Federalization of the States

[Discombobulated]

And no, the North didn't rely on foreigners to fill out their ranks.

Where is fair share defined? Are you ******* kidding or what? Corporations pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about their profit?

Over 1/3 of the soldiers in the union army were non-native foreign fighters fresh off the boat.

No, not kidding. Where is fair share defined? Can you provide a link to the definition of fair share of taxes.

Most Individuals pay little to no taxes, they are in effect directly subsidized by me. Why should I give a shit about you whining about corporations paying zero in taxes when corporations are merely a piece of paper describing a group of individuals, each of which already pay their taxes as individuals? Do you, or do you not understand the concept of a group?

Not much of a historian are you? Are you making a comparison with the Confederacy or merely stating a fact?

Who Fought?

 

[Rotagilla]

I wonder how the USFG is going to cope with losing all that revenue, not to mention access to the manufacturers that play such a pivotal role in their military machine. Think I'll get some popcorn, certainly have more than enough spare cash for it.

This is why, of course, the Usians would never allow Texas to break the federal yolk, certainly not in the near or medium term.

texas wouldn't do it by themselves and it wouldn't be a rash, spontaneous act...but you know that.

 

[Discombobulated]

Apparently corporations can't make profits on their own, they rely on people like me to subsidize them. That seems completely fair doesn't it.

 

[Ernie S.]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

I don't think that you understand different objectives. You seem to think that there is this friendship thing. It does no exist any longer. Clearly there will be different objectives.

What you want is all of the rights and the protection but none of the responsibilities.

None of its responsibilities????

I want ALL of its responsibilities and ONLY its responsibilities.

Show me where the Constitution mandates free medical care? Free school lunches? Free housing for illegal aliens?

Nothing is free. The question is not where the Constitution mandates. The question is: where does the authority come from?

Medical care:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Note, nothing against inactivity.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Note Legitimate ends.

School lunches
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Obviously, you misunderstand the term "general welfare".

 

[Disir]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

How are you oppressed?

Don't worry about that. It isn't relevant.
We WERE talking about the feasibility of breakaway states existing without dependence on the fed gvt...Remember?

You sure dropped that angle quickly, didn't you? LMAO..

I pointed out a few things that clearly made you uncomfortable and you completely abandoned your position.
Now you're trying to change the subject as a distraction. That might work on some people but not with me.

I'm not going to run in circles chasing your distractions because you got painted into a corner and can't get out.
I made my points...obviously... and your desperate attempts to evade and distract prove it.

If your mission is to utilize this section here:
Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

then I'm going to need to see a quick run down of your oppressions.

Because you will need to prove your shit by Locke which is where that comes from. See here:
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Furthermore, you will need to demonstrate that to the international community in order to be taken seriously.

 

[Disir]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

I don't think that you understand different objectives. You seem to think that there is this friendship thing. It does no exist any longer. Clearly there will be different objectives.

What you want is all of the rights and the protection but none of the responsibilities.

None of its responsibilities????

I want ALL of its responsibilities and ONLY its responsibilities.

Show me where the Constitution mandates free medical care? Free school lunches? Free housing for illegal aliens?

Nothing is free. The question is not where the Constitution mandates. The question is: where does the authority come from?

Medical care:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Note, nothing against inactivity.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Note Legitimate ends.

School lunches
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Obviously, you misunderstand the term "general welfare".

Nothing to misunderstand, it's a qualifier.

 

[Rotagilla]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

How are you oppressed?

Don't worry about that. It isn't relevant.
We WERE talking about the feasibility of breakaway states existing without dependence on the fed gvt...Remember?

You sure dropped that angle quickly, didn't you? LMAO..

I pointed out a few things that clearly made you uncomfortable and you completely abandoned your position.
Now you're trying to change the subject as a distraction. That might work on some people but not with me.

I'm not going to run in circles chasing your distractions because you got painted into a corner and can't get out.
I made my points...obviously... and your desperate attempts to evade and distract prove it.

If your mission is to utilize this section here:
Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

then I'm going to need to see a quick run down of your oppressions.

Because you will need to prove your shit by Locke which is where that comes from. See here:
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Furthermore, you will need to demonstrate that to the international community in order to be taken seriously.

No dear.. I don't dance when you pull the strings and I don't have to prove anything to you as a prerequisite.
Read it and take it at face value and you'll do a lot better.
You sure dropped the "no one can survive without the federal govt" angle, though, didn't you?

 

[CitizenSeven]

I wonder how the USFG is going to cope with losing all that revenue, not to mention access to the manufacturers that play such a pivotal role in their military machine. Think I'll get some popcorn, certainly have more than enough spare cash for it.

This is why, of course, the Usians would never allow Texas to break the federal yolk, certainly not in the near or medium term.

They don't have my permission to dismember my country, and they never will.

People have the right to self-determination, with or without your permission.

No your wrong, the temporary residents of Texas or any other state have no right to self determination outside the rule of law. That's my country too, it doesn't just belong to whomever happens to live there now.

Completely wrong, and exactly the sort of reasoning conquers use.

 

[Discombobulated]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

How are you oppressed?

Don't worry about that. It isn't relevant.
We WERE talking about the feasibility of breakaway states existing without dependence on the fed gvt...Remember?

You sure dropped that angle quickly, didn't you? LMAO..

I pointed out a few things that clearly made you uncomfortable and you completely abandoned your position.
Now you're trying to change the subject as a distraction. That might work on some people but not with me.

I'm not going to run in circles chasing your distractions because you got painted into a corner and can't get out.
I made my points...obviously... and your desperate attempts to evade and distract prove it.

If your mission is to utilize this section here:
Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

then I'm going to need to see a quick run down of your oppressions.

Because you will need to prove your shit by Locke which is where that comes from. See here:
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Furthermore, you will need to demonstrate that to the international community in order to be taken seriously.

The perceived oppression is mostly created for political/ideological purpose. Creating perceptions can have real consequences though. Secession began over the election of Lincoln, the contrived perception of what he might do was enough. The Confederacy was based on perception and little else.

 

[Discombobulated]

I wonder how the USFG is going to cope with losing all that revenue, not to mention access to the manufacturers that play such a pivotal role in their military machine. Think I'll get some popcorn, certainly have more than enough spare cash for it.

This is why, of course, the Usians would never allow Texas to break the federal yolk, certainly not in the near or medium term.

They don't have my permission to dismember my country, and they never will.

People have the right to self-determination, with or without your permission.

No your wrong, the temporary residents of Texas or any other state have no right to self determination outside the rule of law. That's my country too, it doesn't just belong to whomever happens to live there now.

Completely wrong, and exactly the sort of reasoning conquers use.

Oh, I see. Well that explains your position perfectly, who can argue with that.

 

[CitizenSeven]

Texas can prove oppression, to the tune of 50 billion a year. Of course, it doesn't need to do that, since the people of Texas have the right to self-determination, whether it is recognized by the Usians or not. Practically exercising it might prove somewhat difficult, but that's not a failing of Texas (or California, or whoever), rather the federal masters.

 

[Disir]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

How are you oppressed?

Don't worry about that. It isn't relevant.
We WERE talking about the feasibility of breakaway states existing without dependence on the fed gvt...Remember?

You sure dropped that angle quickly, didn't you? LMAO..

I pointed out a few things that clearly made you uncomfortable and you completely abandoned your position.
Now you're trying to change the subject as a distraction. That might work on some people but not with me.

I'm not going to run in circles chasing your distractions because you got painted into a corner and can't get out.
I made my points...obviously... and your desperate attempts to evade and distract prove it.

If your mission is to utilize this section here:
Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

then I'm going to need to see a quick run down of your oppressions.

Because you will need to prove your shit by Locke which is where that comes from. See here:
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Furthermore, you will need to demonstrate that to the international community in order to be taken seriously.

No dear.. I don't dance when you pull the strings and I don't have to prove anything to you as a prerequisite.
Read it and take it at face value and you'll do a lot better.
You sure dropped the "no one can survive without the federal govt" angle, though, didn't you?

You don't have a case. If you cannot prove the usurpations and abuses through legitimate means- which is what I just gave you then you can kiss your trade good bye. You won't be considered legitimate via the international community.

Nation-states have studied US constitutional law and the constitution and John Locke.

I didn't back off anything.

 

[Discombobulated]

Texas can prove oppression, to the tune of 50 billion a year. Of course, it doesn't need to do that, since the people of Texas have the right to self-determination, whether it is recognized by the Usians or not. Practically exercising it might prove somewhat difficult, but that's not a failing of Texas (or California, or whoever), rather the federal masters.

I see, so then I think we can sum up your position as: Because I say so.

 

[CitizenSeven]

Where in the constitution does it say that states can't leave the union? Since it doesn't say it explicitly anywhere, the tenth amendment (rights reserved to the state) gives that right to the states.

In other words, right to self-determination. QED.

 

[Discombobulated]

Let's explore this theory of self determination further. Suppose the voters of some counties decide to secede from the State of Texas, to join the US, form their own nation, or maybe become reunited with Mexico. Would that be OK with the Texan Constitutional scholars?

 

[CitizenSeven]

Absolutely, unless the Texas constitution explicitly disallows it. That's what I would say, at any rate. However, I'm sure it could be argued. I'm not sure what mechanism a county would use to declare independence, though: counties don't have have their own legislature to pass such a resolution. I suppose they could stage a plebiscite, though again the authority to do so is open to question. A state, such as Texas, already has a complete government, more than adequate to govern themselves and determine such issues.

 

[Missourian]

Every military base, every defense contractor, every dollar for education and medical.............gone............like that.

Make sure you have your paperwork in order at the border!

Of course, by the USFG, but no doubt the Republic of Texas would, as a sovereign nation, replace some or all of them. It is still a net win of 50 billion a year for Texas.

It seems you're having difficulty with the concept of net. Of course Texas as a whole would lose USFG funding, though not necessarily USFG contracts to produce weapons, or certainly not necessarily all of them. However, this would more than be made up by the elimination of USFG taxes. The difference, as I've pointed out, is 50 billion a year. Even if Texas decides to replace every single USFG program currently in place with one of their own, the state would still be 50 billion a year richer. It's unlikely that Texas would repeat all of the mistakes of the USFG, so that's even more savings.

So, larger population than many successful countries, GDP that would put it in the top 30 in the world, natural resources, and access to the oceans. Texas would make a great country. Not a superpower like the US or China, of course, but who wants that sort of expense and headache anyway?

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

The cost of living in Texas is very low. Texas has a TON of immigrants. Our teens work part time because job are a plenty here. These are the reasons there is a lot of minimum wage jobs. Course the democrats want to end those jobs, no surprise.

I'm not a Dem. I don't know of any Dems that want to end jobs.

Raising minimum wage results in less jobs. Raising minimum wage is a party plank of the democrats.

Raising minimum benefits results in less jobs. ACA forced many corporations to lay employees off. ACA was driven by the democrats.

Welfare, Disability, federally funded extensions to Unemployment Insurance, federally mandated early retirement systems like federal pensions and SS, enable people to not work and/or only have to work for 30-35years. People live a lot longer than that these days. Not working ends jobs when those people succumb to the offer to quit. Not having to work and still being able to survive just fine, is a fundamental party plank of the democrats.

Enjoy that in Texas.

Texas is doing great thanks. Oh and none of my teen age kids ever had to work for minimum wage here, they all started out at around 9/hr for A/C jobs and 12-15/hr for non A/C labor work, this when they were in high school.

I know how Texas is doing. Thanks. I still have family there. Thanks.

So, we can pretend that has no problems and none of this presents an issue. Watching that implode will be even more fun.

You understand that this is exactly the attitude that pushes us farther from you.

 

[Discombobulated]

Absolutely, unless the Texas constitution explicitly disallows it. That's what I would say, at any rate. However, I'm sure it could be argued. I'm not sure what mechanism a county would use to declare independence, though: counties don't have have their own legislature to pass such a resolution. I suppose they could stage a plebiscite, though again the authority to do so is open to question. A state, such as Texas, already has a complete government, more than adequate to govern themselves and determine such issues.

And what would be the advantage of breaking up the nation into bite size pieces? To make it easier for a foreign power to swallow them up?

 

[Rotagilla]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

How are you oppressed?

Don't worry about that. It isn't relevant.
We WERE talking about the feasibility of breakaway states existing without dependence on the fed gvt...Remember?

You sure dropped that angle quickly, didn't you? LMAO..

I pointed out a few things that clearly made you uncomfortable and you completely abandoned your position.
Now you're trying to change the subject as a distraction. That might work on some people but not with me.

I'm not going to run in circles chasing your distractions because you got painted into a corner and can't get out.
I made my points...obviously... and your desperate attempts to evade and distract prove it.

If your mission is to utilize this section here:
Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

then I'm going to need to see a quick run down of your oppressions.

Because you will need to prove your shit by Locke which is where that comes from. See here:
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Furthermore, you will need to demonstrate that to the international community in order to be taken seriously.

No dear.. I don't dance when you pull the strings and I don't have to prove anything to you as a prerequisite.
Read it and take it at face value and you'll do a lot better.
You sure dropped the "no one can survive without the federal govt" angle, though, didn't you?

You don't have a case. If you cannot prove the usurpations and abuses through legitimate means- which is what I just gave you then you can kiss your trade good bye. You won't be considered legitimate via the international community.

Nation-states have studied US constitutional law and the constitution and John Locke.

I didn't back off anything.

You have your lawyer blinders on.
If secession were to occur, first of all, no one is going to ask the gvt for permission.
Also, many nations would be eager to help and become partners and none of them would be consulting with you or your law books to see if it were "legal". Be serious.

You don't seem to understand how the real world works.
Something like that won't be settled in courtrooms by lawyers chit chatting and shuffling papers.

..but for funsies, I believe a slick liar...oops...I mean LAWYER.... could find dozens of instances of actionable "usurpations and abuses" by the gvt.that would hold up.

LMAO..I notice you abandoned your tack of how a confederation of states couldn't survive w/out the fed gv blah...blah...and are now trying a different angle... comical.

 

[Disir]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

Yes. But let's not try to wriggle out of this with distractions and evasions.

I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the other things I pointed out...and that's quite comical....It's ok. I understand your reluctance to address them and I know why, too.

How are you oppressed?

Don't worry about that. It isn't relevant.
We WERE talking about the feasibility of breakaway states existing without dependence on the fed gvt...Remember?

You sure dropped that angle quickly, didn't you? LMAO..

I pointed out a few things that clearly made you uncomfortable and you completely abandoned your position.
Now you're trying to change the subject as a distraction. That might work on some people but not with me.

I'm not going to run in circles chasing your distractions because you got painted into a corner and can't get out.
I made my points...obviously... and your desperate attempts to evade and distract prove it.

If your mission is to utilize this section here:
Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

then I'm going to need to see a quick run down of your oppressions.

Because you will need to prove your shit by Locke which is where that comes from. See here:
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Furthermore, you will need to demonstrate that to the international community in order to be taken seriously.

No dear.. I don't dance when you pull the strings and I don't have to prove anything to you as a prerequisite.
Read it and take it at face value and you'll do a lot better.
You sure dropped the "no one can survive without the federal govt" angle, though, didn't you?

You don't have a case. If you cannot prove the usurpations and abuses through legitimate means- which is what I just gave you then you can kiss your trade good bye. You won't be considered legitimate via the international community.

Nation-states have studied US constitutional law and the constitution and John Locke.

I didn't back off anything.

You have your lawyer blinders on.
If secession were to occur, first of all, no one is going to ask the gvt for permission.
Also, many nations would be eager to help and become partners and none of them would be consulting with you or your law books to see if it were "legal". Be serious.

You don't seem to understand how the real world works.
Something like that won't be settled in courtrooms by lawyers chit chatting and shuffling papers.

..but for funsies, I believe a slick liar...oops...I mean LAWYER.... could find dozens of instances of actionable "usurpations and abuses" by the gvt.that would hold up.

LMAO..I notice you abandoned your tack of how a confederation of states couldn't survive w/out the fed gv blah...blah...and are now trying a different angle... comical.

You're the dingaling that decided to bring it up. I'm just educating you on what you are up against.

You won't make it. Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.