"But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
Texas governor, Rick Perry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
55 comments:
I totally understand if the rest of the Union slashes Texas's throat if Texas leaves the Union for the "pool boy". I get it.
Yahhhooooo!
It's a nice way to suggest Obama doesn't have the know-nothing mandate, and it might matter.
Rick Perry loves America so much that he's willing to leave it. Ah, the same logic I used to dump Cindy Williams Freshman year of college.
A similar measure has been introduced in the Tennessee Legislature. Our governor is a fiscally intelligent Democratic business man whom I have been proud to vote for. So his party affiliation would lead me to think he would lean toward vetoing such a measure.
Yet, he was a businessman, and he grumbled about possibly not accepting some of the so called stimulus bill. In an interview, the governor of Texas mentioned our governor by name as someone else who might be interested in reclaiming the 10th ammendment.
Interesting times.
Trey
The cynic in me wonders if Gov. Perry would be on this obvious anti-DC bender if his primary opponent wasn't a US Senator.
It was a pretty well-crafted statement. If people ride him for talking about secession he can point to his statement "There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it." But it gave the Texas boys something to cheer about nonetheless.
Uh-huh. And next time a hurricane slams into $700,000 McMansions perched on a barrier island, I expect to see some of that independence.
Just because Lincoln was hung up on the union forever doesn't mean it's unconstitutional for a state to secede. In fact it's the essence of the constitution.
"When in the due course of human events (or party primaries) . . ."
And just a few days ago, Perry asked for the "oppressive hand" of FEMA for wildfire assistance.
I say let them go. Austin can become like West Berlin and we can get our textbooks back without paying the Intelligent Design ransom.
MadisonMan and peter hoh have it right. This rhetoric is his way of differentiating himself from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who will hopefully give Texas a gift by defeating Perry in the GOP Primary in 2010, and Perry has never been shy about taking Federal money when it's suited his purposes.
And while I am always happy to see a few bursts of Texnithicity here and there, I'm not a fan of this sort of rhetoric. The Governor of a state in this country (particularly a state which previously attempted secession for all the wrong reasons) should not be talking about seceding from the Union, that is contemptible. And while his statement gave him some wiggle-room, that's what he's saying is an option on the table.
Also, it's interesting to see the people who spent so much time lecturing other Americans over their supposed lack of patriotism over the last few years now talking about seceding from the Union (an act of treason, really) just because they are on the wrong side of the last election and recent polling. Once again, Governor Goodhair beclowns himself.
“what this cracker is proposing or threatening is that fine line between free speech and treason.”
Ah, yes, the hypocritical tolerant and politically correct liberal rears its ugly head. The underlying hatred for Southern people has never ever abated from the Northeastern Yankee elitists.
If he was Black would you have cal him “this nigger”, or if he was a Jew, this “Kike”; do you refer to Bobby Jindal as that Christian “dot head”?
In the Brave New World are only leftists allowed to be offensive and intolerant? Is this a new carefully crafted agenda to desensitize Americans leading to an intolerance of other's political beliefs?
Texas although the 48th state to join the union...That would be Arizona.
somefeller wrote: "The Governor of a state in this country should not be talking about seceding from the Union, that is contemptible."
I get your point, but at the same time we are a collection of individual states. It seems the world is moving in a seperatist manner, it does not surprise me that there are rumblings of the same in America.
Most of it comes from the South again, which is interesting. Part of it is our frustration that our tax dollars are underwriting failed policies in California and Michigan, for example. We knew what they were doing was madness, we took another route, were succesful, not we are subsidizing the failure of politicians who were not bright enough to know better.
What is the point of having states if they are not at least somewhat sovereign?
Trey
Trey, check out this table that lists federal spending per federal taxes received.
Michigan and California both pay more than they receive. Texas and Florida are pennies under the dollar, but no other southern states are on the positive side of that balance sheet.
"What is the point of having states if they are not at least somewhat sovereign?"
There's a big difference between states being somewhat sovereign, a concept that I support and that none of the recent policies of the Obama Administration changes (tying Federal money to making states do certain actions isn't anything new - see Liddy Dole and the Reagan Administration's actions regarding road funding and raising the drinking age), and their being completely sovereign. That possibility was foreclosed in 1865, and while it is true that separatism of one form or another seems to be spreading as an idea worldwide, it doesn't change the context of it in this country. It's one thing to wave a Lone Star flag at a Willie Nelson concert and say after a few beers that Texas should be its own country. Its altogether another thing for the (presumably sober) Governor of Texas to suggest that's a possibility in a political speech to a crowd of protestors.
I'm off to work, so I won't be able to continue the conversation, but carry on.
Peter -
Is there a table like that that does not include military spending?
"Texas although the 48th state to join the union is still a state within the union and to leave it would be the same as any southern state in 1860-61."
Haha. Not much on history, are ya?
I wish there were a table that didn't include military spending, but military spending doesn't exactly happen in a vacuum. There are specific reasons to put certain military installations in Alaska and Hawaii. Other than that, it's all political horse trading.
Michigan and California both pay more than they receive. This is kind of bizarre, since both Michigan and California are basket-cases at the moment. People are saying Detroit (in Michigan) may be needing 130 billion, in connection with bailouts of their failed auto companies. And California -- ground zero for subprime mortgages and foreclosures -- is probably the state most responsible for getting us into this mess (although Florida and New York are strong contenders). In addition, California's leaders have so mismanaged their affairs that they face a budget gap of up to $40 billion -- something they may try to remedy with a slew of tax increases, but which will probably ultimately require a federal bailout, if they don't want to destroy their economy. Maybe they've managed to give more than they got the past few years, but it's looking an awful lot like all they did was defer the amounts they were going to need the central government to prop them up with.
Nice little union you have. Shame if anything was to happen to it.
Texas has blown hard about secession all my adult life that I can remember. When will they finally get around to it? Big talkers!
If he was Black would you have cal him “this nigger”, or if he was a Jew, this “Kike”; do you refer to Bobby Jindal as that Christian “dot head”?Naw. If it were Bobby Jindal, he just would have paid him for the Slurpee!
Watch it Bella, you are getting into Brando territory there, next thing you know you will be called Maxine, or Mr. Maxine. These lefties are some vicious little bitches.
Fucking major douche, semi-literate and famous tax evader HD thinks he knows some stuff. He knows lots of stuff. His mommy lets him use her computer.
Now learn English, you lame little bastard. Some history or the ability to use Google might help too. Jesus god you are one dumb motherfucker.
"These lefties are some vicious little bitches."
...little hypocritical bitches.
There. All fixed.
I.B.O.
For the good of the union, I believe the time has come for all patriots to set aside the platitudes of old and do what must be done.
The time has come to mess with Texas.
I stand by my prediction that the USA will break apart along red/blue lines by 2050. The first state to leave the Union will probably be Idaho. Texas will be in the blue state column by that time thanks to immigration.
Once demographic change creates a permanent Democratic majority, as has already occured in CA, it will only be a matter of time before the red states opt out.
Texas isn't just any state, it is a formerly sovereign nation, the Republic of Texas, with its own President, COngress, Supreme Court and Secretary of State.
I think they forgot to add what Gov. Perry said next: Unless not dissolving it means I don't get re-elected. So dissolve away!
I wish there were a table that didn't include military spending, but military spending doesn't exactly happen in a vacuum. There are specific reasons to put certain military installations in Alaska and Hawaii. Other than that, it's all political horse trading.Well, I disagree. The total federal outlay, after all, is mainly nondiscretionary. And a big chunk of the discretionary, as you pointed out, is military spending that is not entirely driven by ideological matters. So without these kinds of details, that chart seems pretty meaningless to me.
My how times have changed.
Vermont: Most Likely to Secede?Texas has blown hard about secession all my adult life that I can remember. When will they finally get around to it? Big talkers!
If you thought our dependence on foreign oil is a problem now....
In states that vote for Democrats, the citizenry is on the record as being in favor of the party that favors redistribution of wealth and opposes a balanced budget amendment. If we look at Mr. Hoh's list of states, all the under-$1.00 states at least occasionally elect Democrats to the U.S. Senate and vote for the Democratic candidate for President.
Except Texas. Texas is the only state that is consistently opposed to the redistribution of wealth and simultaneously is getting its own wealth redistributed.
So, yes, there are a number of states that are getting screwed worse by the tax and spending distribution. But there aren't any other states that are getting screwed against their will. Why shouldn't Texans at least fantasize about getting out of an abusive relationship?
Damn formatting. Pissing me off.
Peter:
Reasons why military bases tend to be in the South:
1) It is generally sunnier there - this is key for aviation of all kinds, but also for the Army - it is hard to simulate Iraq in Minnesota in February.
2) There is generally a lower cost of living (inc state taxes, etc) - this is important since most military folks are not exactly high-earners.
3) The local civvies generally don't regard the troops as vile baby killers.
4) It is nice and warm - and folks generally like to retire near their old bases.
5) A lot of bases were originally set up in WW II - the Southwest had a lot of federal land that could be used - I'm not sure why all the bases in the South from that era but I would assume powerful Dixiecrat politicians were a factor.
6) The biggest shipbuilder in the US is in Mississippi, and the biggest maker of jet fighters in is Georgia. I don't know the chicken and egg of this one.
Does Social Security count as federal spending - I am thinking of folks from the North who retire to the Sub Belt.
Texas joined the Union in 1845 under the condition that the state could leave again if it wanted to, Mr Perry asserted.
However journalists examining the original terms found that in fact Texas had retained the right to divide into four states if it wished, but not to secede.[From:The Daily Mail]
Hell now that journalists are the experts...
Hey! could be better than seceding-
How many Senators would that be?
Sheepman said...
Texas although the 48th state to join the union...That would be Arizona."
My typo. Sorry.
Hmm. We could turn Austin into its own state, sorta like South Africa surrounding Lesotho. Not so good from a Senate perspective, but then if you divide up the rest into three states... hmm....
Ya-
Houston we have a problem-
It's Austin.
Reasons why military bases tend to be in the South:God, you're an idiot. Most of our military bases are legacy of either the westward expansion (Forts Leavenworth, Riley, Carson) or during WWI and II (Benning, Hood, Knox, Stewart). Considering those facts, none of your points except 5) make the least bit of sense.
Let them go. And take the rest of the former confederacy, who have done nothing except suck dollars from the rest of the country for the last one hundred forty-five years, with them.
I miss the gag commercial for Tony Sanchez from the 2002 election that was on Chris Baker's radio shown in Houston. It concluded with, "Rick Perry is a doodyhead!"
Oh, by the way, Freder, the Tax Foundation says otherwise:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
I'm sure we can get Alaska and Louisiana to join us and leave the United States importing almost all of its oil.
...that and I'm voting for, "Phil Gramm in a skirt" (as Gloria Steinem once called our senior Senator) anyway.
Are they gone yet?
"Once demographic change creates a permanent Democratic majority, as has already occured in CA, it will only be a matter of time before the red states opt out."
I think that's what Perry was getting at. We Texans look at blue basket case states like Michigan, New York, DC, and especially California, and wonder if we want to stay for the ride into the crater with those insane places.
California, with all its advantages of geography, climate, traditions of innovation, and resources, is bankrupt and losing population by the minute (1)! How can that be???? It takes more than simple incompetence to bring economic ruin to a place like California. IMHO, it takes deliberate malevolent intent.
The United States may be about to adopt as a national policy the economic suicide pacs that ruined Michigan and are currently destroying California.
Maybe we Texans really should just bow out of this race to the bottom.
----------
(1) California refugees: When California destroys your job you are welcome to join the thousands of your friends and neighbors who have already moved to Austin. All I ask is that you take a cold objective look at the reasons your California job disappeared. Please don't move to Austin and then start trying to make it as much like California as you can.
If you Californize Texas, neither of us will have anywhere to run.
Texas is the last, best hope for earth.
If anyone would know about sucking, it is Freder.
Get a clue, you hopeless fucking bigot.
"Texas has blown hard about secession all my adult life that I can remember. When will they finally get around to it? Big talkers!"
I had heard that their legislature begins every session with a vote to stay in the Union or not. I had heard that it's "rigged" so that it always passes by only one vote... something like that.
Their tourism advertising repeats the phrase, "Texas - It's like a whole other country."
Nothing new or alarming going on.
For the larger picture... a little bit more States taking care of their own business and the federal government staying out of it would be an improvement.
From the Wiki on Sam Houston, governor of Texas, two-time president of Texas and the only person to ever serve as governor of two different states of the union-
"Texas seceded from the United States on February 1, 1861, and joined the Confederate States of America on March 2, 1861. This act was soon branded illegal by (Sam)Houston, but the Texas legislature nevertheless upheld the legitimacy of secession. The political forces that brought about Texas's secession also were powerful enough to replace the state's Unionist governor. Houston chose not to resist, stating, "I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her. To avert this calamity, I shall make no endeavor to maintain my authority as Chief Executive of this State, except by the peaceful exercise of my functions ... " He was evicted from his office on March 16, 1861, for refusing to take an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, writing,
"Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies ... I refuse to take this oath."
He was replaced by Lieutenant Governor Edward Clark..."
End of citation.
My personal take on this (born in Florida, raised in south Georgia) is that the so-called governor of the state of Texas has embarrassed himself and should be grateful that men like Houston and Andrew Jackson and Lincoln and Monroe and Washington are not alive today. They would lead the troops into Austin themselves.
"Please don't move to Austin and then start trying to make it as much like California as you can."
Are you kidding me? Austin is far more liberal than California. Prop 8, for instance, wouldn't have had a prayer of passing in Austin. Then again, what do you expect from a city with the motto: "Keep Austin Weird"
"Most of our military bases are legacy of either the westward expansion (Forts Leavenworth, Riley, Carson) or during WWI and II (Benning, Hood, Knox, Stewart). Considering those facts, none of your points except 5) make the least bit of sense."
You failed to make your point.
- the dynamic of extensive available federal land was already a factor by WWI and II.
- There were a lot of forts and camps opened up during those times, and only a small number remain. Why were some kept open and others closed? Some of the factors listed above are relevant.
- One additional reason for all this is that they require bigger and bigger chunks of land to be effective. Fort Carson was big enough when I was in college back during the Vietnam War, but they have been trying to double it so they can more room to maneuver their armored vehicles. And, if armored vehicles take a lot of land to train with, try supersonic jets. Nevada has training areas larger than some eastern states (NAS Fallon is about the same size as HI and MA, and bigger than 6 other states in the NE).
Agreed, Austin us more liberal than California as a whole. But it is less liberal than the Bay Area. And whereas California's conservatives are pretty much neutered at the state level (save tax bills that require a supermajority), Austin's liberals are outnumbered at the state level. So far. Indeed many Texas Dems remain somewhat conservative.
In addition, California's leaders have so mismanaged their affairs that they face a budget gap of up to $40 billion.
If the excess federal tax payments of Californians were transferred to state coffers, we would have run a budget surplus almost every year since the state entered the union. This year included.
You're right that the state egregiously mismanages its money. But it is a lot easier to understand why a state whose pockets are regularly picked by the rest of the country might have a harder time coming up with cash than one of the beneficiary states in flyover country would.
"But it is a lot easier to understand why a state whose pockets are regularly picked by the rest of the country might have a harder time coming up with cash than one of the beneficiary states in flyover country would."
This statement illustrates the kind of insanity that characterizes what we laughingly call the 'thought process' of the typical Obama voter.
So California is having its 'pocket picked'? So what's your answer? Vote for more spending, more entitlements, requiring more and more pocket picking!
Vote for a President with an avoided hatred of the private sector, and as does for the national private sector what your California and Michigan Democrats have done for their states private sectors. Then you complain that 'your pockets are being picked'!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
You elected a pocket-picker-in-chief as president. Don't you understand that THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH POCKETS IN THIS COUNTRY TO FEED THE MACHINE HE'S BUILDING!
The Treasury Department's Chief Tax Cheat has said that our standard of living will go down, but we'll be happier.
Well, he'll be happier, he's doing the pocket picking, and of course, like most of Obama's close friends, isn't under the same tax code as you and I.
If you voted for Obama then you have no right to complain that your pocket is being picked.
You heard Obama tell you that he'd pick the pocket of that guy over there, and give a little of it to you. Here's a free clue: He told that guy the same thing about you.
Michigan, New York, and California ought to be economic powerhouses. They were for over a hundred years.
There is one reason, and one reason only that they are bankrupt and everyone who can flee those sad places is doing so.
It's because of people who have voting for the likes of Obama for the last 35 years.
Texas is like Quebec.
OUI!!!
Then the reconquistas will rejoice and flood across the border to take back their land.
Good luck with that.
I was thinking retirees in the South. Social Security and Medicare.
Post a Comment