Texas Secession resolution passes GOP committee

[Skylar]

Texas GOP votes not to put secession question on primary ballot

Its a mute point at least from the ballot perspective. Course who in the hell ASKS permission to use their constitutional right to leave? Seriously.

What 'constitutional right to leave'? The territory is held by both the US and Texas. You'd need the agreement of both for it belong only to Texas.

 

[francoHFW]

Texas GOP votes not to put secession question on primary ballot

Its a mute point at least from the ballot perspective. Course who in the hell ASKS permission to use their constitutional right to leave? Seriously.

What 'constitutional right to leave'? The territory is held by both the US and Texas. You'd need the agreement of both for it belong only to Texas.

Plus it's only the nutjob 10% in favor of any of this whackery...

 

[Dana7360]

rand paul is a republican.

So if you vote for him you're voting for a republican.

Why not vote for the libertarian candidate since you claim to be a libertarian?

Libertarians put a presidential candidate every 4 years. If you're honestly a libertarian then you would vote for that candidate.

You're not a real libertarian, you're a republican. As evidenced by your choice of candidates who is, always has been and always will be a republican.

I vote for candidates that mostly match my views, regardless of party. Gary Johnson fit that mold so I voted for him last election. I still don't know whom I am supporting this time around but it is very likely I'll go third party again.

Oh, and you don't get to decide what is or what isn't a real libertarian.

If you're a libertarian then you would vote for the libertarian candidate.

If you vote for a republican candidate then you really should choose to be an Independent.

I've been a registered Independent since 1978. I vote for the person who is closest to my views and I believe can win.

I don't claim any party then go out and support those candidates of that party while claiming to be a member of a different party.

You vote for whoever you want but your posts that I responded to clearly shows that you were a republican at one time and it was probably the bush boy who made you want to leave the party.

A lot of republicans left the party starting in 2008. They went to the libertarian and independent parties but their votes never changed. They continued to vote republican.

Just like you.

No, my posts never states, or even implies, that I was a Republican at one time. Not once. You're assigning that title to me b/c I stated I was to partial Paul. Frankly, I really don't care if you believe I am 'real libertarian' or not.

Your'e funny.

All your posts show is that you're a disgruntled republican who left the party but sill votes republican.

If you don't like claiming to be a part of the republican party then don't vote for republican candidates.

You're just another republican who doesn't want that label on them but wants to keep voting for the same people who you were disgusted with and made you want to leave the republican party.

Go for it. It's your vote and you can cast it anyway you want.

You're just lying about what party you're in.

The only person you're fooling is yourself.

I fucking love it! I've got Kosh calling me a 'far left drone' and I've got you calling me
a 'disgruntled Republican' all in same thread. Watching two blindly partisan hacks trying to pigeonhole me is quite comical. lol

I'm not a partisan hack.

I'm an Independent. Specifically a liberal. I've been an Independent since I originally registered to vote in 1978. So I have no ties to any political party. I vote for the person who most matches my views and I believe they can win. Which allows me to vote for any candidate on the ballot of my choice. Which I've voted several different parties through the years. Including libertarian presidential candidate in 1984 and for the Independent presidential candidate in 1980

I watched many republican become Independents or libertarians at the end of 2008. While they changed their title they didn't change how they voted. I believe that applies to you too.

If you're libertarian why don't you vote for the libertarian candidate?

 

[Dana7360]

A good way to get a value of roads is take what it actually cost to build it and maintain it then add a certain percentage for inflation.

Viola, you have a value put on a road.

Afraid it doesn't work like that. Let's take another example......

You have a computer. Let's say you bought it for $1200. You've had it for about seven years. You had to get a few things done to maintain it. You bought anti-virus software. You took it to the repair shop a couple times, including one time you got hit with a nasty particular virus that managed to get past your Norton or McAfee or whatever. You had to replace the cooling fan. All in all, it cost you $400 in maintenance costs. That brings you up to $1600.

One day, Comcast is in your home installing your new cable. The tech is a clumsy moron and knocks over your fish tank, which then spills water all over your computer. It's ruined. The company refuses to compensate you, so you sue. When you go to court, you say you want $1600 in compensation, with the above explanation as to why the computer is valued as such.

You won't get $1600 for your computer. Sure, you may have spend that much money on it, but that doesn't mean that is not the value of the computer at the time of the incident. You had the computer for seven years and you got seven years worth of use out of it. So the value of your loss is your purchase price minus the fair use you received. Which, after seven years worth of use is probably going to be pretty low.

Real estate has market values that can be reasonably estimated for resale purposes. The same is not the same for roads. Thus, trying to determine value of highways that were constructed before most of us were born becomes exceedingly complicated.

Sure it can work that way.

You said a value can't be put on roads.

I showed you a way to put a value on the roads.

Which is what it cost to build and maintain with adding in inflation to bring the old dollar values up to current dollar value rates.

If texas wants to leave let them. We're better off without those crazy people. I just want to make sure that any and all federally owned assets are paid for or given back to the federal government.

Most can't be given back so they need to pay us taxpayers for what they keep.

Federally owned assets? When did the US government PAY for those "Federally owned assets" that you are talking about?

It was federal tax dollars that paid to obtain or construct that infrastructure.

Every state gets federal tax dollars for federal interstate roads, for federal lands, for any military bases, for a long list of things that federal government tax dollars were used to create or obtain.

The state of texas took federal dollars so we Americans own it. Not just the people of Texas. If they want to leave the union then they should pay for what they take with them. Otherwise it's just theft.

 

[Preacher]

So we should ask permission from the very people we want to break away from? Seems our 2nd amendment does the talking for us if it needs to come to that.

there is no harm in telling them your intentions are to free of them.

Nutjob terrorists on the march! Big chickenhawk moron talk. Change the channel and get some fresh air, hater dupes. Ay caramba.

Do you sound as stupid in real life as you do online?

You're right, calling for violent revolution is a great idea for the whacky idiot RW.

So you would rather still be living under a King from England? I am sure tickets are readily available. BYE! This country was BUILT on VIOLENT REVOLUTION you fucking idiot. Jeez...liberalism truly is a fucking mental illness.

 

[rdean]

Ever notice how dirty and polluted Texas is?

 

[Preacher]

Texas GOP votes not to put secession question on primary ballot

Its a mute point at least from the ballot perspective. Course who in the hell ASKS permission to use their constitutional right to leave? Seriously.

What 'constitutional right to leave'? The territory is held by both the US and Texas. You'd need the agreement of both for it belong only to Texas.

And I am SURE the US got Englands PERMISSION to declare independence eh? Ya know people against peaceful secession sound EXACTLY like the Tyrants in England that my founding fathers fought against.

 

[Preacher]

Ever notice how dirty and polluted Texas is?

No I haven't. Now California I have. Don't like it? Good don't go there...doubt you will be missed.

 

[Skylar]

Texas GOP votes not to put secession question on primary ballot

Its a mute point at least from the ballot perspective. Course who in the hell ASKS permission to use their constitutional right to leave? Seriously.

What 'constitutional right to leave'? The territory is held by both the US and Texas. You'd need the agreement of both for it belong only to Texas.

And I am SURE the US got Englands PERMISSION to declare independence eh? Ya know people against peaceful secession sound EXACTLY like the Tyrants in England that my founding fathers fought against.

We fought a war for our independence. It wasn't allowed under English law.

The Constitution has no provision for 'secession'. The land is held by both the United States federal government and the State government. With 'concurrent jurisdiction' as James Madison called it, you'd need the approval of both sovereigns to change ownership.

This is a two way street. The US couldn't cede Texas to Mexico, for example.....without the approval of Texas. Nor could the US split Texas into multiple states without the approval of Texas. As Texas is *also* a sovereign of the territory.

For any change in territory, both sovereigns would have to approve.

Lets say that you and your wife bought a house. She decides that the house is now hers alone. Her decision would mean jack shit without your approval and ceding of your ownership of the home to her. You'd *both* need to agree for her to own the home by herself.

 

[Kondor3]

They're leaving? There goes our Beaner Buffer...

 

[Preacher]

Texas GOP votes not to put secession question on primary ballot

Its a mute point at least from the ballot perspective. Course who in the hell ASKS permission to use their constitutional right to leave? Seriously.

What 'constitutional right to leave'? The territory is held by both the US and Texas. You'd need the agreement of both for it belong only to Texas.

And I am SURE the US got Englands PERMISSION to declare independence eh? Ya know people against peaceful secession sound EXACTLY like the Tyrants in England that my founding fathers fought against.

We fought a war for our independence. It wasn't allowed under English law.

The Constitution has no provision for 'secession'. The land is held by both the United States federal government and the State government. With 'concurrent jurisdiction' as James Madison called it, you'd need the approval of both sovereigns to change ownership.

This is a two way street. The US couldn't cede Texas to Mexico, for example.....without the approval of Texas. Nor could the US split Texas into multiple states without the approval of Texas. As Texas is *also* a sovereign of the territory.

For any change in territory, both sovereigns would have to approve.

Lets say that you and your wife bought a house. She decides that the house is now hers alone. Her decision would mean jack shit without your approval and ceding of your ownership of the home to her. You'd *both* need to agree for her to own the home by herself.

And divorce is when one has decided they have had enough bullshit. Permission from the other is NOT needed. I am sure you catch my drift.

 

[Skylar]

Texas GOP votes not to put secession question on primary ballot

Its a mute point at least from the ballot perspective. Course who in the hell ASKS permission to use their constitutional right to leave? Seriously.

What 'constitutional right to leave'? The territory is held by both the US and Texas. You'd need the agreement of both for it belong only to Texas.

And I am SURE the US got Englands PERMISSION to declare independence eh? Ya know people against peaceful secession sound EXACTLY like the Tyrants in England that my founding fathers fought against.

We fought a war for our independence. It wasn't allowed under English law.

The Constitution has no provision for 'secession'. The land is held by both the United States federal government and the State government. With 'concurrent jurisdiction' as James Madison called it, you'd need the approval of both sovereigns to change ownership.

This is a two way street. The US couldn't cede Texas to Mexico, for example.....without the approval of Texas. Nor could the US split Texas into multiple states without the approval of Texas. As Texas is *also* a sovereign of the territory.

For any change in territory, both sovereigns would have to approve.

Lets say that you and your wife bought a house. She decides that the house is now hers alone. Her decision would mean jack shit without your approval and ceding of your ownership of the home to her. You'd *both* need to agree for her to own the home by herself.

And divorce is when one has decided they have had enough bullshit. Permission from the other is NOT needed. I am sure you catch my drift.

There's no overriding authority adjudicating the 'divorce' in your secession scenario. Its not like Texas would be appealing to the UN and letting the Hague decide.

Second, there's the property. If you decide to 'divorce' your wife you don't unilaterally get to declare that all the property you own together is now yours alone.

Texas is US territory. By what authority would Texas unilaterally decide that the US must cede its own territory? The US would definitely get a say its own territorial boundaries.

 

[bodecea]

So then you are against the secessionists?

you missed my point, the secessionists have already seceded. they are the democrats and the Obama administration.

Lol. You don't get to just change the meaning of words.

The secessionists are those looking to abandon the constitution and the united states. They are the ones pushing it in texas.

Are you against them?

the Texas people that you mention are not secessionists, they are patriotic americans that want the constitution to be followed. The liberals in DC have abandoned the constitution-------------------they have already seceded.

Is that too complicated for your thought processes?

Given the ignorance and stupidity of this post, you're in no position to question others' 'thought processes.'

But try to process this:

Residents of Texas are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of Texas subordinate to that, where their citizenship is immune from attack by the state – this is why it is un-Constitutional for a state to 'secede' absent the consent of the other 49 states (see Texas v. White).

For you and most others on the right this nonsense about 'secession' is nothing more than a partisan temper-tantrum because you lost the last two General Elections.

since America is about freedom from govt there is no reason on earth why Texas should be forced to stay in a union against its will.

I agree...particularly in Texas' case. They want to go....we want them to go. A win/win.

 

[bodecea]

Texas GOP votes not to put secession question on primary ballot

Its a mute point at least from the ballot perspective. Course who in the hell ASKS permission to use their constitutional right to leave? Seriously.

What 'constitutional right to leave'? The territory is held by both the US and Texas. You'd need the agreement of both for it belong only to Texas.

And I am SURE the US got Englands PERMISSION to declare independence eh? Ya know people against peaceful secession sound EXACTLY like the Tyrants in England that my founding fathers fought against.

We fought a war for our independence. It wasn't allowed under English law.

The Constitution has no provision for 'secession'. The land is held by both the United States federal government and the State government. With 'concurrent jurisdiction' as James Madison called it, you'd need the approval of both sovereigns to change ownership.

This is a two way street. The US couldn't cede Texas to Mexico, for example.....without the approval of Texas. Nor could the US split Texas into multiple states without the approval of Texas. As Texas is *also* a sovereign of the territory.

For any change in territory, both sovereigns would have to approve.

Lets say that you and your wife bought a house. She decides that the house is now hers alone. Her decision would mean jack shit without your approval and ceding of your ownership of the home to her. You'd *both* need to agree for her to own the home by herself.

And divorce is when one has decided they have had enough bullshit. Permission from the other is NOT needed. I am sure you catch my drift.

There's no overriding authority adjudicating the 'divorce' in your secession scenario. Its not like Texas would be appealing to the UN and letting the Hague decide.

Second, there's the property. If you decide to 'divorce' your wife you don't unilaterally get to declare that all the property you own together is now yours alone.

Texas is US territory. By what authority would Texas unilaterally decide that the US must cede its own territory? The US would definitely get a say its own territorial boundaries.

Fun stuff....back to the Nueces vs. the Rio Grande boundary argument.

 

[Redfish]

The USA will be preserved by those states who choose to remain loyal to the constitution.

So then you are against the secessionists?

you missed my point, the secessionists have already seceded. they are the democrats and the Obama administration.

Lol. You don't get to just change the meaning of words.

The secessionists are those looking to abandon the constitution and the united states. They are the ones pushing it in texas.

Are you against them?

the Texas people that you mention are not secessionists, they are patriotic americans that want the constitution to be followed. The liberals in DC have abandoned the constitution-------------------they have already seceded.

Is that too complicated for your thought processes?

Can you explain how abandoning the constitution and splitting off into a different country makes one a patriotic american?

That's what Obama and the dems and rinos have done. Do you consider them to be patriots?

 

[Redfish]

The USA will be preserved by those states who choose to remain loyal to the constitution.

So then you are against the secessionists?

you missed my point, the secessionists have already seceded. they are the democrats and the Obama administration.

Lol. You don't get to just change the meaning of words.

The secessionists are those looking to abandon the constitution and the united states. They are the ones pushing it in texas.

Are you against them?

the Texas people that you mention are not secessionists, they are patriotic americans that want the constitution to be followed. The liberals in DC have abandoned the constitution-------------------they have already seceded.

Is that too complicated for your thought processes?

Given the ignorance and stupidity of this post, you're in no position to question others' 'thought processes.'

But try to process this:

Residents of Texas are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of Texas subordinate to that, where their citizenship is immune from attack by the state – this is why it is un-Constitutional for a state to 'secede' absent the consent of the other 49 states (see Texas v. White).

For you and most others on the right this nonsense about 'secession' is nothing more than a partisan temper-tantrum because you lost the last two General Elections.

What you dumbfucks don't get is that it doesn't matter if secession is "legal" or not. Were the founders of this nation in compliance with British law when they signed the declaration of independence? Of course not.

If a state of states decided to leave the USA, they would be saying that they no longer will be subject to US laws. Would that cause a civil war? That is the question that should be asked. Not some foolishness about whether it would be "legal" or not.

 

[bodecea]

So we should ask permission from the very people we want to break away from? Seems our 2nd amendment does the talking for us if it needs to come to that.

there is no harm in telling them your intentions are to free of them.

Nutjob terrorists on the march! Big chickenhawk moron talk. Change the channel and get some fresh air, hater dupes. Ay caramba.

Do you sound as stupid in real life as you do online?

You're right, calling for violent revolution is a great idea for the whacky idiot RW.

So you would rather still be living under a King from England? I am sure tickets are readily available. BYE! This country was BUILT on VIOLENT REVOLUTION you fucking idiot. Jeez...liberalism truly is a fucking mental illness.

Yep...you just learned the #1 lesson of History...the winners make the rules. What do you think would have happened if the British had put down our rebellion?

You didn't know this?

 

[bodecea]

So then you are against the secessionists?

you missed my point, the secessionists have already seceded. they are the democrats and the Obama administration.

Lol. You don't get to just change the meaning of words.

The secessionists are those looking to abandon the constitution and the united states. They are the ones pushing it in texas.

Are you against them?

the Texas people that you mention are not secessionists, they are patriotic americans that want the constitution to be followed. The liberals in DC have abandoned the constitution-------------------they have already seceded.

Is that too complicated for your thought processes?

Given the ignorance and stupidity of this post, you're in no position to question others' 'thought processes.'

But try to process this:

Residents of Texas are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of Texas subordinate to that, where their citizenship is immune from attack by the state – this is why it is un-Constitutional for a state to 'secede' absent the consent of the other 49 states (see Texas v. White).

For you and most others on the right this nonsense about 'secession' is nothing more than a partisan temper-tantrum because you lost the last two General Elections.

What you dumbfucks don't get is that it doesn't matter if secession is "legal" or not. Were the founders of this nation in compliance with British law when they signed the declaration of independence? Of course not.

If a state of states decided to leave the USA, they would be saying that they no longer will be subject to US laws. Would that cause a civil war? That is the question that should be asked. Not some foolishness about whether it would be "legal" or not.

Of course not...the Winners make the rules and write the history.

 

[Skylar]

So then you are against the secessionists?

you missed my point, the secessionists have already seceded. they are the democrats and the Obama administration.

Lol. You don't get to just change the meaning of words.

The secessionists are those looking to abandon the constitution and the united states. They are the ones pushing it in texas.

Are you against them?

the Texas people that you mention are not secessionists, they are patriotic americans that want the constitution to be followed. The liberals in DC have abandoned the constitution-------------------they have already seceded.

Is that too complicated for your thought processes?

Given the ignorance and stupidity of this post, you're in no position to question others' 'thought processes.'

But try to process this:

Residents of Texas are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of Texas subordinate to that, where their citizenship is immune from attack by the state – this is why it is un-Constitutional for a state to 'secede' absent the consent of the other 49 states (see Texas v. White).

For you and most others on the right this nonsense about 'secession' is nothing more than a partisan temper-tantrum because you lost the last two General Elections.

What you dumbfucks don't get is that it doesn't matter if secession is "legal" or not. Were the founders of this nation in compliance with British law when they signed the declaration of independence? Of course not.

If a state of states decided to leave the USA, they would be saying that they no longer will be subject to US laws. Would that cause a civil war? That is the question that should be asked. Not some foolishness about whether it would be "legal" or not.

That states are claiming secession *under the constitution*. The founders didn't claim independence under British law. There is no secession 'under the constitution'. At least not unilateral secession.

 

[ogibillm]

So then you are against the secessionists?

you missed my point, the secessionists have already seceded. they are the democrats and the Obama administration.

Lol. You don't get to just change the meaning of words.

The secessionists are those looking to abandon the constitution and the united states. They are the ones pushing it in texas.

Are you against them?

the Texas people that you mention are not secessionists, they are patriotic americans that want the constitution to be followed. The liberals in DC have abandoned the constitution-------------------they have already seceded.

Is that too complicated for your thought processes?

Given the ignorance and stupidity of this post, you're in no position to question others' 'thought processes.'

But try to process this:

Residents of Texas are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of Texas subordinate to that, where their citizenship is immune from attack by the state – this is why it is un-Constitutional for a state to 'secede' absent the consent of the other 49 states (see Texas v. White).

For you and most others on the right this nonsense about 'secession' is nothing more than a partisan temper-tantrum because you lost the last two General Elections.

What you dumbfucks don't get is that it doesn't matter if secession is "legal" or not. Were the founders of this nation in compliance with British law when they signed the declaration of independence? Of course not.

If a state of states decided to leave the USA, they would be saying that they no longer will be subject to US laws. Would that cause a civil war? That is the question that should be asked. Not some foolishness about whether it would be "legal" or not.

Which would mean they are abandoning the constitution and what it stands for