TexasCHLforum.com

The Texas petition has now exceeded 100,000 supporters.


The petition calling for exhile and deportation of everyone who signed the secession petitions is at 10,000.

canvasbck wrote:The Texas petition has now exceeded 100,000 supporters.


The petition calling for exhile and deportation of everyone who signed the secession petitions is at 10,000.

Maybe we should start a petition to deport Obama, and all the democrats in Congress.

atticus wrote:VMI77, Good points. But just because collectivists impose outrages on their fellow citizens today, I'm not willing to follow their lead in terms of imposing secession on the unwilling. It would be justifying the means because of the ends. Further, just because tories were treated harshly during and after the Revolution does not mean we have to follow that example today. The reason is much the same as why we shouldn't follow the Omamanoids in trashing the Constitution. Consider the crimes committed in the South by carpetbaggers during reconstruction. Under color of law, and with self-righteous zeal, they treated their fellow citizens in the South like dogs. If we end up treating non-secessionists like post-revolution tories, what will we have accomplished? What will we have become? As bad as the current political situation is in the USA (and it is hard to imagine it being much worse), I'd sooner look for other solutions than secession at this point.

Considering the nonsecessionists outnumber the "rebels" by hundreds to one, it would be the other way. The secessionists would be slaughtered like an afterthought. We've settled this issue already at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

If you go down this road, you'll end up very dead. Civil wars are anything but civil.

VMI77 wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

canvasbck wrote:

Furthermore, unrelated to what I quoted, all this talk about secession over mere election results is highly immature. Don't you guys who support it realize you're saying that you're so uncivilized that you can't stand to even be in the same country as someone who dares to disagree with you? Grow up! If you want to talk secession because the federal government actually did or didn't do something (like that TSA-TX spat a couple years ago), fine, then there might be something worth talking about. But seceding over people voting differently than you is just nuts. Wasn't the 1st amendment put there to protect varying political ideas? And don't we claim to be the political group that loves & respects the entire US Constitution, rather than just the parts that suit our purposes?

For the record, I advocate the threat of secession as an extreme measure to attempt to reign in the federal government and force them to abide by the constitution. I advocated for this during Bush's term and not because of the result of one election. What this election did for me and, I believe, many like me is highlight the fact that the majority of our population is no longer interested in a government that stays out of our lives and out of our way. Four years ago, I was disapointed because I thought that most of the country fell for the "rainbows and unicorns" promises that spewed from the mouth of the infested pustule. (credit to anygun for that term) and didn't do any research into the man's beliefs or background. This time around, it is clear that 52% of our citizens who care enough to vote knew exactly what they were voting for and have caused me to loose faith in this country's ability to ever return to our founding principals.

Excellent, you espouse treason. If you don't like our ways, leave. Don't think you will ever, ever be permitted to drive this state from the Union. We settled it once, and will settle it again.

Nonsense. It's not unconstitutional and it's not treason.

If you tried to rebel, the FBI and the US military will beg to differ. And yes, its treason.

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
Nonsense. It's not unconstitutional and it's not treason.

If you tried to rebel, the FBI and the US military will beg to differ. And yes, its treason.

How?

pbwalker wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
Nonsense. It's not unconstitutional and it's not treason.

If you tried to rebel, the FBI and the US military will beg to differ. And yes, its treason.

How?

Derp derp, advocating the breakup of the Union. The case of Grant v. Lee (cert denied) settled this question.

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

pbwalker wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
Nonsense. It's not unconstitutional and it's not treason.

If you tried to rebel, the FBI and the US military will beg to differ. And yes, its treason.

How?

Derp derp, advocating the breakup of the Union. The case of Grant v. Lee (cert denied) settled this question.

Weiner,

Derp derp? Resorting to insults already? I asked how it was treason, and you have yet to answer it. Obviously, you don't have an answer, other than to throw around insults.

Since I'm "derp derp", why don't you point to me exactly where it is in this legal definition?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The idea of all fifty states "seceding" is not really a bad one. Let each state control its own destiny, instead of taking from Texas to Give to California, let California pay for what it wants and we'll keep our here. Of course Im not advocating dissolving the federal government, there would be far too many challenges and it would not be pretty, at least in the blue states.

pbwalker wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

pbwalker wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
Nonsense. It's not unconstitutional and it's not treason.

If you tried to rebel, the FBI and the US military will beg to differ. And yes, its treason.

How?

Derp derp, advocating the breakup of the Union. The case of Grant v. Lee (cert denied) settled this question.

Weiner,

Derp derp? Resorting to insults already? I asked how it was treason, and you have yet to answer it. Obviously, you don't have an answer, other than to throw around insults.

Since I'm "derp derp", why don't you point to me exactly where it is in this legal definition?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Advocating rebellion against your mother country fits the definition nicely.

Oldgringo wrote:Why stop with state secession? If the cities were to secede from the states, we could have a continent of city states like the ancient Greeks. Can anyone say, "Molon Labe"?

Austin news tonight:
City of Austin has a petition with over 6,000 signatures to secde from the State of Texas, but they want to annex Dublin for the Dr Pepper and Shiner for the brewery ... true story, they're keeping it weird

Jerry Patterson said Austin can't secede from Texas, but Texas legislature could divide Texas into the 4 other States, ...and ..."Unlikely, but I'd like to see the Standing army the State of Austin would have"

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

pbwalker wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote: Derp derp, advocating the breakup of the Union. The case of Grant v. Lee (cert denied) settled this question.

Weiner,

Derp derp? Resorting to insults already? I asked how it was treason, and you have yet to answer it. Obviously, you don't have an answer, other than to throw around insults.

Since I'm "derp derp", why don't you point to me exactly where it is in this legal definition?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Advocating rebellion against your mother country fits the definition nicely.

Where is that in the definition I linked? Again, you have not answered my question.

RPB wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Why stop with state secession? If the cities were to secede from the states, we could have a continent of city states like the ancient Greeks. Can anyone say, "Molon Labe"?

Austin news tonight:
City of Austin has a petition with over 6,000 signatures to secde from the State of Texas, but they want to annex Dublin for the Dr Pepper and Shiner for the brewery ... true story, they're keeping it weird

Jerry Patterson said Austin can't secede from Texas, but Texas legislature could divide Texas into the 4 other States, ...and ..."Unlikely, but I'd like to see the Standing army the State of Austin would have"

Don't they know the Dublin Dr. Pepper plant has been closed for close to a year now?

Yep, weird.

I vote if TX secedes we reopen it gotta have the DP, and Dublin knew how to make it!

The Mad Moderate wrote:The idea of all fifty states "seceding" is not really a bad one. Let each state control its own destiny, instead of taking from Texas to Give to California, let California pay for what it wants and we'll keep our here. Of course Im not advocating dissolving the federal government, there would be far too many challenges and it would not be pretty, at least in the blue states.

If I remember my American history studies many years ago, the original 13 colonies thought the same and actually tried something like this under the rubric of the Articles of Confederation. However, it was a complete failure, and some attribute the government's weakness as allowing uprisings such as Shay's Rebellion to occur. George Washington wrote in a letter to Henry Lee of his desire for a stronger federal government as a result of Shay's Rebellion and advocated reform of the government at the time. Some historians believe Shay's Rebellion strongly influenced those states who previously did not want a stronger federal government to change their mind and subsequently ratify the U.S. Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.

So although in theory such a concept for the 50 states may sound appealing to some, history shows it probably won't work. But as we all know, history often repeats itself when those of future generations forget the lessons learned from past generations. In fact, something similar is going on today, albeit in a different fashion, with the European Union. Although it appeared to work quite well at first, the EU and the rest of the world are know realizing how difficult it is for all the EU countries to come to terms and deal effectively with their current financial crisis. If they survive it, which it appears they may for now, they may not survive the next crisis that comes their way, whatever and whenever that may be. It's that old cliche' America used to rally around when facing adversity - "United we stand, divided we fall." Unfortunately, we don't hear it enough nowadays and instead challenges and crises are met with calls of "run away," "I don't want to play anymore," "secede," etc.

I don't know if calls for secession are considered treason, and I don't want to get into that debate. I do know that America and its 50 states and U.S. territories is still the greatest country in the world bar none. I still believe in America and all it stands for.

equin wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:The idea of all fifty states "seceding" is not really a bad one. Let each state control its own destiny, instead of taking from Texas to Give to California, let California pay for what it wants and we'll keep our here. Of course Im not advocating dissolving the federal government, there would be far too many challenges and it would not be pretty, at least in the blue states.

If I remember my American history studies many years ago, the original 13 colonies thought the same and actually tried something like this under the rubric of the Articles of Confederation. However, it was a complete failure, and some attribute the government's weakness as allowing uprisings such as Shay's Rebellion to occur. George Washington wrote in a letter to Henry Lee of his desire for a stronger federal government as a result of Shay's Rebellion and advocated reform of the government at the time. Some historians believe Shay's Rebellion strongly influenced those states who previously did not want a stronger federal government to change their mind and subsequently ratify the U.S. Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.

So although in theory such a concept for the 50 states may sound appealing to some, history shows it probably won't work. But as we all know, history often repeats itself when those of future generations forget the lessons learned from past generations. In fact, something similar is going on today, albeit in a different fashion, with the European Union. Although it appeared to work quite well at first, the EU and the rest of the world are know realizing how difficult it is for all the EU countries to come to terms and deal effectively with their current financial crisis. If they survive it, which it appears they may for now, they may not survive the next crisis that comes their way, whatever and whenever that may be. It's that old cliche' America used to rally around when facing adversity - "United we stand, divided we fall." Unfortunately, we don't hear it enough nowadays and instead challenges and crises are met with calls of "run away," "I don't want to play anymore," "secede," etc.

I don't know if calls for secession are considered treason, and I don't want to get into that debate. I do know that America and its 50 states and U.S. territories is still the greatest country in the world bar none. I still believe in America and all it stands for.

This equin person is pretty smart. Y'all had best take heed, ya' hear? Enough with the seccession jabberwocky.