness they have. Another factor to consider that would occur in this "what if" is that those hunting rifles have qualities that far exceed the capabilities that military small arms could ever compete with when properly incorporated. Ever heard of the term "turkey shoot"? This would lead to more weapons available to the Texans due to the amount of battle-field pick-ups, that is if they didn't get lost when they fell over dead in the Rio Grande in a failed invasion. Now since they are free and independent of U.S. Federal control they can now import or smuggle in foreign military grade weapons for little of nothing. Now here's another hypothetical, after Texans kick Mexico's ass 2.0, should they take Mexico City and then annex the country as part of the Texan empire or just settle for currently recognized boundaries? Historically speaking any nation that invades another and meets civilian resistance always looses. It's the reason we won WW2, the people wanted us there, the reason we lost Vietnam, some didn't want us there and the rest could give a shit less about the politics and government.

Does the Mexican Army even show up without being bribed first?

 

[JakeStarkey]

In other words, you got nothing!

Sigh . . . you made the claim. Offer convincing evidence. Hint: you haven't.

My claim is seccession is not unconstitutional and even you should know that one cannot prove a negative.

By the way, you "sigh" like a little girl.

Very good! The sigh was from my little girl, who asked, "Is the man kooky?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

In other words, you got nothing!

Sigh . . . you made the claim. Offer convincing evidence. Hint: you haven't.

My claim is seccession is not unconstitutional and even you should know that one cannot prove a negative.

By the way, you "sigh" like a little girl.

Very good! The sigh was from my little girl, who asked, "Is the man kooky?"

I told her, "No, of course not. He just likes to dress up in grey uniforms."

You made the claim; the proof is yours to provide.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Mexico has 100 million people and an active Army. Texas has red neck secessionists. Mexico would kick their asses

Texas has ~25 million, a better industrial base, and no need to mount the LOGISTICS required to enter enemy territory if they are on the defense. Mexico does not have the logistical ability to mount such a long offensive; Texas is bigger than Germany, with plenty of urban terrain to tie up attackers.
And finally Texas has a lot more veterans than many states as well as the Texas National Guard - units which are military you hapless fool.

 

[saveliberty]

Don't mess with Texas isn't just a saying bub.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Let em go. This way, Mexico can get Texas back. Kewl with me. Lets see how fast they call on the United States of America for protection then.

They were cool with spending all that money on a war based on a lie, but for us to help ourselves out is unheard of? Damn.

Sore losers.

What war was based on a lie?

And please provide proof of said lie.

The President of the United States said there were WMD's. He is he one responsible for us going to war based on that lie.

HE IS RESPONSIBLE, ACCOUNTABLE AND WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS KILLING ALL THOSE PEOPLE BASED ON A LIE. Period.

You're an idiot.

Once you understand one crucial fact, that numerous prominent Democrats with access to intelligence data also openly declared and obviously believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. We're not talking about small fry or just proponents of the war either. The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here's a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

So if Bush lied then so did all these people including the Brits and all the non-American intelligence agencies.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Sigh . . . you made the claim. Offer convincing evidence. Hint: you haven't.

My claim is seccession is not unconstitutional and even you should know that one cannot prove a negative.

By the way, you "sigh" like a little girl.

Some people claimed that about 150 years ago. Tried to back it up with guns. And they got the shit kicked out of them. Be silly to do a repeat of that.

Show me where in the constitution it states that once a states joins the union it cannot secede.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Sigh . . . you made the claim. Offer convincing evidence. Hint: you haven't.

My claim is seccession is not unconstitutional and even you should know that one cannot prove a negative.

By the way, you "sigh" like a little girl.

Very good! The sigh was from my little girl, who asked, "Is the man kooky?"

I told her, "No, of course not. He just likes to dress up in grey uniforms."

You made the claim; the proof is yours to provide.

And you an idiot and you little girl is sure to follow in Daddy's footsteps. A negative cannot be proven you stupid fuck!!

 

[Zona]

Sigh . . . you made the claim. Offer convincing evidence. Hint: you haven't.

My claim is seccession is not unconstitutional and even you should know that one cannot prove a negative.

By the way, you "sigh" like a little girl.

Some people claimed that about 150 years ago. Tried to back it up with guns. And they got the shit kicked out of them. Be silly to do a repeat of that.

The Mexican army is a little larger than it was 150 years ago duffis. You honestly think the entire country of mexico cant beat Texas if they seceded now? Are you serious?

Please Texas, secede! That would be great. America, if you hate it, leave. Good luck and see ya.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Let em go. This way, Mexico can get Texas back. Kewl with me. Lets see how fast they call on the United States of America for protection then.

They were cool with spending all that money on a war based on a lie, but for us to help ourselves out is unheard of? Damn.

Sore losers.

What war was based on a lie?

And please provide proof of said lie.

The President of the United States said there were WMD's. He is he one responsible for us going to war based on that lie.

HE IS RESPONSIBLE, ACCOUNTABLE AND WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS KILLING ALL THOSE PEOPLE BASED ON A LIE. Period.

Oh and another fact you seem to ignore is the President cannont launch a war against anyone without Congressional approval. But I assume you're too fucking retarded to understand that.

Has any one told you that you looked like Sean Hannity? Except Hannity doesn't dress up in the nazi regalia that you seem to wear so proudly.