Posted on 09/11/2011 5:50:36 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Just because a whole bunch of dumb Texans think that they can do it doesn't mean they can. Any more that if a bunch of dumb Texans thought the world was flat would turn it into a board-shaped planet.
If the talk over in DU is nifty then apparently you know that better than me.
I certainly didn't expect to be called a troll merely for asking questions. I take it that 'troll' is a bad thing?
You think Texans are dumb?
Where are you located?
A couple of states north of you. But let me point out that I was quoting Proud-Texan, who used the term 'dumb Texan', and using the same words that poster had used.
Yes. I saw that. You seemed to enjoy the turn of phrase and eagerly employed it in your reply.
Yeah...The S word is SUCKERS!!!...to all you delusional Perrybots!!
Are you suggesting that the shoe does fit?
Cute.
Keep practicing and someday you too can match allsouthern’s wit and wisdom.
Thanks!
I listened to that speech, and secession was never mentioned. He was talking more about states’ rights than anything else. He also said he and fellow Texans are fed up with DC tax and spend policies.
To protect Obama, they’ll use the race card against anyone including Herman Cain.
Don't worry, if it ever came down to that, no Supreme Court ruling will be a deterrent. No Liberal is going to tell Texas what to do for long. Don't Mess With Texas, is a lot more than just a slogan, its a state of mind.
From the sounds heard here on FR, it wouldn't be just Texas.
I don't know one Texan that doesn't consider America first, but with the likes of liberal north trying to turn us into Sweden, that love is for the more original America. Being ill-prepared in 1860 doomed the fight, but the spirit and will damn near overcame the industrial might. That spirit still flourishes along with the ability, these days.
Better put than by me! Thanks.
“Perhaps...the point isn’t whether Texans think they can actually legally do it, perhaps the point is a whole bunch of dumb Texans think thay can do it.”
Hear hear. We would all be a little poorer without a Texas. Her history is unique worth studying.
Her orignal constitution did provide for succession and for splitting the Republic into 5 parts if the people so voted (they didn’t). The civil war changed all that. I think the state has had something like 4 or 5 constitutions over her history.
That said, every dang fool Texan I have ever met believes Texans have this right and I say good for them! Remember:
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
—Goldwater
Some rights are unalienable.
And you will no doubt be there complaining as I do.
Tascott needs to study spelling, history, and literature. (Please tell me he's a lib.)
Dean Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland, from Being a Burden on Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick" in 1729. He died in 1745.
The Potato Famine began in 1845, one hundred years after Swift's death.
Oh, and Talcott misspelled "Eureka." That's a lot of ignorance to put on exhibit in a single sentence.
And I guess I should add that he either can't use a spell-check or believes he doesn't make mistakes.
The "Editorial Page Editor" apparently altered the original article to remove a repeated phrase ("who two years ago who two years ago"). However, the editor missed "when we came into the union in 1845" ("Union" should have been capitalized there and later). And "Perry was just indulging a familiar Texas past time of boasting" should have been edited to "indulging in" and "pastime."
From there, the article -- and the editing -- continued downhill (mostly funky capitalization and punctuation). Please tell me Talcott and his editor are libs.
TPH, whose grandfather, many long years ago, edited the Fresno Bee
“Such a doctrine would not, till of late, have been palatable anywhere, on nowhere less so than where it is not most contended for.”
I can’t understand this sentence. Can someone translate?
You obviously don't know the court case that you referenced. If you did you would know that there are two paths for secession:
"except through revolution or through consent of the States." from Texas-v-White
Neither one of the above paths need take years or decades. As a matter of fact, if pressed, I'm sure that most of the yankee states would happily consent to let the Southern conservative states go their own way so that the yankee states could chuck that antiquated old Constitution and embrace their long sought after socialist utopia.
It was an awesome sounding speech. Then he backtracked a day or two later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.