Will Obama retaliate against the State of Texas?

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, lotta help Texas was the last time a few of us decided to fight against Washington. :roll:

Oh, and nice unrelated jab at unions ya got there...

Last time Texas was far from the fighting and didn't have a whole lot of people to contribute. This time the table has turned.

wow crazy civil war talk. I would love to see the southern states muster some irregular soldiers to fight against the fed. lmao.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Robor
I love how the 'small government' people had nothing to say when GWB was expanding the size of government. Dick's been in office since 2000 so he is a hypocrite.

My guess is most of them voted for and supported Bush and couldn't say anything then, but now that a liberal is in office it's time to start bleating about small government again.

:roll:

Kind of like the liberals who were against everything Bush did but cheer the same actions from Obama? The hypocrisy and partisan bullshit around here is sickening.

Bullshit. Provide a fucking example or shut the hell up.

Pakistan predator strikes. Bailouts.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: rudder
Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas? Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment

?I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,? Gov. Perry said

With Obama now running the auto industry he even has the pro-democrat union workers fearing he could retaliate in Tennessee for being a red state.

Union worried about Spring Hill, Tennessee plant.

UAW Local 1853 worried about Spring Hill, Tennessee plant.

Do you think other governers will re-assert sovereignty rights or will Obama rescind stimulus money or federal highway funds to shut down this movement?

Why would Mr Obama bother? He has bigger fish to fry in trying to keep the country from falling into a depression. If I were the Texas governor, I would be more concerned about what my constituents think about his turning down aid.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: BoberFett

:roll:

Kind of like the liberals who were against everything Bush did but cheer the same actions from Obama? The hypocrisy and partisan bullshit around here is sickening.

Bullshit. Provide a fucking example or shut the hell up.

Pakistan predator strikes. Bailouts.

Do you have examples of people on here who were against these in the past but are now for them? I never had a problem with Predator strikes in Pakistan, and I have always supported all the bailouts.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If Texas does not like Federal Intervention they can send back all of the federal funding for schools and highways and unemployment benefits.

Texas is one of the few - if not the only - southern red state that sends more money to Washington D.C. than Texas receives. So with your little attempt at slander, it is the federal government that would lose more money, not Texas. Allegedly just the DFW Metroplex is the world's tenth largest GDP - let me say that again, one metro area in Texas has the tenth largest GDP in the entire world. That's a lot of money.


However with all that being said, this is indeed just silly political rambling by a governor who is a few tacos short of a fiesta. Although I do think that states need to make sure they reinstate their sense of independence from the federal government - within reason - with the mindset that we want a balanced federal government, i.e. not too far right, and not too far left.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: piasabird
If Texas does not like Federal Intervention they can send back all of the federal funding for schools and highways and unemployment benefits.

Texas is one of the few - if not the only - southern red state that sends more money to Washington D.C. than Texas receives. So with your little attempt at slander, it is the federal government that would lose more money, not Texas. Allegedly just the DFW Metroplex is the world's tenth largest GDP - let me say that again, one metro area in Texas has the tenth largest GDP in the entire world. That's a lot of money.


However with all that being said, this is indeed just silly political rambling by a governor who is a few tacos short of a fiesta. Although I do think that states need to make sure they reinstate their sense of independence from the federal government - within reason - with the mindset that we want a balanced federal government, i.e. not too far right, and not too far left.

This is incorrect. The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area has the 10th largest metropolitan area GDP in the world, not the 10th largest GDP in the world. It's nowhere even close to that.

EDIT: As you can see here, D-FW is only the 6th largest metropolitan area by GMP in the US, much less the world. It would be somewhere around #27 worldwide by GDP, just above Greece.

 

[txrandom]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: piasabird
If Texas does not like Federal Intervention they can send back all of the federal funding for schools and highways and unemployment benefits.

Texas is one of the few - if not the only - southern red state that sends more money to Washington D.C. than Texas receives. So with your little attempt at slander, it is the federal government that would lose more money, not Texas. Allegedly just the DFW Metroplex is the world's tenth largest GDP - let me say that again, one metro area in Texas has the tenth largest GDP in the entire world. That's a lot of money.


However with all that being said, this is indeed just silly political rambling by a governor who is a few tacos short of a fiesta. Although I do think that states need to make sure they reinstate their sense of independence from the federal government - within reason - with the mindset that we want a balanced federal government, i.e. not too far right, and not too far left.

This is incorrect. The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area has the 10th largest metropolitan area GDP in the world, not the 10th largest GDP in the world. It's nowhere even close to that.

EDIT: As you can see here, D-FW is only the 6th largest metropolitan area by GMP in the US, much less the world. It would be somewhere around #27 worldwide by GDP, just above Greece.

Texas has the fifteenth largest economy in the world. I'm sure they can find some money for schools and roads without paying all that tax money to Washington.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Robor
I love how the 'small government' people had nothing to say when GWB was expanding the size of government. Dick's been in office since 2000 so he is a hypocrite.

actually many were complaining about it.

BUT what how much bush did it and what Obama is are diffrent. Obama is far worse. Bush never took control of any business's.

Of course Bush didn`t take over any buisnesses. Bush ws too busy screwing things up!
There is some scuttlebutt going around that if Bush had to take over a buisness he wouldn`t knoiw how to do it!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

It's nice to know that you're so willing to take a nice steaming pile of shit directly on the U.S. Constitution and the rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unlike you, I've sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies...

It`s nice to know that you don`t know shit about the Constitution......hahaaaa

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: piasabird
If Texas does not like Federal Intervention they can send back all of the federal funding for schools and highways and unemployment benefits.

Texas is one of the few - if not the only - southern red state that sends more money to Washington D.C. than Texas receives. So with your little attempt at slander, it is the federal government that would lose more money, not Texas. Allegedly just the DFW Metroplex is the world's tenth largest GDP - let me say that again, one metro area in Texas has the tenth largest GDP in the entire world. That's a lot of money.


However with all that being said, this is indeed just silly political rambling by a governor who is a few tacos short of a fiesta. Although I do think that states need to make sure they reinstate their sense of independence from the federal government - within reason - with the mindset that we want a balanced federal government, i.e. not too far right, and not too far left.

This is incorrect. The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area has the 10th largest metropolitan area GDP in the world, not the 10th largest GDP in the world. It's nowhere even close to that.

EDIT: As you can see here, D-FW is only the 6th largest metropolitan area by GMP in the US, much less the world. It would be somewhere around #27 worldwide by GDP, just above Greece.

This link says #12 when compared to other international metro areas.

Regardless of what the actual rank may be on whatever year one can Google up, my fundamental point is that it is that the DFW Metroplex has a very significant economy - ditto that with Houston. It was cited simply to counter the previous point which stated that Texas soaked up federal funds. The further implication seemed to be that the U.S. would be 'better off' without the state of Texas and I think due to simple economics - again whatever exact number you want to cite is largely irrelevant - this could in no way be true.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Robor
I love how the 'small government' people had nothing to say when GWB was expanding the size of government. Dick's been in office since 2000 so he is a hypocrite.

actually many were complaining about it.

BUT what how much bush did it and what Obama is are diffrent. Obama is far worse. Bush never took control of any business's.

It's a good thing too. The seven that he tried to lead went off the side of the cliff faster than the U.S. did when he was running it.

 

[chess9]

Texas will take over the world. You heard it here first. As goes Texas, so goes the world, baby! Total domination will be in Governor Perry the Gooseberry's hands shortly. Thank GOD we finally have a man who can lead the human race to salvation, democracy and prosperty. Praise the Lord and pass the 10th Amendment...again!

-Robert

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh how i'd love to see the day the federal government carpet bombs texas (minus austin of course)

STFU.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The idea expressed by palehorse, that the act of the federal government attaching strings to funding violates the 10th amendment, is simply wrong and unsupportable.

I'll refer you back to this:

Justice O?Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. In 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act ?forced participation of the State?s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,? it was unconstitutional.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
wow crazy civil war talk. I would love to see the southern states muster some irregular soldiers to fight against the fed. lmao.

That is what they said at the start of the Peninsula Campaign in 62.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse

It [HCR50] also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

I wholeheartedly agree with that portion of the Texas bill. The Federal Government should never be allowed to blackmail State governments to circumvent the 10th amendment.

I've made the same point for decades, but show me the right-wing poster who said this under Bush. Partisan selectivity on the principle is not principled.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse

It [HCR50] also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

I wholeheartedly agree with that portion of the Texas bill. The Federal Government should never be allowed to blackmail State governments to circumvent the 10th amendment.

I've made the same point for decades, but show me the right-wing poster who said this under Bush. Partisan selectivity on the principle is not principled.

Men of principle do not need to associate with any one particular party.

That said I'm glad to see you step away from all the partisan bickering and stand on the correct side of this issue... oh, wait... DOH!

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
wow crazy civil war talk. I would love to see the southern states muster some irregular soldiers to fight against the fed. lmao.

That is what they said at the start of the Peninsula Campaign in 62.

And we all know how that turned out.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, lotta help Texas was the last time a few of us decided to fight against Washington. :roll:

Oh, and nice unrelated jab at unions ya got there...

Last time Texas was far from the fighting and didn't have a whole lot of people to contribute. This time the table has turned.

wow crazy civil war talk. I would love to see the southern states muster some irregular soldiers to fight against the fed. lmao.

Hehe....exactly. Texas isn't going to do shit, as per usual. I may not think that the federal government should be able to constitutionally force states to pass laws via federal pursestrings pulling, but I do know that no state is currently in any position to effectively oppose this practice, even Texas.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, lotta help Texas was the last time a few of us decided to fight against Washington. :roll:

Oh, and nice unrelated jab at unions ya got there...

Last time Texas was far from the fighting and didn't have a whole lot of people to contribute. This time the table has turned.

wow crazy civil war talk. I would love to see the southern states muster some irregular soldiers to fight against the fed. lmao.

Hehe....exactly. Texas isn't going to do shit, as per usual. I may not think that the federal government should be able to constitutionally force states to pass laws via federal pursestrings pulling, but I do know that no state is currently in any position to effectively oppose this practice, even Texas.

What are the feds going to do about it?



If I believed in god, I would say God bless Texas :thumbsup:

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Robor
I love how the 'small government' people had nothing to say when GWB was expanding the size of government. Dick's been in office since 2000 so he is a hypocrite.

actually many were complaining about it.

BUT what how much bush did it and what Obama is are diffrent. Obama is far worse. Bush never took control of any business's.

Yes he did. He took over AIG and nationalized Fannie and Freedie.

Dari, GM is not critical to the world's financial infrastructure; you know that. AIG and FM&FM what with their derivatives and CDSs, are. September 15th....

 

[manowar821]

Fuck you Texas. I agree with the statement of bloated and invasive government, but you're a state run by selfish cocks who don't give two shits about freedoms, all you care about is the fact that it's a "lefty" government screwing you over the edge of a table in contrast to the past 8 years. Partisan hacks to the max, power level to 9000, ACTIVATE BLUBBERING CONSERVATIVE VAGINA MODE.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Fuck you Texas. I agree with the statement of bloated and invasive government, but you're a state run by selfish cocks who don't give two shits about freedoms, all you care about is the fact that it's a "lefty" government screwing you over the edge of a table in contrast to the past 8 years. Partisan hacks to the max, power level to 9000, ACTIVATE BLUBBERING CONSERVATIVE VAGINA MODE.

Dont you have to be 13+ to register?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: manowar821
Fuck you Texas. I agree with the statement of bloated and invasive government, but you're a state run by selfish cocks who don't give two shits about freedoms, all you care about is the fact that it's a "lefty" government screwing you over the edge of a table in contrast to the past 8 years. Partisan hacks to the max, power level to 9000, ACTIVATE BLUBBERING CONSERVATIVE VAGINA MODE.

Dont you have to be 13+ to register?

What, you don't like the truth? Texas is run by RETARDED ASSHOLES who are mad because the opposing retard-team is screwing them over instead of THEIR retard-team. If they didn't secede from the nation in the past 8 years, they don't get to, now. They've earned their place in this wild ride we're on by being RETARDED. Cry me a river, partisan hack, and I'll laugh in your face.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The idea expressed by palehorse, that the act of the federal government attaching strings to funding violates the 10th amendment, is simply wrong and unsupportable.

I'll refer you back to this:

Justice O?Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. In 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act ?forced participation of the State?s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,? it was unconstitutional.

So? Just because Congress is capable of writing a law that violates the 10th amendment doesn't mean that the vast majority of laws in this area don't pass constitutional muster just fine. We've already been over this, and you have no clue what you're talking about.