Texas patriot calls for secession. Calls voters maggots.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,730
2
81

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
In my fantasy, texas secedes and gets invaded by mexico...

We are already being invaded by mexico.

If Texas left the union then maybe we could do something about the invasion with the justice department stopping us.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
We are already being invaded by mexico.

If Texas left the union then maybe we could do something about the invasion with the justice department stopping us.

Conservatives: Hatin that dere big yankee union gubbermunt until they inevitably need that big friend.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
We are already being invaded by mexico.

If Texas left the union then maybe we could do something about the invasion with the justice department stopping us.

Good point, Maybe if the government stopped illegal immigration then this wouldn't happen
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Conservatives: Hatin that dere big yankee union gubbermunt until they inevitably need that big friend.

If the federal government would enforce the law, there would not be an issue.

What good do laws do if the feds get to pick which ones to enforce, and which ones to ignore?
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
I dunno. We got a high average income. Low cost of living. We come out very highly in surveys of everything from education, to obesity, to good government, health care, etc, etc.

Maybe he hates that we are the whitest, and I don't mean snow, in the union?

Though it could be that we are one of the leading states in small businesses and in self reliance?

You can't drive for crap though. When I drive in Vermont I feel like I am driving in the south.

Jokes aside, what exactly is the reason for them wanting to secede? That article does not outline it very well.

Hm... it really wasn't a joke actually. Vermonters can't drive.
 
Last edited:

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
That's a great concept, but it's just that, a concept. Just operating on that doesn't work in reality. What counts as infringing on the freedom of others? If a factory is by a river and pollutes it, are they infringing on other people's freedom even though they aren't necessarily directly affected? If the factory is infringing, should it not be allowed to pollute at all? If it is allowed to pollute, how much before it's an infringement? What measures should it take to avoid it?

Before you realize it you've just made a whole big pile of laws and regulations where one side is likely going to feel like the other's views have been forced on them and we're only talking about one factory and one river.

So maybe people grasp it just fine, but realize it doesn't work that way.


For instance, gay marriage and gun control. Giving gays equal rights does not harm anyone, and only effects them. Likewise you would not want to destroy the freedoms of lawful gun owners because of the crimes of others.

Oregon is a pretty good example. We are a blue state that does not require the registration of fire arms and are a right to carry state, if you apply for a concealed carry and aren't a psychopath or felon you will get it if you are a resident.

We also have domestic partnerships that give gay couples many of the same legal rights.
 

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
The Civil War proved that succession is no longer allowed.

All hail the federal government, whether you want to or not.
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
Aside from the popular notion of Texas being a hardcore republican state, isn't it predicted to actually become a democratic state at some stage (or at least a swing state) due to the hispanic population?


Every state is going to be Democratic at some point in time, the white population is dying out in this country while non white populations are exploding in numbers. West Virginia and Utah will, sooner or later go blue. It just takes the economy in those states to become decent and then the migrants will flood to them.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
I wonder if Texans REALLY believe that if they had their own country the same economic interests that are keeping illegal aliens in Texas to work in their factories will suddenly decide to get rid of them and shut down their businesses?

Heck no. Bushes 'guest workers' would swamp the state.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,026
47,986
136
For instance, gay marriage and gun control. Giving gays equal rights does not harm anyone, and only effects them. Likewise you would not want to destroy the freedoms of lawful gun owners because of the crimes of others.

Oregon is a pretty good example. We are a blue state that does not require the registration of fire arms and are a right to carry state, if you apply for a concealed carry and aren't a psychopath or felon you will get it if you are a resident.

We also have domestic partnerships that give gay couples many of the same legal rights.

Right, so it works in some isolated examples. Your idea generally works well in regards to civil liberties, but even then it is problematic at times. For example: arms control. My owning a nuclear weapon in and of itself does nothing to affect your life. (assuming no radiation leakage, haha) Presumably most people would agree that allowing people to own a fusion bomb is not wise even though it has not in any way infringed on the rights of their neighbors.

The ideas in our constitution that are black and white are for the most part uncontroversial. The real issues are where two rights intersect, and that's why we have this complicated legal framework. It sounds appealing that everyone should just abide by a golden rule set of laws, but in practice it's much more complicated than that.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
That's building straw men though. Also it is very likely that private ownership of a nuke could directly effect others being as they aren't stable, and can decay and contaminate communal areas.


My example was 2 issues that the right and left tend to kick back and forth, when they should be non issues when common sense is applied.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,026
47,986
136
That's building straw men though. Also it is very likely that private ownership of a nuke could directly effect others being as they aren't stable, and can decay and contaminate communal areas.


My example was 2 issues that the right and left tend to kick back and forth, when they should be non issues when common sense is applied.

That's not actually a straw man at all. You said so long as they do not affect someone else it should be permitted. There are many ways in which nuclear weapons can be stored and are stored that present no such problems. If your private citizen neighbor stored his fusion weapon appropriately would you be okay with him owning it? My guess is no.

Sure it's an extreme example, but it just serves to show that the idea that these problems can all be simply solved with common sense is just not accurate. It's an appealing fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
Actually yes. I would be fine with it, provided it was 100% safe. I would assume that it would be federally regulated with strict licensing and over sight...But this is 100% the definition of a straw man.

You do realize that I and most Americans could own a machine gun if desired by getting a FFL right? Could probably own a cannon too, but you would have to have quite the acreage to fire it.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,026
47,986
136
Actually yes. I would be fine with it. I would assume that it would be federally regulated with strict licensing and oversight. You do realize that I could own a machine gun if I so desired by getting a FFL right?

So now you want the federal government to infringe on his rights to own whatever weapons he so chooses by initiating intrusive inspections and forcing him to get licenses and permission to exercise his constitutional rights? Interesting.

Regardless, such an idea is an absurdity. No individual should possess the ability to slaughter tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people at their sole discretion. There's simply no rational argument for it.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
That is why it is a straw man.

You enjoy your little romp into absurdity?
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,026
47,986
136
That is why it is a straw man.

I'm not sure if you know what a straw man is. A straw man is deliberately misrepresenting someone's argument in order to make it easier to defeat. You explicitly agreed with my characterization of your argument, therefore by definition it cannot be a straw man.

I was just showing you the absurdity of your attempt to view this in black and white terms. The world just doesn't work that way.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
So you are saying someone is advocating for freedom to bear nukes? Because no one is. I agreed with a highly unlikely hypothetical given improbable contingencies.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Just saw that someone from Alabama started one of these petitions, too.

It's like all of the worst states want to leave.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,026
47,986
136
So you are saying someone is advocating for freedom to bear nukes? Because no one is. I agreed with a highly unlikely hypothetical given improbable contingencies.

Oh, so you're saying you agreed with it, but you didn't really mean it because it was hypothetical. Do you lack the courage of your convictions? You either support it or you don't.