Well maybe thus far I am, but I think some would agree with my petition to expel Texas from the union. Everyone says why not take action? Well I have, may not be much, may not go anywhere, but it will be interesting to see how many sign.

I may be laughing, but I'm serious, if I was dictator of these United States, I'd just cut the entire southeast off, and I think a good percentage of them would be happy to go.

_________________

I lived in Texas. I have friends down there. Can't throw the barrel out due to a few bad apples.

If this is politically based, I could see Texas turning Blue in the next decade or so. Houston, Austin, and Dallas are all pretty Liberal cities and are having an effect on the political landscape. Houston elected an openly gay mayor, a rare feat for any city, and Austin is liberal and proud of its "weird" culture. Austin is a lot like Portland, OR, if Portland wore a cowboy hat.

The gerrymandering done by the GOP precludes it ever going blue, even should that side get a majority. Until they once again redistrict, Texas is red to stay. If Texas "goes blue" let them do it as an independent nation.

_________________

I lost track of the number of outright lies before I reached the fourth sentence.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

Such liberal and forward thinking of you 4life....People don't agree with you, they should just get the heck outta here. To hell with a state's rights. You don't live there, but Eff 'em if they don't agree with the way you want to live.

You do realize that a big reason for state's rights is so you can choose to live in a state that best fits your ideals, and by keeping more laws local instead of federal, each state can be shaped in the mold it's people most desire?

Nah, that concept is probably beyond your group think mentality.

I like how you conveniently ignore all the ways Texas likes to defy federal law. I also like how you ignore that so many Texans want to go. It isn't about State's rights, it's about a square peg in a round hole.

_________________

I guess when you refuse to believe or dislike the truth that makes it a lie? Not surprising from one as simple minded as you.

Explain where any lie is, and back it up please?

_________________

Exactly as I suspected. You have no clue, nor do you care what the reasoning is for State's rights. You believe that every state should be just the way of every other state.

You see, we are all square pegs in the round hole that is a nation. States have always been meant to be separate but equal. It's only the liberal agenda that wants a single mindset throughout the entire nation.

Federal laws and regulations are a necessary evil, but a state should and does have the right to make the majority of laws and regulations which they deem fit for their populace.

You don't live in Texas, so their local laws have absolutely zero affect on your life. You have no business telling them whether they should or shouldn't be a part of this nation. Just because a minority there might want to secede, by no means equates to everyone or even a majority of people wanting that to happen.

You will not be happy until all states are blue or the nations laws all come from DC and the states lose all their rights and powers under the constitution.

God I love the way YOU know what we all think. No need for any of us to post since kidhawk is the almighty omnipotent gawd-a-mighty!

I've never met someone so sure he knows what others think with less of a clue. Classic illustration why debate is impossible with you.

If you were capable of logical rational thought, you could find a lot of ways Texas has an effect on the rest of us, but you can't so you don't.

All you are capable of doing is pigeonholing folks, regardless of what they really think, and then declaring yourself the master, the one who is unbiased, the one who knows how it should be. You must shit a lot being so full of it!

_________________

Great idea. Let's kick out the state responsible for the second largest contribution to GDP (behind only California). That ought to end well.

I have a better idea... Rather than trying to pigeonhole entire states into accepting your ideals, why not celebrate the fact that we're allowed to have different ideals, and you have the freedom to choose in which of the 50 states you wish to live?

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

Yeah, because the right to pollute ought never be infringed on! The right to arrest feds for enforcing federal law, well that's as basic as the right to the pursuit of happiness! The right to piss all over the whole separation of church and state, well that too should be celebrated, and that whole nonsense about Texans wanting to secede, well it's a damn liberal lie!

_________________

This isn't as much about actually expelling Texas (to me anyway) as it is about saying enough is enough of Texas thumbing it's nose at the federal government, while their lips are still firmly planted on the federal treasury's teat.

_________________

I'm just going by what you are posting. If it's not correct, you can easily post a clarification. You are the one trying to rid a state because it's perceived values don't match your own. If that isn't true, then please go ahead and clarify what you do mean.

You come in here and post an opinion on something, then when someone comments against it, you start clamoring about how wrong they are, but you neglect to correct the parts you claim to be wrong. Since you made the post and I commented on what you posted, until you clarify where it's wrong of me, all I and others can so, is go off of what you have said.

You said you want Texas out of the Union (enough to create a petition). you have said that if you could, you would elminate the entire southeast portion of the country. Where exactly am I wrong here? These are states with rights to make the laws as they see fit and they are given this right under the constitution, yet you say you'd just kick them out of the union. So please, again I ask you to correct me instead of just spouting off and insinuating I don't know what I'm talking about.

This is a forum where opinions are discussed. If you don't like me discussing yours, then don't start these threads. If I am wrong in my assessment of your opinion on this topic, then please do explain where I've mistaken your comments on here.

Well... Think of it this way. SOMEONE has to produce things like benzene, gasoline, sodium hydroxide, methylamine, and myriad other toxic chemicals we depend upon for day to day life. Would you rather those things are produced in Orange, Texas, or Tacoma, Washington?

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

You mean the state that pays more in federal taxes than it receives back? That state? Hahahahahaha

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

Frankly Seahawker, I think that you have forgotten the true purpose of our Federal government. Government isn't there to give us rights, protect our children, police the world, tax us for social projects, or almost anything that the increase in its size has been doing for years. It's most important purpose is to protect the rights that every American is born with. They do not give us these rights, because you cannot give something or take something away that they are born with.

CAN the government do all of those things I mentioned? Of course, and in many cases they should, but that is not its number one purpose. We'll take the big issue right now, the second amendment and only mention a couple of the proposals by the various media and house members. Limit the number of bullets that can be in a clip of ammunition, or eliminate the sale of assault rifles in the united states. If these were writ into law by congress would the states have to enforce them? According to the Constitution no.

The 2nd amendment states that: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, the second amendment does not specifically mention hunting rifles, pistols, muskets, or anything else they could have. They very specifically states ARMS which means any weapon the military can own, a private citizen has the right to as well. Therefore, if you limit the size of clips or eliminate the sale of assault rifles, the states not only have the ability to turn away the Fed government, but it is their duty to protect their people from the Federal Government trying to enforce unconstitutional laws. Also how can a well regulated militia be formed without assault rifles nowadays? It can't.

Ok, that example is a little hot button for a lot of people so Ill make another one that I don't think people can disagree with. During hurricane Katrina, at least 2 amendment in the Bill of Rights were violated, and it could be argued that at least 4 of them were. Fema, the national guard, and local police entered the homes of law-abiding citizens without a warrant, confiscated their arms, and then sent them walking down the street during looting and riots to get to the super dome. They wen't house to house doing this. (look it up if you don't believe me) Then once in the Superdome, they held them there with locked doors and would not let them leave, despite a lack of food, water, and medical care. (many people died as a result) Also the fact that some healthy people could have walked to nearby cities and towns who had actually already been preparing to take in refugees. The state authorities who were involved, after seeing and even helping FEMA and the national guard going house to house should have stopped it right there and asked them to leave, let alone take one look at the Superdome. It was their duty to protect their citizens from any threat foreign or domestic and they failed to do so.

I don't think guns shouldn't be regulated, or that the national guard shouldn't have been on scene to help the people of New Orleans. It just isn't required to piss on the constitution to do these things. How could we actually control guns? Maybe by actually doing background checks on every one who purchases one, and then take an hour out of a police officers speed ticket writing day to go over to their house after they have purchased it, and asking where and how they are storing the gun, and who else has access to it. Take all this crazy amount of money going towards regulating and forming committee's, and all these ATF officers who are involved and spend it on mandatory education classes for gun-owners, where they are trained in how to properly respect these weapons, as well as how to safely keep it away from people who shouldn't have it. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Teaching people how to be responsible for something rather than take away their ability to be irresponsible?

Let's all celebrate diversity. As long as that diversity is manifested in a pre-authorized set of boundaries that falls within the constraints of majority thought.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

There is seriously some bat-shit crazy shit in this hizzle.

At least we live in a state that doesn't thumb its nose at federal government by creating laws that are counter to federal law! 'Cause that'd be grounds for expulsion.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.