Time to Part Company

WorldNet Daily | 9/13/2000 | Dr. Walter E. Williams

[Tauzero]

If you really want to tick them off, say something like this any time there is an anti-war protest:

"It's a shame the streets aren't privately owned; anti-war libertarians would have a real dilemma."

or

"If the streets of San Francisco were privately owned, they would be cleared of refuse much more quickly and efficiently."

[Tauzero]

"democrats of a slower moving nature."

SMD.

[rootntootn]

I fully expect that eventually this country will once again enjoin in a war between the states. The long simmering conflict between the socialist nanny state and freedom loving devotees of the Constitution was sharpened during the Klinton decade. The polarization of the US is now fully developed. Because the socialists don't really believe in the United States but rather some modern day interpretation I expect that force of arms is the only arbiter of the dispute.

One thing regarding the post, why include only Texas and Louisiana in the seccession? In the first place Louisiana is hardly a hotbed of conservatism. It has always been a vipers nest of underhanded dimocrat operatives. Landrieu is a perfect example. Furthermore, what about the rest of us? What about the rest of the southeast, the upper Rockies, etc?

[Spandau]

I don't think there will be any shooting. I think when people have had enough of unwanted cultural and political influence, there will be a referendum and we'll peacefully go our separate ways. There will be some things that Washington won't want to give up, such as Ft. Bliss, but we can lease it to them.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Aahh, you would be speaking of the anarchocapitalists, who are as utopian and opposed to human nature as communists.

Well, they are only "anarcho-capitalists" when it comes to America. They thought it was jolly good fun for Chiang Kai-shek to redistribute land to the peasants in Taiwan in the Fifties with the "Land to the Tiller Act" or for Douglas MacArthur to set up a "new deal" social democracy in occupied Japan or for Henri Pilippe Petain to create a strongly centralized paternalistic state in Vichy France. These men were heroes. But Americans must never benefit from this "true rightwing" beneficence. Sorta like how leftist hippies worshipped strong, proud, goose-stepping, nationalistic, military dictatorships in Cuba and Vietnam while working for the exact opposite thing in America. When did any foreign Communist dictatorship engage in "military cuts?"

The American Far Left and Far Right are both anarchists who worship totalitarians and work for the opposite positions in the US of the foreign regimes they admire so much.

But really, isn't there something kinda funny about "libertarians" who want an "racially pure" society?

[XRdsRev]

Dude, the native son thing was a joke, hence the ;).

P.S. by your logic, Dwight Eisenhower is really is a Kansan since that is where he grew up. As for the Bush's, in addition to being n/e native sons, they both went to university in the n/e and both own property there. And Lyndon Johnson was so bad, that he cancels out at least 3 good Texans. (that was a joke in case you didn't get it)

As for FEMA (well the former FEMA), they spend quite a bit of time on projects in Texas & Louisiana. I beleive they still have people down there as a result of last years shuttle disaster. We have not even begun to calculate the current asset value or economic impact of all the Federal installations in Texas or the dollar value of all the years of Federal maritime improvements from Sabine down to Brazos.

And my point still stands, you are making a huge deal out of only getting 95 cents back on your dollar when there are other states contributing a great deal more than you are. Texas ranks about 36 in the ratio of dollar taxes sent to dollar spending received (1 = getting the most back, 50 = getting the least back). Washington, Wisconsin, New York, New Hampshire, Nevada, Minneseota, Michigan, Massachusetts, Illinois, Delaware, Colorado, California, Connecticut and New Jersey all have a lower ratio than Texas and in many cases it is much lower. Illinois gets back $0.78 for every $1.00 they send, Nevada gets back $0.76, New Hampshire gets back $0.71, Connecticut and New Jersey only get back $0.67, yet you never hear them talking about how they should secede from the US.

[billbears]

After reading this thread, I just have to say great, when do we leave? :)

[GOPcapitalist]

As for FEMA (well the former FEMA), they spend quite a bit of time on projects in Texas & Louisiana.

That they may, but absent figures you have ZERO basis on which to claim that Texas is pushed from a 5 cent deficit to above the dollar mark by them.

I beleive they still have people down there as a result of last years shuttle disaster.

So spending on the shuttle disaster (which was in February, not last year) is to be treated as a federal expenditure in the benefit of Texas? Now that's odd, cause I tend to think of it as a national tragedy and have no doubt that they would do the same thing no matter where it broke up.

We have not even begun to calculate the current asset value or economic impact of all the Federal installations in Texas or the dollar value of all the years of Federal maritime improvements from Sabine down to Brazos.

Calculate them all you like then. Give us some figures. Otherwise you have no basis in your claim.

And my point still stands

No it doesn't. The only figure you provide contradicts you, and only by vague speculation without any substantive evidence are you able to bring it above a dollar.

you are making a huge deal out of only getting 95 cents back on your dollar when there are other states contributing a great deal more than you are.

So what's your point? I think we should give them back their losses as well.

[blackdog]

The dilema for a SC justice is just this......

The masses have been socially engineered thru various generations since our founding to walk the tracks which are in diverging angle to those the constitution laid down for us to travel. This has gone on for so long that even if a justice was willing to rule on issues based on their charter, that being rule of law based on constitutional relevance, the resulting ruling would be so foreign to what the people have been conditioned to that they would have a cultural nervous breakdown.

With daily effort which would be viewed as extreme and all that is bad, we could drag the public kicking and screaming back to constitutional pinnings in about a hundred years.

[Cyber Liberty]

I sure wish Cong. Billybob could read your post.

[First Amendment]

Thank you for some enlightenment about libertarians... If you have time, could you explain what libertarians like Sobran, or the Cato people are about?

As far as homosexuality, wouldn't public severe flogging be okay for a first offense?
Actually, I think public shame and pain would be better for most crimes that now receive jail time, which only makes people worse, has unlimited opportunities for vice, and costs us a lot of money.
(Of course, murder, rape, child molesting should be actual capital crimes.)

[mrustow]

How many times does the Supreme Court have to rule in direct oppostion to the clear meaning of the words in the constitution before Williams and others figure out that the Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the land. The Supreme law of this land is what ever 5 of the nine Supreme court justices say it is.

Time after time people bring cases that go to the surpreme court based on what the constitution says in the matter. As we have learned once again that is a dumb thing to do. If one wants to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court Case one should never ask what the law or Constitution says. Those Documents are worhtless predictors. The only question is are their 5 votes on the court to support a case. If there are not it does not matter what the constitution says. It matters what the judges say.

I see you're one of those people whose posts I'm going to have to avoid, so that I don't end up eating the business end of a .38.

"Constitution? We don't need no steenkin' Constitution!"

[Common Tator]

I sure wish Cong. Billybob could read your post.

You can rest assured that if the Congressman disagreed with me, he would have a compelling counter argument.

The esteemed Congressman and I have been reading each others posts for quite some time. Perhaps me reading more of his than he reading more of mine. We have upon occasion sharpened our wits on each other. We have also argued points in private and expressed our mutual respect in private. Sometimes we debate issues in public as well.

I greatly admire Congressman BillyBob. He is a brilliant man. We agree on many issues. But as the congressman would be the first to state, if two men always agree, one of them is doing all the thinking. That is not the case with the illustrious councilor from North Carolina, and the commonest of Southern Ohio 'tators.

[Common Tator]

"Constitution? We don't need no steenkin' Constitution!"

I did not say we don't need one. I said we don't have a constitution whose words mean anything to the people that are charged with interpreting it.

If words mean what they say, then why are people who rely on the words of the constitution to protect them so often disappointed?

[TBP]

This may be necessary, given the total disregard for Constitutional liberties displayed by the Extreme Court and the other 2 branches of our misgovernment as well.

"Resistance to tyranny is obeidence to God." -- Jefferson

[TBP]

This President is governing like a Democrat. $220 billion in NEW spending (increases) in just two years!

This Congress is passing spending programs like Democrats.

And teh Extreme Court is fully Marxist.

[kms61]

Both were needless expeditions aimed at confiscating cotton. Their success or failure had no effect on the outcome of the war, except that they took away resources from more pressing matters in the east.

I reiterate, had their been a military reason to make a serioius move on Texas, there would have been one. There was not.

[skinkinthegrass]

Besides, every state is free to split itself up whenever it wants, however it wants, as long as the given state's legislature and Congress both agree on it. Article IV, Section 3.

YIKES!...Can you imagine, taking the concept to it logical ends..How many counties/parishes are in the U.S.A?...like W.V. in 1863 during the civil war?... :/

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

It means the republicans have finally run out of excuses and are shown to be exactly what they are---democrats of a slower moving nature.

You left out invertebrate.

[AgThorn]

In the meantime, realize that among the components of sodomy is heterosexual oral sex. Laws preventing this were rendered inoperative alongside the rest. We are freer today than before the court ruled. Any one wanting this to go the other way has a morbid fascination with the sex lives of others that needs scrubbing out.

sod·om·y [ sódmee ]

noun

1. an offensive term for anal intercourse

2. an offensive term for sexual intercourse with an animal

So, change the laws to be specific as to what SODOMY means, per the dictionary. ANAL intercourse is down right unhealthy, whether hetero or homo sexually done. Don't even ask about the second definition as far as being unhealthy.

So, let's put NEW Sodomy laws on the books according to the dictionary definition, for health reasons alone.