PDA

View Full Version : Radio Host: Texas Most Likely To Secede



Agravan
07-05-2013, 09:48 AM
Radio Host: Texas Most Likely To Secede (http://www.texnat.org/political-publisher/1929-radio-host-texas-most-likely-to-secede) Dave Mundy http://www.texnat.org/images/secede-capitol.jpg With high schools around the nation preparing to hold graduation ceremonies soon, the state of Texas has laid claim to a class honorific: "Most Likely to Secede."Radio host Dennis Miller and columnist Mark Steyn gave a light-hearted nod to the idea of a breakup of the United States during a discussion on Miller's radio show Thursday, with Steyn acknowledging that the independence movement in Texas is no joke.The two were discussing what might happen if the tide of socialism washing over the United States remains the prevailing political driving force in Washington, and Miller said getting away from socialism wouldn't necessarily involve moving to Australia. He suggested instead moving to Texas, which would be "the first place to push back against it.""If I ever do flee, don't think fleeing has to involve you going over to Alice Springs or something," Miller said. "I'm going to Texas because that'll be the first place that pushes back. They're not going down the tubes with this country if this country decides to go down the tubes. I really think I'd head for Texas."Steyn, a columnist for the conservative National Review, said that Texas could well turn out to be the leader of a Soviet Union-style breakup because the independence movement there is a "serious" one."I think you're right there," Steyn said. "The idea that all 50 states are going to be content to slide off the cliff in a kind of haze and a drone of sort of soporific princess fluffy-bunny socialism is completely false. I mean, there will be — you're going to have serious secession movements if some of this stuff isn't turned around, not just in Texas."The Texas Nationalist Movement is the primary independence organization in the state and membership in the organization has exploded in recent months. County-level TNM groups are now active in more than 100 of the state's 254 counties, and leaders of the TNM are expecting even more new members once a series of broadcast and print media ads begin reaching the public. The TNM has already indicated they will again be fielding candidates for local, county and state offices in the coming election cycle.The subject of secession often reminds many Americans of the Civil War, and many progressives who otherwise spend much of their time denigrating the armed forces threaten that a move toward independence by Texas or other states would prompt another civil war. The Texas Nationalists pointedly embrace the belief that their movement is wholly political and that independence can be accomplished at the ballot box, not on the battlefield.Perhaps with that in mind, the comedian Miller offered a suggestion."It would appear at times when civil war might be inevitable," Miller replied. "Why don't we get together right now and agree to do it by paintball so nobody gets hurt. Why don't we just have a big liberal-conservative — meet at the Mississippi and have a big paintball game so we can get this figured out?" Story at the Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/steyn-warns-of-serious-secession-movements-video/

Ravi
07-05-2013, 10:34 AM
Good. That will make Dubya a foreigner and he won't be allowed in the US.

Chris
07-05-2013, 10:40 AM
Good. That will make Dubya a foreigner and he won't be allowed in the US.

Bush was born in New Haven CT, he's a Yankee.

Kabuki Joe
07-05-2013, 10:50 AM
Good. That will make Dubya a foreigner and he won't be allowed in the US.

...emotional drivel is all you have to add to any topic, regardless of what it's about...

Mainecoons
07-05-2013, 11:22 AM
Poor George. No matter how liberal he was, it isn't enough for Marie.

When we Texans secede, first thing I want to do is toss him back to the east coast where he belongs.

Germanicus
07-07-2013, 02:51 PM
It will be good for Texas but bad for America.

It isnt going to happen. Its a nice thought though.

Is Texas going to be the American Tibet? Maybe a Texan should seek asylum in China.

jillian
07-07-2013, 02:53 PM
...emotional drivel is all you have to add to any topic, regardless of what it's about...

What was emotional in what she said. Can't you even tell when you're being made fun of?

Agravan
07-07-2013, 02:54 PM
What was emotional in what she said. Can't you even tell when you're being made fun of?

Spoken by someone who is unable to recognize a joke when she sees one in the Pub.

jillian
07-07-2013, 02:56 PM
It will be good for Texas but bad for America.

It isnt going to happen. Its a nice thought though.

Is Texas going to be the American Tibet? Maybe a Texan should seek asylum in China.

Well, they can't secede. But I'm not sure why it would be bad for the country if they did.

Ravi
07-07-2013, 02:58 PM
Well, they can't secede. But I'm not sure why it would be bad for the country if they did.

I'd support giving them back to Mexico.

GrassrootsConservative
07-07-2013, 03:03 PM
I'd support giving them back to Mexico.

That would be a lot funnier if your kin didn't support people from Mexico coming here illegally all the time. What keeps them from coming back?

/Edit: Also great use of racist rhetoric, Marie.

Agravan
07-07-2013, 03:06 PM
I'd support giving them back to Mexico.
Yeah, good luck with that. We won our independence from Mexico, we can win it from you damned liberals.

jillian
07-07-2013, 03:08 PM
Poor George. No matter how liberal he was, it isn't enough for Marie.When we Texans secede, first thing I want to do is toss him back to the east coast where he belongs.Liberals never cut taxes during wartime or started two unnecessary wars.You seem confused

Ravi
07-07-2013, 03:09 PM
That would be a lot funnier if your kin didn't support people from Mexico coming here illegally all the time. What keeps them from coming back?

/Edit: Also great use of racist rhetoric, Marie.
What racist rhetoric?

Agravan
07-07-2013, 03:09 PM
Liberals never cut taxes during wartime or started two unnecessary wars.

he was all rirightwingnut love it. Own it
Liberals never saw a tax they didn't love or enemies they didn't love to appease.
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4873397378286986&pid=1.7

GrassrootsConservative
07-07-2013, 03:11 PM
What racist rhetoric?

"Back to Mexico"

Sickening Liberal racist rhetoric. I grow tired of this crap.

Agravan
07-07-2013, 03:25 PM
"Back to Mexico"

Sickening Liberal racist rhetoric. I grow tired of this crap.
well, GRC, she is a product of the progressive education system after all. She has no idea that Texas was an independent nation before joining the Union.

Kabuki Joe
07-07-2013, 04:07 PM
What was emotional in what she said. Can't you even tell when you're being made fun of?


...so she doesn't hate Bush?...well, the x-pres anyway...

patrickt
07-07-2013, 04:55 PM
Spoken by someone who is unable to recognize a joke when she sees one in the Pub.

Or in the White House.

patrickt
07-07-2013, 04:58 PM
Well, they can't secede. But I'm not sure why it would be bad for the country if they did.

No, they can't secede. The U.S. under liberal rule is like the Mafia.

Agravan
07-07-2013, 05:31 PM
Well, they can't secede. But I'm not sure why it would be bad for the country if they did.

Please enlighten us as to why Texas, or any other state, can't secede.

jillian
07-07-2013, 06:51 PM
Please enlighten us as to why Texas, or any other state, can't secede.

I don't really need to waste my time "enlightening" someone who asks a silly question like that. it might help if you actually read a supreme court case at least once i your life.... you know, before you snipe at people who actually have.

now, once again... read and learn...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

roadmaster
07-07-2013, 06:54 PM
Please enlighten us as to why Texas, or any other state, can't secede. They thought the same when the civil war started. Yes we can secede.

jillian
07-07-2013, 07:17 PM
They thought the same when the civil war started. Yes we can secede.

how'd that work out for y'all last time?

:rolleyes:

Agravan
07-07-2013, 07:50 PM
how'd that work out for y'all last time?

:rolleyes:
How do you think it will work out this time?
The last time the North had the majority of manufacturing and armaments. This time WE do. Do you think that the majority of the Armed Forces, having been drawn from a majority of Southern States, would fire on Texans? Do you think that we would willingly let the US take the weapons stored on Texas soil, or do you not think we would confiscate them?
Think about what you are saying before you summarily dismiss the notion that we could or would secede. Do you think the Egyptian military was swayed by Morsi? The US was also told by England that we could not be independent, how di that work out?
You people keep pushing, you might just be surprised at how hard we can push back.

Agravan
07-07-2013, 07:51 PM
I don't really need to waste my time "enlightening" someone who asks a silly question like that. it might help if you actually read a supreme court case at least once i your life.... you know, before you snipe at people who actually have.

now, once again... read and learn...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

A decision by the SC during a time of war. Really? Did it stop the original secession?

jillian
07-07-2013, 07:52 PM
How do you think it will work out this time?
The last time the North had the majority of manufacturing and armaments. This time WE do. Do you think that the majority of the Armed Forces, having been drawn from a majority of Southern States, would fire on Texans? Do you think that we would willingly let the US take the weapons stored on Texas soil, or do you not think we would confiscate them?
Think about what you are saying before you summarily dismiss the notion that we could or would secede. Do you think the Egyptian military was swayed by Morsi? The US was also told by England that we could not be independent, how di that work out?
You people keep pushing, you might just be surprised at how hard we can push back.

poor baby. it would work out the same way. but i can't help it if you hate losing elections so are tossing a giant temper tantrum.

seems you hate this country. maybe you should find a nice safe theocracy to live in where you can play with guns all day.... and keep your kids uneducated....

but please, please, tell us again how "patriotic" the rightwingnuts are.

:cuckoo:

jillian
07-07-2013, 07:55 PM
personally, i'm not sure lincoln did us any favors taking the teasonous south back into the union.

Mr Happy
07-07-2013, 08:03 PM
Yeah, good luck with that. We won our independence from Mexico, we can win it from you damned liberals.

And why did you become part of the Union again? Why didn't you stay indepedent? hhhmmmm I wonder....

Private Pickle
07-07-2013, 08:04 PM
personally, i'm not sure lincoln did us any favors taking the teasonous south back into the union.

Well obviously you are ignoring the economic, social, geopolitical and overall global impact the UNITED States has had since 1865.

Mr Happy
07-07-2013, 08:14 PM
"Back to Mexico"

Sickening Liberal racist rhetoric. I grow tired of this crap.

Can't tell on messageboards because you type words and can't hear the inflection as they're being delivered. I assume the above is you being sarcastic?

jillian
07-07-2013, 08:55 PM
"Back to Mexico"

Sickening Liberal racist rhetoric. I grow tired of this crap.

er... there wasn't anything racist in there. it was a reference to the fact that parts of texas used to be part of mexico. i'm afraid i'm not seeing how an historical reference is 'racist'.

Mr Happy
07-07-2013, 09:18 PM
er... there wasn't anything racist in there. it was a reference to the fact that parts of texas used to be part of mexico. i'm afraid i'm not seeing how an historical reference is 'racist'.

Says more about the mindset of the person making the comment IMO.

jillian
07-07-2013, 09:20 PM
Says more about the mindset of the person making the comment IMO.

seems so. i was kind of surprised by that one because it's the last thing that would have come to mind.

Mainecoons
07-07-2013, 09:23 PM
Actually, Mexico would love to have it back since it alone is the 10th largest economy in the world. And running circles around all those leftist paradises like California.

Dr. Who
07-07-2013, 10:06 PM
Actually, Mexico would love to have it back since it alone is the 10th largest economy in the world. And running circles around all those leftist paradises like California.Yes the 10th largest economy, but it has some issues:
Why aren’t the leaders in our state working on the REAL problems that exist in Texas?

Texas ranks first in executions.
Texas ranks first in the number of uninsured.
Texas ranks second in food insecurity.
Texas ranks last in mental health expenditures.
Texas was labeled by the Annie E. Casey Foundation as “the worst state in America to be a child.”
Texas is 47th in tax expenditures that directly benefit their citizens.
Texas ranks last in the percent of population that has a high school diploma.
Texas ranks last in Workers’ compensation coverage.
Texas ranks 4th in the percentage of children living in poverty.
Texas ranks 2nd in the number of children enrolled in public schools.
Texas ranks 2nd in overall birth rate.
Texas ranks 49th in the number of poor people covered by Medicaid.
Texas ranks 48th in the number of people covered by employer-based health insurance.
Texas ranks 49th in per capita spending on Medicaid.
Texas ranks last in the percentage of non-elderly women with health insurance.
Texas ranks last in the percentage of women receiving prenatal care in the first trimester.
Texas ranks 49th in the average credit score of Americans.
Texas ranks 1st in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
Texas ranks 1st in the amount of toxic chemicals released into water.
Texas ranks 1st in the amount of hazardous waste generated.
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/carol-morgan/2012-11-17/20-real-problems-texas-vstea-party-fantasies#.UdosBF1zaM8

roadmaster
07-07-2013, 11:02 PM
A decision by the SC during a time of war. Really? Did it stop the original secession?

With the north putting a 80% tax on southerners back then and trying to force them into bankruptcy the south fought back. One of the bloodiest battles ever. If we had what we have now it would have looked like the US in Iraq. :grin:

Mr Happy
07-07-2013, 11:12 PM
Yes the 10th largest economy, but it has some issues:
Why aren’t the leaders in our state working on the REAL problems that exist in Texas?

Texas ranks first in executions.
Texas ranks first in the number of uninsured.
Texas ranks second in food insecurity.
Texas ranks last in mental health expenditures.
Texas was labeled by the Annie E. Casey Foundation as “the worst state in America to be a child.”
Texas is 47th in tax expenditures that directly benefit their citizens.
Texas ranks last in the percent of population that has a high school diploma.
Texas ranks last in Workers’ compensation coverage.
Texas ranks 4th in the percentage of children living in poverty.
Texas ranks 2nd in the number of children enrolled in public schools.
Texas ranks 2nd in overall birth rate.
Texas ranks 49th in the number of poor people covered by Medicaid.
Texas ranks 48th in the number of people covered by employer-based health insurance.
Texas ranks 49th in per capita spending on Medicaid.
Texas ranks last in the percentage of non-elderly women with health insurance.
Texas ranks last in the percentage of women receiving prenatal care in the first trimester.
Texas ranks 49th in the average credit score of Americans.
Texas ranks 1st in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
Texas ranks 1st in the amount of toxic chemicals released into water.
Texas ranks 1st in the amount of hazardous waste generated.
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/carol-morgan/2012-11-17/20-real-problems-texas-vstea-party-fantasies#.UdosBF1zaM8



None of the above surprises me. This is a state that elected George Bush Jnr as governor and Rick Perry, too. What do you expect from a state that elects people like that?

Kabuki Joe
07-07-2013, 11:24 PM
None of the above surprises me. This is a state that elected George Bush Jnr as governor and Rick Perry, too. What do you expect from a state that elects people like that?

...don't forget businesses from all over the US are flocking there too...

Mr Happy
07-07-2013, 11:29 PM
...don't forget businesses from all over the US are flocking there too...

Course they are.....

Kabuki Joe
07-07-2013, 11:38 PM
Course they are.....


...fist off, when someone lies all the time, they assume everyone lies all the time, secondly California in particular has lost quite a few businesses to Texas whether you want to believe it or not, hence my first statement...

jillian
07-07-2013, 11:39 PM
...don't forget businesses from all over the US are flocking there too...

riiiiight.... because if corporations can exploit workers without worrying about nasty old wage and hour laws and big bad unions that's a good thing...

especially to people like you who vote against their self-interest.

Mr Happy
07-07-2013, 11:41 PM
...fist off, when someone lies all the time, they assume everyone lies all the time, secondly California in particular has lost quite a few businesses to Texas whether you want to believe it or not, hence my first statement...

Who is lying all the time. If businesses are flocking to Texas as you say, then it is probably because of the reasons Dr Who listed. You think that a good thing (see Jillian's post #42).

Kabuki Joe
07-07-2013, 11:43 PM
riiiiight.... because if corporations can exploit workers without worrying about nasty old wage and hour laws and big bad unions that's a good thing...

especially to people like you who vote against their self-interest.

...do you read this crap before you post it?...you obviously have no clue how business is run, if you did you'd know that if a business needs employees it needs to pay them the prevailing wage and treat them well...or do you think businesses still use slaves?...you really make my head hurt...

Kabuki Joe
07-07-2013, 11:45 PM
Who is lying all the time. If businesses are flocking to Texas as you say, then it is probably because of the reasons Dr Who listed. You think that a good thing (see Jillian's post #42).


...see my post to the other member of the "Clueless Club"...

jillian
07-07-2013, 11:46 PM
...do you read this crap before you post it?...you obviously have no clue how business is run, if you did you'd know that if a business needs employees it needs to pay them the prevailing wage and treat them well...or do you think businesses still use slaves?...you really make my head hurt...

s'matter, snooks? i hit a nerve? you clearly aren't in the 1%. you clearly aren't a master of the universe. you support policies that drive down wages and increase the ability of corporations to take advantage of low cost labor.

now try actually supporting a family on $7 an hour.

and please tell me how if you don't like it you can start your own business....

with no capital... lmao

p.s. snooks. you're the one who posts garbage. you simply ignored all of the points raised by dr who in favor of one: that is corporations flock there to avoid regulation and pay low wages (as if that's a positive).

now how stupid is that?

roadmaster
07-07-2013, 11:52 PM
Only if the left opens the flood gates and allows workers who will work for those low wages. Now that is dumb.

Agravan
07-07-2013, 11:54 PM
poor baby. it would work out the same way. but i can't help it if you hate losing elections so are tossing a giant temper tantrum.

seems you hate this country. maybe you should find a nice safe theocracy to live in where you can play with guns all day.... and keep your kids uneducated....

but please, please, tell us again how "patriotic" the rightwingnuts are.

:cuckoo:

Look, moron, if you are too stupid to realize that things would turn out differently, then I feel for you. Not much, but about the same as I would a rabbit about to get swooped up by an eagle. Keep on living in your little fantasy world where everything is contemplated because of a lost election. It's not the election, dimwit, it's the policies you and other idiots like you advocate. I don't hate my country. But what you people are turning it into is nowhere near the same country I took an oath to defend.
How stupid do you have to be to equate what we're fighting for to wanting to live in a theocracy? And your obvious fear of guns is so damned pathetic, you whining little cowardess. As for our kids, I would put them up against yours any day. At least my children are learning skills that will make them self-sufficient and not subject to the government dole and idiots like you.

MORON

Agravan
07-07-2013, 11:58 PM
s'matter, snooks? i hit a nerve? you clearly aren't in the 1%. you clearly aren't a master of the universe. you support policies that drive down wages and increase the ability of corporations to take advantage of low cost labor.

now try actually supporting a family on $7 an hour.

and please tell me how if you don't like it you can start your own business....

with no capital... lmao

p.s. snooks. you're the one who posts garbage. you simply ignored all of the points raised by dr who in favor of one: that is corporations flock there to avoid regulation and pay low wages (as if that's a positive).

now how stupid is that?

I didn't think it possible, but each post you make highlights your stupidity more and more. You
are dumber than a box of rocks, jillian.

Kabuki Joe
07-08-2013, 12:03 AM
s'matter, snooks? i hit a nerve? you clearly aren't in the 1%. you clearly aren't a master of the universe. you support policies that drive down wages and increase the ability of corporations to take advantage of low cost labor.

now try actually supporting a family on $7 an hour.

and please tell me how if you don't like it you can start your own business....

with no capital... lmao

p.s. snooks. you're the one who posts garbage. you simply ignored all of the points raised by dr who in favor of one: that is corporations flock there to avoid regulation and pay low wages (as if that's a positive).

now how stupid is that?


...snooks?...how quaint...I can tell you are still in school and you haven't graduated from walmart...hey, we all start somewhere...if you are making $7/hr and trying to raise a family you are a failure to yourself and your family...$7/hr is an entry lvl wage for someone going to school and working in fast food or walmart...and how did you go from raising a family on $7/hr to starting your own business?...personally, from reading your posts I don't think you need to worry about getting a $7/hr position, you couldn't even pass an employment test for one, DENIED!!!!!...LOLOL...

Ravi
07-08-2013, 04:17 AM
"Back to Mexico"

Sickening Liberal racist rhetoric. I grow tired of this crap.
Part of TexAss once belonged to Mexico. Not seeing how that is racist. Somehow you and Ag think it is....interesting.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 04:26 AM
Actually, Mexico would love to have it back since it alone is the 10th largest economy in the world. And running circles around all those leftist paradises like California.
Good point. Texas could stop being a cargo point for the US and instead import and export for Mexico. Of course their NASA bases and military bases will have to go as the US wouldn't be doing those activities in a foreign country. American Airlines would more than likely relocate their hub since they are an American company. Texas won't have to worry about border security anymore being part of Mexico. The more I think of it the more of a win/win situation it appears.

jillian
07-08-2013, 05:32 AM
...snooks?...how quaint...I can tell you are still in school and you haven't graduated from walmart...hey, we all start somewhere...\.

if that's what you think, little boy, you're far stupider than even your posts indicate.

but i kind of like the 'i know you are, but what am i' nature of your little response (and i l use the term loosely, of course).

junie
07-08-2013, 05:38 AM
what's that old saying...all hat, no cattle...? lol





The federal stimulus program that many experts agree kept the U.S. economy running in the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis was especially valuable to Texas, which accepted more aid dollars than any other state apart from California, using them to close nearly 97 percent of its budget deficit last year.


But according to a new fundraising letter (https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/cagw.pdf&chrome=true) from Gov. Rick Perry (R), a likely presidential contender, he thinks the stimulus “failed.”


But that so-called failure is what let Perry and Texas Republicans balance the state’s budget in 2009 and 2010, kept tens of thousands employed (http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/stimulus-funds-make-perrys-pitch-easier-932653.html) and ensured that hundreds of thousands continued to receive health benefits. Overall, $28.5 billion in federal assistance was sent to Texas, and officials used it to keep schools open, put more people to work on infrastructure projects and ensure children still received needed health care, among other things (http://www.window.state.tx.us/recovery/transparency/map/index.php) — all in spite of Perry’s posturing against such measures (http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/23/news/economy/texas_perry_budget_stimulus/index.htm).



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/10/perry-claims-stimulus-failed-neglecting-to-note-its-usefulness-to-texas/

Ravi
07-08-2013, 05:47 AM
what's that old saying...all hat, no cattle...? lol
Nice! Look at all the money the USA would save without TexAss draining the coffers.

jillian
07-08-2013, 05:49 AM
what's that old saying...all hat, no cattle...? lol

yep.... and that's reflective of the list data that dr who posted.... you know, the stuff the wackadoodles keep not responding to.

junie
07-08-2013, 05:59 AM
yep.... and that's reflective of the list data that dr who posted.... you know, the stuff the wackadoodles keep not responding to.


lol which of course MUST mean jillian never graduated from walmart! lol what does that even mean?


i just went back to see dr who's post and i especially liked number 17:

"17. Texas ranks 49th in the average credit score of Americans."


:laughing4:

Peter1469
07-08-2013, 06:03 AM
what is the average credit score?

junie
07-08-2013, 06:11 AM
what is the average credit score?




Definition of 'Credit Score' A statistically derived numeric expression of a person's creditworthiness that is used by lenders to access the likelihood that a person will repay his or her debts. A credit score is based on, among other things, a person's past credit history. It is a number between 300 and 850 - the higher the number, the more creditworthy the person is deemed to be.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/credit_score.asp

it means most people from texas don't know diddly about how to handle their finances...

junie
07-08-2013, 06:16 AM
lol see also numbers twelve and fourteen...

12. Texas ranks 49th in the number of poor people covered by Medicaid.

14. Texas ranks 49th in per capita spending on Medicaid.

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 06:17 AM
it means most people from texas don't know diddly about how to handle their finances...

Have you been paying any attention to the Obama administration?

If you think Texas is bad you really ought to see our national debt.

junie
07-08-2013, 06:20 AM
Good point. Texas could stop being a cargo point for the US and instead import and export for Mexico. Of course their NASA bases and military bases will have to go as the US wouldn't be doing those activities in a foreign country. American Airlines would more than likely relocate their hub since they are an American company. Texas won't have to worry about border security anymore being part of Mexico. The more I think of it the more of a win/win situation it appears.


lol we'd end up having to stop texans from coming over the border! :lmao:

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 06:20 AM
Part of TexAss once belonged to Mexico. Not seeing how that is racist. Somehow you and Ag think it is....interesting.

It's racist because telling someone who is from a place to go back to that place is a highly-used racist phrase. You haven't heard of the one most used against blacks? "Go back to Africa"?

"Go back to Mexico" for someone from Mexico is no different.

You're using racist rhetoric, Marie_Archer and I will not let it go unnoticed. You will be thrown under the bus for it like any Conservative would be thrown under the bus for it.


You Libs are going to start being held accountable for the things you say.

junie
07-08-2013, 06:22 AM
^ hey, go back to sleep, eh? lol :rofl:

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 06:25 AM
Thanks junie, for that substance-filled post.

No, seriously, if you want to post anything worth posting, feel free.

I'd be all for it.

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 06:27 AM
I'd support giving them back to Mexico.

Here, I'll make it REALLY simple since you can't grasp this concept.

What if I said to an African-American that I supported giving them back to Africa?

Does that shed light on the seriousness of your comment?

strollingbonez
07-08-2013, 06:52 AM
let texas est their own currency, army etc and then we can talk. all this talk of this and that and what really gets done?

jillian
07-08-2013, 07:05 AM
It's racist because telling someone who is from a place to go back to that place is a highly-used racist phrase. You haven't heard of the one most used against blacks? "Go back to Africa"?

"Go back to Mexico" for someone from Mexico is no different.

You're using racist rhetoric, @Marie_Archer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) and I will not let it go unnoticed. You will be thrown under the bus for it like any Conservative would be thrown under the bus for it.


You Libs are going to start being held accountable for the things you say.

she didn't tell texans to "go back to mexico". the said that texas itself should go back. there's a difference.

nothing racist in her post.

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 07:14 AM
she didn't tell texans to "go back to mexico". the said that texas itself should go back. there's a difference.

nothing racist in her post.

She said she would support "giving them back to Mexico."

Have you even read the post in question?

Didn't even mention "Texas" at all like you are saying, just "them."

Mainecoons
07-08-2013, 07:15 AM
I agree, that is stretching "racist" like a liberal. How do you like it when the shoe is on the other foot, Jillian?

What I enjoy is how the lefties love to hate Texas because it makes such a lie of their ideas. Twice as much poverty in liberal land CA. :grin:

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 07:18 AM
I agree, that is stretching "racist" like a liberal. How do you like it when the shoe is on the other foot, Jillian?

What I enjoy is how the lefties love to hate Texas because it makes such a lie of their ideas. Twice as much poverty in liberal land CA. :grin:

Read post #66.

jillian
07-08-2013, 07:18 AM
I agree, that is stretching "racist" like a liberal. How do you like it when the shoe is on the other foot, Jillian?

What I enjoy is how the lefties love to hate Texas because it makes such a lie of their ideas. Twice as much poverty in liberal land CA. :grin:

see, you say reasonable things sometimes and then you do the whole rightwing distortion thing.

it is not racist to say when people are racist.

there are people who get too het up about certain things. that is always true. but the kings of fauxrage are still on the right.

actually, i don't think anyone 'hates' texas.

and the stats posted by dr who show that texas is a failure... and costs us a fortune in federal tax money...

unless of course, you're already in the top 1% or have it in your bizarre imagination that someone is opposed to you celebrating christmas.

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 07:24 AM
and the stats posted by dr who show that texas is a failure... and costs us a fortune in federal tax money...

........ Seriously? You're a Lib and you think Texas is costing us federal tax money? Have you looked at the Obama administration and their spending?

I don't understand how you can be so hypocritical. It doesn't make any sense to me and it's very frustrating to have a Lib pretend to care about taxes dollars.

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 07:31 AM
The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009



Let me know when Texas wastes almost $800 Billion on garbage.

Mainecoons
07-08-2013, 07:34 AM
Naw GC, I think this is just an example of Marie's sloppy thinking and writing and jealousy over the success of Texas.

:grin:

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 07:37 AM
Naw GC, I think this is just an example of Marie's sloppy thinking and writing and jealousy over the success of Texas.

:grin:

So it wouldn't be racist for me to say I support giving African-Americans back to Africa?

Mainecoons
07-08-2013, 07:41 AM
Of course it would be. Everything you post is racist, silly.

To be exact, she said give "them" back to Mexico.

Like I said, sloppy thinking and even more sloppy posting. Don't dignify it and her with taking it seriously.

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 07:43 AM
To be exact, she said give "them" back to Mexico.


So if we were having a discussion about Detroit or Chicago and I said I supported giving them back to Africa, that wouldn't be racist?

Mainecoons
07-08-2013, 07:50 AM
Yes, because they never were part of Africa. Texas was part of Mexico. And BTW, they do want it back and the entire SW along with it.

Much ado about nothing here, GC.

patrickt
07-08-2013, 07:52 AM
I think Mexico was offered southern California and turned it down.

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 07:56 AM
I think Mexico was offered southern California and turned it down.

If Mexico had wanted them they would have tried to keep them there.

Mainecoons
07-08-2013, 07:56 AM
That was then, this is now. CA is more than half Hispanic. They already have it, basically.

In the larger sense, the reality is that the people who abort their children are going to lose out to the people who don't.

Numbers matter. Whites have been killing and preventing their children for quite a while now. Hispanics keep having them. Guess who wins in the end?

Cigar
07-08-2013, 08:42 AM
Quit getting everyone excited and just leave already. :laugh:

Ravi
07-08-2013, 09:05 AM
It's racist because telling someone who is from a place to go back to that place is a highly-used racist phrase. You haven't heard of the one most used against blacks? "Go back to Africa"?

"Go back to Mexico" for someone from Mexico is no different.

You're using racist rhetoric, @Marie_Archer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) and I will not let it go unnoticed. You will be thrown under the bus for it like any Conservative would be thrown under the bus for it.


You Libs are going to start being held accountable for the things you say.

How ridiculous you are. In the immortal words of Archie Bunker, whoop-tee-do! There's nothing racist about letting a state go back to a country it used to belong to. You might want to get your PC meter tuned up.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 09:06 AM
Here, I'll make it REALLY simple since you can't grasp this concept.

What if I said to an African-American that I supported giving them back to Africa?

Does that shed light on the seriousness of your comment?
No, but keep up the fauxrage as it is very amusing.

Cigar
07-08-2013, 09:08 AM
No, but keep up the fauxrage as it is very amusing.

I'd pay to see him do that ... in person of course. :grin:

Ravi
07-08-2013, 09:21 AM
I'd pay to see him do that ... in person of course. :grin:
It's funny he seems to believe that all Texans are Mexicans anyway....my Texas cousins could set him straight if he wasn't hiding in a cave somewhere.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 09:52 AM
How ridiculous you are. In the immortal words of Archie Bunker, whoop-tee-do! There's nothing racist about letting a state go back to a country it used to belong to. You might want to get your PC meter tuned up.
I see you still fail to understand that Texas was an independent nation before joining the US, so a return to it's previous status would mean a return to being free, not being part of Mexico. Do you even understand this or are you just too stupid to get it?

Chloe
07-08-2013, 09:54 AM
Every once in a while you will read or hear about groups over here wanting to form a new pacific northwest type of country but obviously it's all just fantasy at the end of the day. While I think that the central government is too big and too intrusive and more communities should have more say really it would just be irresponsible to fully separate from the US unless you were the one state that was already fully independent, but none really are. It would be kind of cool to have your state be like an actual country but having to use a passport to drive south to california or north to washington would be a pain I think :)

jillian
07-08-2013, 09:57 AM
lol which of course MUST mean jillian never graduated from walmart! lol what does that even mean?


i just went back to see dr who's post and i especially liked number 17:

"17. Texas ranks 49th in the average credit score of Americans."


:laughing4:

lol.. buncha deadbeats

Ravi
07-08-2013, 09:59 AM
I see you still fail to understand that Texas was an independent nation before joining the US, so a return to it's previous status would mean a return to being free, not being part of Mexico. Do you even understand this or are you just too stupid to get it?
You don't seem to know your own history very well.

Chloe
07-08-2013, 10:04 AM
I see you still fail to understand that Texas was an independent nation before joining the US, so a return to it's previous status would mean a return to being free, not being part of Mexico. Do you even understand this or are you just too stupid to get it?

I've heard before that Texas was a country at one time but it had to join the US for a reason I would think. If it couldn't make it when economies were simpler and life was simpler I don't see it making a second time when everything is soooo connected.

jillian
07-08-2013, 10:08 AM
I see you still fail to understand that Texas was an independent nation before joining the US, so a return to it's previous status would mean a return to being free, not being part of Mexico. Do you even understand this or are you just too stupid to get it?

Did you ever study anything?

Mexico gave the land grant to Moses Austin

Austin advertised for settlers

Mexico was afraid "immigrants" were going to take over Texas (which Andrew Jackson offered to buy from Mexico)

they got into hostilities... http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h41-mex.html

Texas was only "independent" from 1837 when it was recognized by the US (but not Mexico)... until 1845 when it became a state.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 10:08 AM
You don't seem to know your own history very well.

Really? Enlighten me then.
Texas won her war of Independence in 1836. From 1836 to 1845 the Republic of Texas was a sovereign nation.
In 1845 Texas joined the Union until it's secession in 1861. In 1865, after the last battle of the War of Northern Aggression, fought in Texas, the United states re-occupied and forced Texas back into the Union were we have been an occupied nation (state) ever since.

Now tell me what part of my own history I don't know. come on, you can do since you are so much better informed than everyone else.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 10:11 AM
Did you ever study anything?

Mexico gave the land grand to Moses Austin

Austin advertised for settlers

Mexico was afraid "immigrants" were going to take over Texas (which Andrew Jackson offered to buy from Mexico)

they got into hostilities... http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h41-mex.html

Texas was only "independent" from 1837 when it was recognized by the US (but not Mexico)... until 1845 when it became a state.

Your point?
How does that change anything I said?

Agravan
07-08-2013, 10:17 AM
I've heard before that Texas was a country at one time but it had to join the US for a reason I would think. If it couldn't make it when economies were simpler and life was simpler I don't see it making a second time when everything is soooo connected.
Texas joined the US for various reasons. Among them was the fact that most of the Texians were from the United States and wanted to be a part of the United States again. They also joined for economic and military reasons.
Not so much that they failed at economics, but that they were under constant threat of re-invasion from Mexico.
Texas was sparsely populated at the time and could not afford the resources, at the time, of fielding a full time army that could engage in constant warfare with Mexico.
Not of these reasons are in effect today. If Texas was independent, it would rank 10th in the global economy. And, I believe I read at one point, 3rd in military power.

patrickt
07-08-2013, 10:18 AM
Maybe Texas joined the union to avoid getting invaded. Didn't work but it would have been a legitimate motive.

Kabuki Joe
07-08-2013, 10:22 AM
I'd pay to see him do that ... in person of course. :grin:


...LOL...you're growling cigar and that's what a "cur" does...

Cigar
07-08-2013, 10:26 AM
Do you promise to take Tony Romo with you?

You'd have to leave Antony Spencer ... he's a relative.

junie
07-08-2013, 10:38 AM
Resenting the federal government is as Texan as wearing cowboy boots.

From its past life as a sovereign nation to its present status as the crucible of anti-Washington politics, the Lone Star State has independence in its DNA.



In six of the past eight years, including the entire tenure of President Barack Obama, Texans got more out of the federal Treasury than they put in.

The federal government spent about $9,000 per Texan in 2010. The state spent $2,200 — one of the lowest outlays in the country, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers.




http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120805-texas-can-no-longer-complain-that-it-gives-more-than-it-gets-from-federal-government.ece



...to span the old Texas spirit of independence and the new reality of federal largesse, Perry and other Texas politicians have refocused the vitriol on the ways the federal government spends money, rather than how much it sends into the state.

“It’s always been a campaign issue to campaign against Washington, D.C., and federal intrusion, regardless of what the numbers really say,” said Todd M. Smith, a GOP strategist who works with candidates for the Legislature and Congress.


One longtime lawmaker, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington, said he is satisfied that Texas now receives a fair share of federal spending. But it still gets a “bad deal,” he said, because Congress often places requirements on states to receive federal funds.


“The Texas attitude is to the largest extent possible, ‘Leave us alone; don’t mess with Texas; we want to do it for ourselves,’” Barton said. “And as the federal government becomes more mandatory and pre-emptive … [Texans] resent Washington.”


To Democrats, Republicans who keep a tight fiscal ship in Austin “hypocritically prop up the state of Texas with federal money and at the same time rail against the federal government,” said Matt Angle, a Texas Democratic strategist.


But Angle concedes that suspicion is entrenched.


“I don’t think there’s ever going to be affection in Texas for the federal government or any big institution, and that includes Democrats,” he said.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 10:40 AM
Really? Enlighten me then.
Texas won her war of Independence in 1836. From 1836 to 1845 the Republic of Texas was a sovereign nation.
In 1845 Texas joined the Union until it's secession in 1861. In 1865, after the last battle of the War of Northern Aggression, fought in Texas, the United states re-occupied and forced Texas back into the Union were we have been an occupied nation (state) ever since.

Now tell me what part of my own history I don't know. come on, you can do since you are so much better informed than everyone else.

The part where it used to belong to Mexico. Hence, we could give it back to Mexico. Then they can battle Mexico all over again for their independence. It would be so awesome :)

Ravi
07-08-2013, 10:42 AM
Texas joined the US for various reasons. Among them was the fact that most of the Texians were from the United States and wanted to be a part of the United States again. They also joined for economic and military reasons.
Not so much that they failed at economics, but that they were under constant threat of re-invasion from Mexico.
Texas was sparsely populated at the time and could not afford the resources, at the time, of fielding a full time army that could engage in constant warfare with Mexico.
Not of these reasons are in effect today. If Texas was independent, it would rank 10th in the global economy. And, I believe I read at one point, 3rd in military power.

LMAO, Texas has their own military now? You are a hoot.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 10:43 AM
The part where it used to belong to Mexico. Hence, we could give it back to Mexico. Then they can battle Mexico all over again for their independence. It would be so awesome :)

How can you be this stupid and still remember to breathe?

Ravi
07-08-2013, 10:45 AM
How can you be this stupid and still remember to breathe?
You poor thing. Viva República de Texas!

Agravan
07-08-2013, 10:47 AM
LMAO, Texas has their own military now? You are a hoot.

We have the Texas State Guard. We have Texas vets. We have Vets from other parts of the country that would definitely join Texas. We have the National Guard, most of which would be rolled up into the new Texas military forces. The equipment the US has here would definitely be confiscated as our troops would not just hand them over. And then there are all the Southerners and Texans currently serving that would rally to the cause.
Scoff all you want, it just shows that you lack the least bit of common sense, as do most of your ilk.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 10:48 AM
You poor thing. Viva República de Texas!

So, you really are that stupid. I see that now.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 10:49 AM
We have the Texas State Guard. We have Texas vets. We have Vets from other parts of the country that would definitely join Texas. We have the National Guard, most of which would be rolled up into the new Texas military forces. The equipment the US has here would definitely be confiscated as our troops would not just hand them over. And then there are all the Southerners and Texans currently serving that would rally to the cause.
Scoff all you want, it just shows that you lack the least bit of common sense, as do most of your ilk.
So you're saying Texans are a bunch of traitors that in a fit of pique would steal from a sovereign nation. Awesome, where can I send a donation?

jillian
07-08-2013, 10:51 AM
Maybe Texas joined the union to avoid getting invaded. Didn't work but it would have been a legitimate motive.

and? that doesn't change the result of white v texas

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

jillian
07-08-2013, 10:51 AM
So you're saying Texans are a bunch of traitors that in a fit of pique would steal from a sovereign nation. Awesome, where can I send a donation?

someone needs to tell him that every state has it's own guard. :rolleyes:

i think maybe texas should go if it wants to... so long as it gives back all of the federal aid it took because it's so dysfunctional.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 10:55 AM
So you're saying Texans are a bunch of traitors that in a fit of pique would steal from a sovereign nation. Awesome, where can I send a donation?

No, the traitors are the ones sitting in Congress and in the Oval Office, as well as the people like you that support them.
But, hey, here's a link where you can send a donation: http://texnat.org/

Agravan
07-08-2013, 10:57 AM
someone needs to tell him that every state has it's own guard. :rolleyes:
What, did you double up on your stupidity pills this morning?


i think maybe texas should go if it wants to... so long as it gives back all of the federal aid it took because it's so dysfunctional.

Sure, come and take it.

Chris
07-08-2013, 11:00 AM
Good point. Texas could stop being a cargo point for the US and instead import and export for Mexico. Of course their NASA bases and military bases will have to go as the US wouldn't be doing those activities in a foreign country. American Airlines would more than likely relocate their hub since they are an American company. Texas won't have to worry about border security anymore being part of Mexico. The more I think of it the more of a win/win situation it appears.

Cargo point, AA American, etc, where do you come up with this stuff, same place you got TexAss?

People compare TX with CA, the real comparison should be with the US:

http://i.snag.gy/iLCT2.jpg

Ravi
07-08-2013, 11:02 AM
someone needs to tell him that every state has it's own guard. :rolleyes:

i think maybe texas should go if it wants to... so long as it gives back all of the federal aid it took because it's so dysfunctional.

Yes! Imagine all the jobs losing TexAss would create in the US....all those port jobs in LA, CA, NY, etc. So cool! Our economy would pick right up.

KC
07-08-2013, 11:04 AM
if that's what you think, little boy, you're far stupider than even your posts indicate.

but i kind of like the 'i know you are, but what am i' nature of your little response (and i l use the term loosely, of course).

Avoid off topic post with personal attacks.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 11:07 AM
Avoid off topic post with personal attacks.
I'm guilty as well. Will stop.

Chris
07-08-2013, 11:08 AM
Yes! Imagine all the jobs losing TexAss would create in the US....all those port jobs in LA, CA, NY, etc. So cool! Our economy would pick right up.

Why then you'd have to trade with Texas. LA might gain given it borders TX, but not CA or NY.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 11:18 AM
Why then you'd have to trade with Texas. LA might gain given it borders TX, but not CA or NY.

Miami or Savannah then. Don't fool yourself, competition between US ports is stiff.

Kabuki Joe
07-08-2013, 11:20 AM
Avoid off topic post with personal attacks.

...no need to give her a warning over that...I'm not a little boy so it doesn't apply to me...

Chris
07-08-2013, 11:26 AM
Miami or Savannah then. Don't fool yourself, competition between US ports is stiff.

But you give no rational for trade moving to another port. It's competitive now, TX seceding wouldn't change that.

NASCO's been in planning for a long time now:

http://i.snag.gy/75iOu.jpg

CA and NY will be left out.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 11:28 AM
Miami or Savannah then. Don't fool yourself, competition between US ports is stiff.
The biggest advantage we'll have though, is none of the overbearing federal regulations form the bloated bureaucracies in Washington. Plus none of the damned EPA garbage laws you people are fond of passing.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 11:30 AM
But you give no rational for trade moving to another port. It's competitive now, TX seceding wouldn't change that.

NASCO's been in planning for a long time now:

http://i.snag.gy/75iOu.jpg

CA and NY will be left out.
Liberals never let facts get in the way of their emotionalism or hatred.
And the fact is, liberals HATE Texas.

junie
07-08-2013, 11:41 AM
Agravan never let facts get in the way of his emotionalism or hatred.
And the fact is, Agravan HATES liberals.


fixed that for ya! :D

Agravan
07-08-2013, 11:45 AM
fixed that for ya! :D
You're wrong, Junie. I don't hate liberals, I hate liberalism.
Liberals are just the victims, often self imposed, of the liberalism mental disorder.
Get your facts straight before you start making accusations like a typical liberal.

Chris
07-08-2013, 12:01 PM
You're wrong, Junie. I don't hate liberals, I hate liberalism.
Liberals are just the victims, often self imposed, of the liberalism mental disorder.
Get your facts straight before you start making accusations like a typical liberal.

And agravan's fixed it back, junie. He doesn't argue by means of emotionalism the way many liberals do.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 12:46 PM
But you give no rational for trade moving to another port. It's competitive now, TX seceding wouldn't change that.

NASCO's been in planning for a long time now:

http://i.snag.gy/75iOu.jpg

CA and NY will be left out.

Okie dokie, y'all just go on believing that US import exports are going to go through a foreign country. Laughable.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 12:47 PM
And agravan's fixed it back, junie. He doesn't argue by means of emotionalism the way many liberals do.

Right, that's why he's having a snit fit and wanting to leave the US.

jillian
07-08-2013, 02:12 PM
And agravan's fixed it back, junie. He doesn't argue by means of emotionalism the way many liberals do.

riiiiiiiiiiight.

:lmao:

Chris
07-08-2013, 02:13 PM
Okie dokie, y'all just go on believing that US import exports are going to go through a foreign country. Laughable.

Uh, marie, that's what already happens. Laughable is right.

Chris
07-08-2013, 02:13 PM
riiiiiiiiiiight.

:lmao:

Nice display of emotionalism, jill.

nic34
07-08-2013, 02:19 PM
Anyone that takes Dennis Miller seriously is a deluded fool.

And if liberals hate Texas, why do so many live there?

Private Pickle
07-08-2013, 02:24 PM
Anyone that takes Dennis Miller seriously is a deluded fool.

And if liberals hate Texas, why do so many live there?

Right and anyone who takes Bill Maher seriously is a deep thinker....

jillian
07-08-2013, 02:29 PM
Right and anyone who takes Bill Maher seriously is a deep thinker....

both speak to those who share a similar world view.

dennis miller actually said one of my favorite comic lines ever... it went something like:

"have you ever noticed that no one gives their life to G-d until they've [f'd] theirs up beyond all recognition"?

he was very funny when he was a liberal. :)

maher is right on a lot of issues and wrong on a few. but he's a funny guy.

jillian
07-08-2013, 02:30 PM
Nice display of emotionalism, jill.

scoffing at you is hardly emotionalism.

Chris
07-08-2013, 02:36 PM
scoffing at you is hardly emotionalism.

Scoffing is an emotional reaction.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 02:42 PM
Scoffing is an emotional reaction.
Perhaps to someone with Aspergers.

jillian
07-08-2013, 02:42 PM
Scoffing is an emotional reaction.

really?

interesting.... :rolleyes:

jillian
07-08-2013, 02:43 PM
Perhaps to someone with Aspergers.

funny... i almost said the exact same thing. lol

just remember... never once does he try to derail discussions with that type of nonsense if he agrees with the politics of the poster.

well, at least he's stopped calling everything an ad hom.

i guess 'emotional' is his new catch all.

KC
07-08-2013, 02:45 PM
Get back on topic and stop with the personal attacks.

Chris
07-08-2013, 02:59 PM
Perhaps to someone with Aspergers.

Another argument from emotionalism.

junie
07-08-2013, 03:17 PM
Yeah, good luck with that. We won our independence from Mexico, we can win it from you damned liberals.



gee you sound awful emotional! :pointlaugh:

Chris
07-08-2013, 03:19 PM
gee you sound awful emotional! :pointlaugh:

Being emotional and emotionalism are different, jun, we already had this discussion before.

junie
07-08-2013, 03:19 PM
...do you read this crap before you post it?...you obviously have no clue how business is run, if you did you'd know that if a business needs employees it needs to pay them the prevailing wage and treat them well...or do you think businesses still use slaves?...you really make my head hurt...


:dang: < don't hurt your head with all that emotion!

junie
07-08-2013, 03:22 PM
Look, moron, if you are too stupid to realize that things would turn out differently, then I feel for you. Not much, but about the same as I would a rabbit about to get swooped up by an eagle. Keep on living in your little fantasy world where everything is contemplated because of a lost election. It's not the election, dimwit, it's the policies you and other idiots like you advocate. I don't hate my country. But what you people are turning it into is nowhere near the same country I took an oath to defend.
How stupid do you have to be to equate what we're fighting for to wanting to live in a theocracy? And your obvious fear of guns is so damned pathetic, you whining little cowardess. As for our kids, I would put them up against yours any day. At least my children are learning skills that will make them self-sufficient and not subject to the government dole and idiots like you.

MORON



oh my!!! :but:

Ravi
07-08-2013, 03:24 PM
oh my!!! :but:

To be fair to Ag, we have been laughing at him. We really can't expect him not to react emotionally.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 03:25 PM
oh my!!! :but:
Done been admitted to.
Got a bit carried away by the absolute obtuseness of the person being responded to.
Unlike you people, I take responsibility for my actions and can admit my mistakes.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 03:26 PM
To be fair to Ag, we have been laughing at him. We really can't expect him not to react emotionally.
So the obtuseness was deliberate? Sure seemed natural to me.

junie
07-08-2013, 03:27 PM
Done been admitted to.
Got a bit carried away by the absolute obtuseness of the person being responded to.
Unlike you people, I take responsibility for my actions and can admit my mistakes.



you sound kinda emotional. :tongue:

Ravi
07-08-2013, 03:27 PM
So the obtuseness was deliberate? Sure seemed natural to me.Do you still believe Texas was never part of Mexico?

Chris
07-08-2013, 03:27 PM
Done been admitted to.
Got a bit carried away by the absolute obtuseness of the person being responded to.
Unlike you people, I take responsibility for my actions and can admit my mistakes.

Bingo! Exactly.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 03:28 PM
you sound kinda emotional. :tongue:
True. I was. But I was not basing my argument on emotionalism. I based it on facts. Poke someone long enough and you get a response.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 03:30 PM
Do you still believe Texas was never part of Mexico?
What part of "We won our independence from Mexico in 1836" did you NOT understand?

Mister D
07-08-2013, 03:30 PM
Do you still believe Texas was never part of Mexico?

He never believed that, Marie.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 03:36 PM
He never believed that, Marie.
heh, read his post above yours.

Mister D
07-08-2013, 03:39 PM
heh, read his post above yours.

heh, I just did. I'm starting to wonder if you are Jillian's handicapped cousin?

Chris
07-08-2013, 03:40 PM
True. I was. But I was not basing my argument on emotionalism. I based it on facts. Poke someone long enough and you get a response.

I'm not sure they want to see the difference. One can be emotional and still rational. Emotionalism precludes rationalism.



When we come together to discuss the problems of our world, their solutions and the means by which we can achieve these ends, it is often that emotions come to the forefront. This is understandable, since it is impossible to demand that someone engage in discussion of world-defining subjects without having strong feelings about the subject matter. When we bother to express an opinion or articulate a perspective, it is inevitable that we must care at some level, whether it is at the level of the issue discussed or the way in which it is being discussed.

We are motivated to action for reasons that are both rational and scientific, or emotionally, and when we combine our passions with reason and method, we place ourselves in the best position to understand our world and change it.

However, anyone who follows political or philosophical discourse knows that emotion and reason are not always in synthesis. In political and philosophical debates, it is not hard to find people who make arguments based purely in emotion, and as a result, go to extreme lengths and to the polar opposite of reason to defend their emotional convictions. There is no reasoning with such people in this position, and to become one of these people has the potential to both discredit yourself and the things which you uphold.

The reason for this is that those who argue purely through emotion only have emotion to back up their positions. Their analysis, the method they utilize to understand the world is as fueled by emotion as their rhetoric, and as a result, both their analysis and their arguments fall flat, since the virtues of neither of these things can be vindicated in the material sense. Analysis that is tainted by emotionalism is wrong, because it ignores material reality in favor of a “reality” more suited to the emotions of the analyst....

@ On Emotionalism (http://theredphoenixapl.org/2012/03/15/on-emotionalism/)

Mister D
07-08-2013, 03:41 PM
Now let's see if we can reason this out together, Marie.


"We won our independence from Mexico in 1836"

Doesn't winning independence from Mexico presuppose that Texas was once part of Mexico?

Ravi
07-08-2013, 03:42 PM
Now let's see if we can reason this out together, Marie.



Doesn't winning independence from Mexico presuppose that Texas was once part of Mexico?
Sure, but he apparently can't bring himself to say it. I can only imagine that is so because of his fit over my statement that I would support giving them back to Mexico.

Mister D
07-08-2013, 03:43 PM
Sure, but he apparently can't bring himself to say it. I can only imagine that is so because of his fit over my statement that I would support giving them back to Mexico.

:laugh: He's been saying it the whole time!

She goes on ignore. I can't deal with this. I can only talk down to her and it will upset some of the other memebrs so...

Chris
07-08-2013, 03:43 PM
Sure, but he apparently can't bring himself to say it. I can only imagine that is so because of his fit over my statement that I would support giving them back to Mexico.

He said it the first time and the second and ....

Agravan
07-08-2013, 03:44 PM
heh, read his post above yours.

So, you don't, in fact, understand what I posted.
So, here, I'll break it down so that even someone like you can understand:

Texas was part of Mexico up until 1836 when Texas fought and won a war to become independent from Mexico. From then until 1845, Texas was an independent country whether Mexico recognized it or not.
Is that clear or do I need to write it in crayon for you?

Agravan
07-08-2013, 03:48 PM
Sure, but he apparently can't bring himself to say it. I can only imagine that is so because of his fit over my statement that I would support giving them back to Mexico.

You can't give back to Mexico that which was not theirs when we joined the Union. If Texas secedes, it regains it's status as a sovereign country. Texas was not purchased from Mexico as was the rest of the southwestern states and California. California you can give back, Texas, you can't.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 03:48 PM
So, you don't, in fact, understand what I posted.
So, here, I'll break it down so that even someone like you can understand:

Texas was part of Mexico up until 1836 when Texas fought and won a war to become independent from Mexico. From then until 1845, Texas was an independent country whether Mexico recognized it or not.
Is that clear or do I need to write it in crayon for you?

I just went back and read the posts and it is true that I misunderstood you. You were saying TexAss couldn't be given back to Mexico because in between belonging to Mexico and belonging to the US it was a sovereign state.

That doesn't stop the US giving TexAss back to Mexico.

junie
07-08-2013, 03:49 PM
Liberals never saw a tax they didn't love or enemies they didn't love to appease.
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4873397378286986&pid=1.7




wowza would you look at all those FACTS!

Ravi
07-08-2013, 03:49 PM
IF TexAss can secede then the citizens of the US can decide to give it away before that happens. You can't have it both ways.

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 03:51 PM
wowza would you look at all those FACTS!

Yes, unlike your post his post has facts. That's a very good observation.

junie
07-08-2013, 03:51 PM
And agravan's fixed it back, junie. He doesn't argue by means of emotionalism the way many liberals do.



wrong again.

Chris
07-08-2013, 03:55 PM
wrong again.

Why's that, jun? "wrong again" because _______________________________________. Fill in the grand canyon-sized gap.

Chris
07-08-2013, 03:55 PM
IF TexAss can secede then the citizens of the US can decide to give it away before that happens. You can't have it both ways.

Why are using "TexAss" if not to inflame?

Agravan
07-08-2013, 03:57 PM
I just went back and read the posts and it is true that I misunderstood you. You were saying TexAss couldn't be given back to Mexico because in between belonging to Mexico and belonging to the US it was a sovereign state.

That doesn't stop the US giving TexAss back to Mexico.
And you really think the people of Texas (correct spelling for you spelling impaired liberals, what, are you still in 5th grade?) would just sit back and accept that? The Texas military could handily take Mexico and add it to
a new Confederacy, or whatever we choose to call it. Would you really want a new enemy on your southern border?

junie
07-08-2013, 03:58 PM
zzzzz Radio Host: Texas Most Likely To Secede :deadhorse:

Agravan
07-08-2013, 04:00 PM
zzzzz radio host: Texas most likely to secede :deadhorse:


dltdhyotaotwo

Ravi
07-08-2013, 04:07 PM
Why are using "TexAss" if not to inflame?Sorry if it bother you. I think they are for the most part asses.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 04:08 PM
And you really think the people of Texas (correct spelling for you spelling impaired liberals, what, are you still in 5th grade?) would just sit back and accept that? The Texas military could handily take Mexico and add it to
a new Confederacy, or whatever we choose to call it. Would you really want a new enemy on your southern border?

The Texas military? LMAO

junie
07-08-2013, 04:21 PM
dltdhyotaotwo



get a grip, secession is never going to happen! :cry:


face it, all this recent secession talk is precipitated by emotionalism in response to the recent civil war flick...






Scoff if you will, but it is clear that the neo-secessionist movement is having a moment. The Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/), that calibrator of the far-right zeitgeist, exulted in a headline on Nov. 14: “Secession Movement Explodes.” And articles have been appearing elsewhere online with headlines like “Is Secession the Answer for Utah?” (If it is, what exactly is the question?)

Of course, anti-secessionists are gleefully responding. Chuck Thompson, the author of Better Off Without ’Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession, has written a piece titled “Go Ahead and Secede, Texas. I Dare You.” (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/110112/go-ahead-and-secede-texas-we-dare-you) In it, he argues that the small-government utopia that Texas secessionists are dreaming of — a country with weak trade unions, negligible taxes and no guaranteed health care (http://topics.time.com/health-care/) — “already exists. It’s called the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”


As the petitioning and flame wars continue, though, it’s worth stepping back and asking a basic question: Is any of this legal? Can a state actually secede from the union?

It’s a question that law professors sometimes like to ponder (http://www.volokh.com/2010/02/10/the-supposed-settling-of-the-question-of-secession-at-appomattox/), but the answer certainly must be no. The Constitution, which provides processes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section3) for new states to enter the union and for current states to divide or reconfigure, does not have a provision for states to leave the union. A state would have to leave by force — something Abraham Lincoln knew a lot about — since there is no legal basis it could point to for breaking away.




It is often said the Civil War answered this question: that when the South surrendered at Appomattox, the idea of secession was also defeated. In fact, no lesser authority than Justice Antonin Scalia — who would probably rank No. 1 or 2 in a parlor-game bet over which Justice is most likely to sign a secession petition — has said precisely this. In response to a letter from a citizen asking if there is a legal basis for secession — a letter that it is remarkable for being answered by a sitting Justice — Scalia wrote (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/02/17/justice-scalias-thoughts-on-state-secession-penned-to-one-man/) in 2006, “[The] answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

http://ideas.time.com/2012/11/19/can-texas-really-secede-from-the-union-not-legally/

Chris
07-08-2013, 04:32 PM
"get a grip, secession is never going to happen!"

Nice gripe but it has and will again.

"... 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"

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 05:37 PM
It's racist because telling someone who is from a place to go back to that place is a highly-used racist phrase. You haven't heard of the one most used against blacks? "Go back to Africa"?

"Go back to Mexico" for someone from Mexico is no different.

You're using racist rhetoric, @Marie_Archer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) and I will not let it go unnoticed. You will be thrown under the bus for it like any Conservative would be thrown under the bus for it.


You Libs are going to start being held accountable for the things you say.

As you know (or might not know), I am not a Yank. When I first saw her post I thought she was alluding to the fact that most of Texas was once part of Mexico. Only a partisan hack, or somebody trying to make a pathetic point, would see it otherwise....

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 05:40 PM
As you know (or might not know), I am not a Yank. When I first saw her post I thought she was alluding to the fact that most of Texas was once part of Mexico. Only a partisan hack, or somebody trying to make a pathetic point, would see it otherwise....

Lold at you calling me a partisan hack. That's you, buddy.

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 05:50 PM
Lold at you calling me a partisan hack. That's you, buddy.

What am I partisan towards? Nice deflection btw....

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 05:51 PM
Deflection like you talking about yourself being a yank?

What does that have to do with anything. And then, who cares?

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 05:54 PM
What am I partisan towards?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14307-Progressive-education-at-work?p=320225&viewfull=1#post320225

Have a nice day.

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 05:58 PM
Deflection like you talking about yourself being a yank?

What does that have to do with anything. And then, who cares?

It goes towards one's state of mind. I don't have the baggage that you have in the US. Racism around every corner (you know what niggardly means?), or that you have to mind your p's and q's when talking. You seem to have a bug up your arse about somebody stating that they should give Texas back to Mexico and for several posts (before Maine pointed it out to you) you tried to equate that with telling African Americans to do back to Africa. You even needed it pointing out that at no stage has any part of Africa belonged to the US whereas Texas did belong to Mexico. I don't, nor ever have lived, in your country, and even I knew that. You either didn't know (in which case you're not the brightest bulb in the socket), or you did, and somehow thought comparing Africa to Mexico was a somehow a valid point (it wasn't). All I can say, with supporters like you, it is easy to see why conservative America is becoming more and more alienated from the average Yank....

jillian
07-08-2013, 06:01 PM
get a grip, secession is never going to happen! :cry:


face it, all this recent secession talk is precipitated by emotionalism in response to the recent civil war flick...

you're being kind. i think it was precipitated by the fact that there's a black guy in the white house.

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 06:01 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14307-Progressive-education-at-work?p=320225&viewfull=1#post320225

Have a nice day.

Now stating that somebody calling the children of Woodstock attendees liberals is partisan hackery. All those Woodstock attendees were conservatives? really? Interesting....

Agravan
07-08-2013, 06:05 PM
you're being kind. i think it was precipitated by the fact that there's a black guy in the white house.

Of course you would think that. because every thing has to involve race to you.
You are a prime example of a racist loon.

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 06:07 PM
Of course you would think that. because every thing has to involve race to you.
You are a prime example of a racist loon.

<waits for Chris to chime in about emotionalism> :f_whistle::f_whistle::f_whistle:

Agravan
07-08-2013, 06:09 PM
<waits for Chris to chime in about emotionalism> :f_whistle::f_whistle::f_whistle:

What was emotional about that, Happy?

jillian
07-08-2013, 06:11 PM
Of course you would think that. because every thing has to involve race to you.
You are a prime example of a racist loon.

not in this or any other reality.

typical extremist... covering their own racism by attributing it to others for pointing it out.

lol.. pointing out racism is not racist. :cuckoo:

Agravan
07-08-2013, 06:18 PM
not in this or any other reality.

typical extremist... covering their own racism by attributing it to others for pointing it out.

lol.. pointing out racism is not racist. :cuckoo:

Trying to paint anything you disagree with as racist, is racist. And this is what you do, endlessly.

Chris
07-08-2013, 06:21 PM
Sorry if it bother you. I think they are for the most part asses.

No, doesn't bother me what it shows us about you.

Chris
07-08-2013, 06:24 PM
you're being kind. i think it was precipitated by the fact that there's a black guy in the white house.

Why the racist comment?

Chris
07-08-2013, 06:25 PM
What was emotional about that, Happy?

Nothing.

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 07:02 PM
What was emotional about that, Happy?

Yours was an emotional response to a non-emotive issue (IMO)....

jillian
07-08-2013, 07:06 PM
Why the racist comment?

Because sometimes race is a valid issue.

Why do you feel it should be ignored?

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 07:06 PM
Now stating that somebody calling the children of Woodstock attendees liberals is partisan hackery. All those Woodstock attendees were conservatives? really? Interesting....

Post #10 in that thread, not whatever post you were looking at.

junie
07-08-2013, 07:07 PM
Why the racist comment?



it's called acknowledgement...



"you're being kind. i think it was precipitated by the fact that there's a black guy in the white house."

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 07:20 PM
Post #10 in that thread, not whatever post you were looking at.

And the post I was answering from you, wasn't? Too funny.....

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 07:22 PM
And the post I was answering from you, wasn't? Too funny.....

Hold on there, Buster. Stop deflecting. One thing at a time. Do you admit the post you made that I provided is partisan hackery?

Agravan
07-08-2013, 07:22 PM
it's called acknowledgement...



"you're being kind. i think it was precipitated by the fact that there's a black guy in the white house."


No, it's called projection.

junie
07-08-2013, 07:26 PM
No, it's called projection.



coming from an expert, i'm sure... are you claiming the president is not a black guy?

Chris
07-08-2013, 07:28 PM
Yours was an emotional response to a non-emotive issue (IMO)....

When you make such accusations you need to be willing to substantiate it with more than merely repeating your opinion. That's what rises above being merely emotional. Give it or try...or don't.

Chris
07-08-2013, 07:30 PM
coming from an expert, i'm sure... are you claiming the president is not a black guy?

Actually, since it seems to be so vitally important to you, he's not black.

junie
07-08-2013, 08:01 PM
Actually, since it seems to be so vitally important to you, he's not black.




:f_doh: lol way to rise above!








When you make such accusations you need to be willing to substantiate it with more than merely repeating your opinion. That's what rises above being merely emotional. Give it or try...or don't.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 08:05 PM
coming from an expert, i'm sure... are you claiming the president is not a black guy?

No, I'm not. I acknowledge that Obama is black. I also acknowledge that he won, twice. What I'm saying is that this is a result of his policies (and those of his fellow liberals), not his skin color. You guys are the ones asserting that any of this is based on race. You need it to be based on race because this is the only way for you to justify your own racism. You see Junie, most normal people don't focus on race for every issue. Most normal people don't see racism behind every thought or action. But then, most normal people are not infected with the Liberal Mental Disorder. You people see racism everywhere, think in terms of race and bias, so you naturally project your thoughts and motives on those that don't. You're wrong, jillian is wrong, marie is wrong on your accusations of this being because a "black man is in office". But you guys are beyond the possibility of ever seeing that, so invested are you in racism. I pity y'all.

patrickt
07-08-2013, 08:05 PM
President Obama grew up on the mean streets of private schools with his white grandfather and grandmother. He grew up as Barry until he figured there was money in being Barack.

They did hire a tutor to teach him to be black. Too bad it didn't take.

Dr. Who
07-08-2013, 08:08 PM
No, I'm not. I acknowledge that Obama is black. I also acknowledge that he won, twice. What I'm saying is that this is a result of his policies (and those of his fellow liberals), not his skin color. You guys are the ones asserting that any of this is based on race. You need it to be based on race because this is the only way for you to justify your own racism. You see Junie, most normal people don't focus on race for every issue. Most normal people don't see racism behind every thought or action. But then, most normal people are not infected with the Liberal Mental Disorder. You people see racism everywhere, think in terms of race and bias, so you naturally project your thoughts and motives on those that don't. You're wrong, jillian is wrong, marie is wrong on your accusations of this being because a "black man is in office". But you guys are beyond the possibility of ever seeing that, so invested are you in racism. I pity y'all.

I don't think a president should be assessed on the basis of race. That is just nonsense, but it does appear that the elected reps have been stonewalling from the beginning even on platforms that they previously endorsed and that is suspicious.

junie
07-08-2013, 08:10 PM
No, I'm not. I acknowledge that Obama is black. I also acknowledge that he won, twice. What I'm saying is that this is a result of his policies (and those of his fellow liberals), not his skin color. You guys are the ones asserting that any of this is based on race. You need it to be based on race because this is the only way for you to justify your own racism. You see Junie, most normal people don't focus on race for every issue. Most normal people don't see racism behind every thought or action. But then, most normal people are not infected with the Liberal Mental Disorder. You people see racism everywhere, think in terms of race and bias, so you naturally project your thoughts and motives on those that don't. You're wrong, jillian is wrong, marie is wrong on your accusations of this being because a "black man is in office". But you guys are beyond the possibility of ever seeing that, so invested are you in racism. I pity y'all.



lol you've been suckered into the rhetoric... hug that gun, brother... God bless!

jillian
07-08-2013, 08:11 PM
I don't think a president should be assessed on the basis of race. That is just nonsense, but it does appear that the elected reps have been stonewalling from the beginning even on platforms that they previously endorsed and that is suspicious.

yep

Chris
07-08-2013, 08:11 PM
:f_doh: lol way to rise above!









OK, so I substantiate: His mother is white.


You were saying, jun?

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 08:12 PM
lol you've been suckered into the rhetoric... hug that gun, brother... God bless!

Where do you get off trying to talk about other people getting suckered into the rhetoric after you make the accusation that we don't like Obama all because of race?

THAT'S rhetoric, sucka.

Mister D
07-08-2013, 08:13 PM
They are stonewalling because they don't like black people. Yep, that makes sense.

Chris
07-08-2013, 08:13 PM
lol you've been suckered into the rhetoric... hug that gun, brother... God bless!

As if you have not, lol, hug that liberal race-card-playing agenda!

Agravan
07-08-2013, 08:14 PM
I don't think a president should be assessed on the basis of race. That is just nonsense, but it does appear that the elected reps have been stonewalling from the beginning even on platforms that they previously endorsed and that is suspicious.

So that proves racism? Is that what you're implying?

Agravan
07-08-2013, 08:15 PM
lol you've been suckered into the rhetoric... hug that gun, brother... God bless!

Because I can't see with my own eyes what's happening, right?
Please. What my side puts out is rhetoric, but what your side puts out is the Holy Gospel Truth??

Mister D
07-08-2013, 08:15 PM
So that proves racism? Is that what you're implying?

Of course. Their hatred for lacks was suppressed for years until 2008. That makes sense.

Chris
07-08-2013, 08:16 PM
I don't think a president should be assessed on the basis of race. That is just nonsense, but it does appear that the elected reps have been stonewalling from the beginning even on platforms that they previously endorsed and that is suspicious.

Jun is the only one here suggesting race is a factor.

What's it suspicious of, that Reps disagree with Dems? That's politics.

junie
07-08-2013, 08:17 PM
As if you have not, lol, hug that liberal race-card-playing agenda!



if you say so. or not. :laughing4:

Agravan
07-08-2013, 08:18 PM
Jun is the only one here suggesting race is a factor.

What's it suspicious of, that Reps disagree with Dems? That's politics.
It was actually jillian that suggested race was a factor. Junie just hopped in and backed up her liberal buddy.

Dr. Who
07-08-2013, 08:21 PM
So that proves racism? Is that what you're implying?I say it is suspicious. This has not happened in other situations where the incumbent president was white. Why would the Republicans suddenly eschew their own platforms, simply because they are embraced by the new government? They didn't do so in the past. Suspicious.

Mister D
07-08-2013, 08:23 PM
I say it is suspicious. This has not happened in other situations where the incumbent president was white. Why would the Republicans suddenly eschew their own platforms, simply because they are embraced by the new government? They didn't do so in the past. Suspicious.

I wish you were right. You're obviously not.

Chris
07-08-2013, 08:25 PM
if you say so. or not. :laughing4:

Isn't it hypocritical to criticize me for what you did? What I posted paralled what you did: "lol you've been suckered into the rhetoric... hug that gun, brother... God bless!"

Oh, my! Hoist your own petard much?

Chris
07-08-2013, 08:26 PM
It was actually jillian that suggested race was a factor. Junie just hopped in and backed up her liberal buddy.

Oh, my bad.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 08:29 PM
I say it is suspicious. This has not happened in other situations where the incumbent president was white. Why would the Republicans suddenly eschew their own platforms, simply because they are embraced by the new government? They didn't do so in the past. Suspicious.

So before Obama, Republican never opposed legislation that would make the Dems look good, even if they initially supported it? Damn! Well, then, Dems should never elect another black man so that they can pass Republican legislation the. Problem solved.
But wait, maybe they oppose legislation they originally proposed, not because a black man is now for it, but because the administration has either added so much bullshit to it as to make it unrecognizable or because of the administrations constant show of arrogance and perceived superiority- "I won", Obamacare, Ring a bell?

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 08:30 PM
Another reason not to live in Texas..

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-269653/

Agravan
07-08-2013, 08:32 PM
Another reason not to live in Texas..

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-269653/

Teenage idiot. So what?
But, please, feel free to stay away. We'll get over it, I promise.

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 08:37 PM
Hold on there, Buster. Stop deflecting. One thing at a time. Do you admit the post you made that I provided is partisan hackery?

No, it was a question. However, what say you about the post I was responding to. Was that partisan hackery?

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 08:37 PM
When you make such accusations you need to be willing to substantiate it with more than merely repeating your opinion. That's what rises above being merely emotional. Give it or try...or don't.

Thanks for your opinion.....

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 08:38 PM
Teenage idiot. So what?
But, please, feel free to stay away. We'll get over it, I promise.

An idiot that might get eight years in prison for an obviously hyperbolic comment. What a great place to live!! Not...What a dump....

junie
07-08-2013, 08:42 PM
Of course, it is highly unlikely that any of these legal questions will have to be re-examined, because for all the secessionists’ petitions, they remain a perversely small minority.

...


A petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-everyone-signed-petition-withdraw-their-state-united-states-america/dmQl1bXL) recently went up on We the People titled “Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.” It has gotten more than 24,000 signatures, and counting.




http://ideas.time.com/2012/11/19/can-texas-really-secede-from-the-union-not-legally/

Ravi
07-08-2013, 08:45 PM
get a grip, secession is never going to happen! :cry:


face it, all this recent secession talk is precipitated by emotionalism in response to the recent civil war flick...

Wait, your link said scoff! Emotionalism! Emotionalism!

Agravan
07-08-2013, 08:47 PM
An idiot that might get eight years in prison for an obviously hyperbolic comment. What a great place to live!! Not...What a dump....

Not Texas' fault. look to your liberal buddies and their anti-gun hysteria for the hypersensitivity behind the arrest.
But, you're right. It's a dump. Please stay away and try to convince your liberal buddies to leave too.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 08:48 PM
No, doesn't bother me what it shows us about you.I can live with that.

patrickt
07-08-2013, 08:48 PM
I don't think a president should be assessed on the basis of race. That is just nonsense, but it does appear that the elected reps have been stonewalling from the beginning even on platforms that they previously endorsed and that is suspicious.

If you get elected based on race then why shouldn't you be assessed on race? No one can seriously say he was elected because of his record of accomplishment or his proven abilities, or on anything other than, not being President Bush, who wasn't running anyway, and being black.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 08:48 PM
Why the racist comment?
Why the ad hom?

Ravi
07-08-2013, 08:51 PM
Jun is the only one here suggesting race is a factor.

What's it suspicious of, that Reps disagree with Dems? That's politics.

Who is Jun?

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 08:52 PM
Who is Jun?

Il-Kim's brother?

Mr Happy
07-08-2013, 08:55 PM
Not Texas' fault. look to your liberal buddies and their anti-gun hysteria for the hypersensitivity behind the arrest.
But, you're right. It's a dump. Please stay away and try to convince your liberal buddies to leave too.

If Texas passed the legislation, it's the fault of those passing the bill. And I don't blame liberals, I blame over-zealous prosecutors who are more worried about their careers than dispensing justice in an even manner....

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 08:55 PM
Why the ad hom?

That's not ad hom. He's saying your comment is racist, which is an attack on your message, not you.

junie
07-08-2013, 08:58 PM
Wait, your link said scoff! Emotionalism! Emotionalism!



:but: Viva la revolucion!

Ravi
07-08-2013, 08:58 PM
That's not ad hom. He's saying your comment is racist, which is an attack on your message, not you.
It wasn't me, but thanks for trying. Saying a comment was racist is an ad hom according to chrislogic.

Chris
07-08-2013, 08:59 PM
Why the racist comment?


Why the ad hom?

How's it ad hom commenting about the message?

Chris
07-08-2013, 08:59 PM
Who is Jun?

Agravan corrected that, it was jill.

Ravi
07-08-2013, 09:00 PM
:but: Viva la revolucion!
República de TexAss baby!

GrassrootsConservative
07-08-2013, 09:00 PM
It wasn't me, but thanks for trying. Saying a comment was racist is an ad hom according to chrislogic.

That's a lie.

Agravan
07-08-2013, 09:04 PM
República de TexAss baby!

Tu eres una pendeja, baby!

Chris
07-08-2013, 09:05 PM
:but: Viva la revolucion!

An emotional revolution, happened already. Miss the bus?


What an amazing turn of events. Only a generation before, the United States had been the homeland of efficiency and practicality, a country so uncongenial to dreamers, artists, and poets that they fled for Europe as soon as they could scrape together the boat-fare. And yet, if we cast our mind back only a little further, the turn of events might not seem so amazing after all. The “Oprah-ization” of public life is usually talked of as it were a brand-new thing. It is in reality the return of something antique. A hundred years ago, middle-class life in Britain and America was bathed in the gush of emotions. Reread the poetry of Swinburne or the orations of Daniel Webster, glance at the paintings of Frederick Leighton or old photographs of the obsequies of General Grant if you doubt it. The wry, laconic anti-emotionalism of a Jimmy Stewart or a Prince Philip is a last relic of the early-twentieth-century reaction against the overwrought romanticism of the Victorians. Bob Dole brought to his political speeches the same sensibility that Ernest Hemingway brought to his novels. Hemingway’s generation had learned in the fire and slaughter of the First World War to mistrust the man who put his hand on his heart while wiping a tear from his eye. Frederick Lewis Allen recalled the terse manners of his contemporaries: “During the whole three years and eight months that the United States fought [the Second World War], there was no antiwar faction, no organized pacifist element, no objection to huge appropriations, no noticeable opposition to the draft. Yet there was also a minimum of crusading spirit…. They”—the men and women of the 1940s—“didn’t want to be victims of ‘hysteria.’ They felt uncomfortable about flag-waving. They preferred to be matter-of-fact about the job ahead…. These people were unstintedly loyal, and went to battle—or saw their brothers and sons go—without reservation; yet they remained emotionally on guard…. disillusioned and deadpan. …”

We think now of the dislike of emotional fuss and show as generically old-fashioned. It is probably truer to say that the laconic style we associate with the GI generation came into fashion in the 1920s and went out in the 1970s, to be replaced by a style reminiscent of the moist, voluptuous sentimentality of a hundred years ago, with the teary television interview replacing black crepe. This was the style of the two party conventions in 1996. It is the style of the most-talked-about mass movement of the 1990s, the evangelical Promise Keepers, who brought stadiums full of middle-aged husbands and fathers together to weep and hug. It is the style of contemporary American evangelicalism. And it is the style of the most successful politicians of the age—the Bill Clintons and the Tony Blairs—as they explain how this or that policy will “save the life of a child.” The gurus of the 1970s taught, and we today still seem to believe, that to delve honestly into one’s feelings requires one to shut down the analytical lobes of the mind. “People often talk about wanting to be spontaneous, to live out of their feelings,” reported the authors of How to Be Your Own Best Friend. “They have locked themselves into intellectual boxes, where they hardly know what they feel any more. They become desperate to experience plain, simple emotion. They think if they could throw away their minds, they would be free.”

@ The rise of American emotionalism (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2012/01/the-rise-of-american-emotionalism/)

Chris
07-08-2013, 09:08 PM
It wasn't me, but thanks for trying. Saying a comment was racist is an ad hom according to chrislogic.

Sorry, that's your logic and, made up as it is, it's not very logical.

Manzila
07-09-2013, 09:22 AM
sounds good.