Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Texas Governer warns of secession

  1. Apr 17, 2009 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/04/will-texas-secede.html

    Interestingly, Sarah Palin's husband was a member of the Alaskan Independence party, whose stated objective is secession from the Union.

    Could it be that some modern Republicans really don't believe in America; that they are driven entirely by their own ideology? Could it be that this is pervasive and the reason we saw such a reckless disregard for Constitutional Law, under Bush?

    Out of frustration, many liberals and independents wanted to leave the country when Bush was re-elected in 2004. It seems that given that same frustration [Obama has only been in office for 90+ days], these Republicans would rather destroy the country and start a civil war.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 17, 2009 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  4. Apr 17, 2009 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I was thinking the same thing -- so how are these two groups different?
     
  5. Apr 17, 2009 #4

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well... evaluate these two statements:

    1) "liberals and independents wanted to leave the country"
    2) "Republicans would rather destroy the country and start a civil war"

    You can't see how they differ? Oh dear...
     
  6. Apr 17, 2009 #5
    I don't believe it's exclusively a "Republican" idea. And I don't believe they are interested in destroying any country or starting a civil war. I think creating a seperate country based on conservative ideals would be fantastic. Then the libs could run a country they want and all the conservatives could run a country the way they want. I kinda like the idea. A win/win. What's not to like? I hear Chuck Norris would run for President! :approve:

    It would never happen, of course. Fox News isn't even running any web propaganda on it! LOL
     
  7. Apr 18, 2009 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The second statement was written in such a way as to be purposely inflammatory. How about we rewrite it in such a way as it isn't, but still actually means what was said in the article:

    1) "liberals and independents* wanted to leave the country"
    2) 'Republicans want to leave the country.'

    So - now tell me how they are different!?

    *Independents? Really?

    [edit] Btw, I notice the word "seceding" is outside the quotes, not inside. I'd be interested in reading what was actually said. Did he actually use the word/did his quote really imply what the media says...?
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
  8. Apr 18, 2009 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    [after some research]Ok, I was going to string you along, but this is too absurd even to bait you into. Here's a Youtube clip of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5xTxcFA398&feature=related

    Several things are clear in it:
    1. He's being baited by a left wingnut (and he knows it).
    2. He doesn't use the word "secede", the wingnut interviewer does.
    2a. You can't see quotation marks in a spoken quote/paraphrase on MSNBC.
    3. He doesn't say anything that implies secession is really on the table - "who knows what will happen" is clearly an attempt to answer a stupid question without being overly dismissive.
    4. The follow-up by another reporter(?) is so dumb that he laughs at and insults the idiot and walks away.
    5. The liberal media has picked-up on this because...well....yeah, you know.

    Ivan, you start threads about Fox news's bias - this is a great example of the other side of the coin. You bought into a convenient/pleasant fiction delivered to you by your preferred-bias media.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
  9. Apr 18, 2009 #8

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Too funny Ivan! I think that Perry should be impeached not because he said something about secession but because I think he is a crook! We need Kinky in that office!

    Don't you think you are being waaaaaaaaaaaay biased to set up this strawman that liberals merely wanted to leave the country whereas 'these Republicans' (you never said who 'these Republicans' were...) wanted to destroy the country and start a civil war?

    Ivan, meet some liberals that want to secede from the union and want to DESTROY THE COUNTRY!! :surprised

    http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/morris/050308 [Broken]
    http://www.vermontrepublic.org/news_events [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  10. Apr 19, 2009 #9

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Not to worry. Rick Perry's grab for the far right looks like a failing ploy.

    His implied threat of secession is ridiculously unfounded. There is minimal support for such thinking in Texas. If put to a vote the idea would be dashed by a 3 to 1 margin according to a http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/texas/in_texas_31_say_state_has_right_to_secede_from_u_s_but_75_opt_to_stay" [Broken].

    In fact it looks like Perry himself will be put to a vote shortly and currently his numbers relative to Kay Bailey Hutchinson suggest that his tenure will likely be found as wanting as this lame idea to suggest secession.

    The Rasmussen Poll is also interesting in that 31% of Texans mistakenly think, like Perry implies, that such a secession right exists. None does of course.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  11. Apr 19, 2009 #10

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I believe the term "wingnut" corresponds to the right. The corresponding term on the left is "moonbat".

    I'm afraid I agree here. One of the disadvantages of "narrowcasting".

    I also disagree with the claim that a theoretical and unlikely secession would inevitably lead to civil war. The US has allowed it's territories to leave voluntarily - Cuba in 1902 and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands in and around 1986.

    I'm surprised that this is viewed as such a concern by Democrats, though. You'd think they would be believers in democracy. If someone doesn't want to live under their enlightened rule, should they be forced to? If a state says, "no, we no longer want this", should they be forced to remain in the union? Should they receive our enlightened leadership at the barrel of a gun? Remember, this isn't like the 1861 Civil War where there was a larger moral issue - this is about taxes, not slavery.
     
  12. Apr 19, 2009 #11

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    When Kosovo split from Serbia last year, the Serbs at work were all in a hissy fit and were handing out flyers to announce a protest. I wish I had a copy. The very first thing on the flyer was a question, obviously intended to get Americans to relate to their plight. Unfortunately the question was; "How would you like it if Texas were annexed by Mexico?"

    I was like, "Well, as long as the Bush clan is included in the deal, I'm all for it. But I thought you guys were upset about losing Kosovo?"

    And look what I've found. The Swedes have already started on the map!

    http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/absolutmexico.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  13. Apr 19, 2009 #12

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    If that's what it takes ... absolut-ly. Majority rules. That is what they signed up for isn't it? If the feel of Yankee steel is the taste they need to remember the lessons of civics, ...

    It's interesting how "patriotism" is a fine rallying flag, fundamental core value, bedrock of the Republic, what they will lay their lives down for issue, ... that is until these people no longer get their way at the polls in the exercise of the very democracy that they have pledged their all for.
     
  14. Apr 19, 2009 #13
    You have to consider also the (military) strategic interests and security of the union.
     
  15. Apr 19, 2009 #14
    Besides the unhappy can always leave the US and leave the land behind. I'm sure that there are a lot of countries willing to accept them.
     
  16. Apr 19, 2009 #15

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Maybe the US could set up a time share country, that the disaffected that lose elections, can go there when the other guys get into power? With Obama the Liberal ex-pats can now return and the whacko gun-totes can go for their hiatus.
     
  17. Apr 19, 2009 #16

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Excellent idea. How about the eastern border of Afghanistan?
     
  18. Apr 19, 2009 #17

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    That would sure give the gun toters something to do.

    Might make Pittsburgh under Obama even look a little better to them after a while.
     
  19. Apr 19, 2009 #18

    I expected nothing less from you, Ivan. First, a job well-done on attempting to bash the Palins. I'm just surprised Fox News did not make an appearence in this one, how disappointing.

    Let's move on to what is actually relevant here. There is always extreme sentiment. I can't see how the two groups you mention here differ significantly. How do you measure the levels of frustration of these two groups? I would also like you to show Bush's "reckless disregard for Constitutional Law" during his two terms, just for kicks and giggles of course.
     
  20. Apr 19, 2009 #19

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Sadly that is not the topic of the thread. Though since you are interested I might suggest those ginned up legal documents on torture as an excellent jumping off point if you are interested in sniffing the trail blazed by the last administration in regards to undermining human rights and setting off into violation of US international treaties with respect to treatment of prisoners.

    I suspect the more we get to reading these hidden memos, the better the idea we all might get as to the blatant disregard for the rule of law for anything that posed an obstacle to the last administration's conservative agendas.
     
  21. Apr 19, 2009 #20

    Then excuse me for trying to get Ivan to substantiate another extreme premise. Generally I like to see a little number in superscript or a legitimate justification.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Texas Governer warns of secession
  1. Government (Replies: 25)

  2. Sci-Tech Texas (Replies: 24)

  3. Texas polygamist raid (Replies: 120)

  4. Joe Horn and Texas Law (Replies: 12)

Loading...