Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who says you have to go to MA, CA, or NY if TX secedes? Louisiana is right there, and the culture of Louisiana is very similar to SE TX, Houston, Galveston anyways.
If TX ever secedes, back to Louisiana I return.
Maybe I misunderstand your point, but as I read it, it doesn't really address what I said. What I said to some others who say they would leave Texas if it (or akin states -- like Louisiana, perhaps) -- seceded, was that if Texas/Southern/Red states seceded (almost certainly as a result of a total social/financial collapse, not like in 1861), was do they really feel that way? As in, that the emotional consideration of being "American" first (as opposed to first feeling a loyalty to your state/region) has strong implications of its own. And yes, I am an American and I am very proud of it.
BUT...if it came down to brass tacks, my first loyalty is to my state/region. Not for the least of reasons that if Texas ever left (which it will not on its own nor without the collapse mentioned above) then the states which kept the name "United States" would no longer be the "country" I know. It would be states that simply kept the name by default. This was exactly what happened during the War Between the States. Texas and the southeastern states had no desire at all to separate from the basic constitutional principles, or that of the DOI, of the former Union, only to separate themselves from the northern states whom they felt no longer represented those ideals in the spirit and wording as originally written.
So again, your wording is really not applicable to my point and, no condescension meant in the least, I was just presenting a question -- which all have to figure out on their own -- is would those who claim to be Americans before Texans (and nothing wrong with that if they truly feel that way) would move to a "blue state" or whatever, solely for a certain emotional feeling, that involves quite a bit more than just "being American." As in, concretely, move to states which are totally different in terms of accent, culture, history, manner, etc, simply because they keep the name "United States."
Liberal Canada has more oil than the US and pipelines would be built from Ft. McMurray, etc... to northern US cities.
Yeah, good luck getting it to them given, as the said pipelines from anywhere are anathema to the powers in control of our federal government...which have blocked them for years and do not want American energy independence. But great...it wouldn't change in the least that Texas (and the other states), would have their (our) own, and would be energy self-sufficient of our own accord (drilling in the Gulf, for example).
So if what you say is true, then why isn't it being done now? In some ways that is a rhetorical question, as the powers of the northeast and west coast are much more worried about some vague "protecting the environment" than they are about actually doing something about it all in terms of getting the oil and gas.
Executing innocent people (state murder) is about the same as an individual murdering someone. If you want to "punish" the murderer, then be consistent. What kind of "punishment" does the state get for murdering an innocent life?
Again, name the innocent person. Why does no one actually step up to the plate and name them? If it was done, then it can be examined on a case by case basis. And too? "Murder" is a legal term to refer to the unlawful taking of an innocent life by another individual(s). On the other hand, capital punishment is an approved state administered punishment for the most extreme examples of such (i.e, most murder does not fall under the heading of being punishable by death).
This analogy you present is callous and misapplied to the max, as concerns moral priorities. And in any event, capital punishment is not about punishment as commonly understood. It is about simple justice. Some crimes are so brutal and heinous that death is what they deserve...and they are the ones who made the choice. And no question they have been "deterred." For sure, those who commit these type crimes are given many more considerations and safeguards than their victims ever did. If you can't see the distinction, then nothing more I can say...
=L210;35793119]I guess I can't express disagreement with same-sex marriage opponents without being accused of calling people haters. Whatever.
Nothing "whatever" about it. Who said you called people "haters"? I said many do, and they do. They toss around meaningless terms like "homophobic" and (in other applications), "racist" or "sexist" or "xenophobic" or what ever. And the "slippery slope" refutation is not a fallacy at all. It is the natural progression of historical dynamics.
Quote:
This whole paragraph is just bizarre. What do you feel so guilty about that would make you so defensive? I'm talking about slavery being in place for thousands of years, and you feel the need to defend colonies and countries that are/were in existence for only a few hundred years. I don't see how going on a rant about Africa furthers your argument. It's not like I said I was moving to Africa because it's a bastion of social freedoms.
Defensive? LOL Don't delude yourself, L210. Your original point made no sense and your reply even less so. What I was asking was doing was replying to your "example" of slavery being relevant to the point itself. Sorry if you do not get the difference. Yes, certain things/institutions change over the years (and no problem if the change is brought about from gradual societal acceptance of how things progress. However, the institution of marriage (in whatever form...even polygamy), is not one of those that has changed over time. It is instinctive, and a concrete fact that reproduction must involve a male and female; even a test-tube baby. Disagree if you like, but the same also involve that the raising of the said children require the natural balance of a father and mother to become balanced adults. Isn't it a bit telling -- as one example -- that a lot of the dysfunction among young black males today is traceable to having no father around? See more below
Quote:
You can't legislate family structure. We have many single-parent households. It's not ideal, and even less ideal than same-sex parents, but it happens anyway. Staying in foster care is also less ideal than having children in homes with same-sex couples. It's not natural for children to be in foster care with strangers. Foster care is so detrimental to a child's well-being that he or she is most often better off in a dysfunctional home with a biological parent.
Yes, society can legislate "family structure". This goes back to that shared moral values are the key to a stable society. And once again you use extreme examples to make a case. It is like if someone said "men are taller than women", that it would translate into that all men are taller than all women." We all know that isn't the case on an individual basis. So yes, it stands to reason that some situations are better than others. However, here is one of the best refutations of a justification for "gay adoption" I have ever read...and written by a gay man:
Who explains to the young daughters when they reach an age how to deal with their growing breasts, their periods, boyz sniffing around them demanding blow jobs, how you stay chaste, how to deal with the meanness of other little girls, what PMS feels like and how to deal with it, the expectations of motherhood, what to expect with a baby in your belly, how you feel with various kinds of birth control, how other women feel and what is going on almost every day of your uniquely female life? Huh? How is it two men think they have what it takes to raise a female child, or two women think they have a clue about the pressures of being a boy and dealing with the pressures of testosterone, male bonding, etc. Oh yes, it’s so very
politically incorrect to dare suggest that a child is entitled to parents
of both sexes, but in point of fact, THAT IS HOW NATURE INTENDED human
children are raised. Sorry, I know it is a hanging offense to suggest in
this oversensitive age that child raising and homosexuality might have even
the slightest hint of a problem, but then of course who gives a **** about
children when we’re talking about OUR RIGHTS?
Quote:
Because straight people never act promiscuous in public. Let's use those women flashing people at Mardi Gras to judge all women.
LOL. I fully agree with you there. Not withstanding it is much more open and flaunted by the radical gays, those "sand for brains" straights (the hollering woooooo kids) at Spring Break or whatever, are disgusting as well. Although I have yet to see them having open sex for the sole reason of trying to outrage public norms. Sorry, but the homosexual bunch has an almost monopoly on that one!
Quote:
Yes, a majority of people support the death penalty when only asked about the death penalty. When they are asked to choose between life in prison without the possibility of parole and the death penalty, a slight majority choose the former. New Low in Preference for the Death Penalty - ABC News
That one has been addressed, so no point made. Many of us would prefer life without parole, IF, it actually worked and there were guarantees. But their aren't. And again as well, many of those who oppose the death penalty only champion life without parole as a "stalking horse" to get rid of capital punishment as a starter. After that, they would work for getting rid of "life without parole." And they do so because they are really opposed to the concept of punishment at all...believing that crime is not really the ultimate fault of an individual, but societies shortcomings....
Quote:
I believe that royalties from books should be used for restitution. We already tried having extensive prison industry. The biggest opponents of that are businesses. They do not want to compete with free labor. We also don't have the staff levels in Texas to monitor hard labor activities because we can't even hire enough people now.
I actually could agree with you on this one. Same as -- in a different realm -- I believe the real key to controlling illegal immigration is to focus quite a bit on the businesses that hire them.
Quote:
It would be easier to take those editorials more seriously if they provided the depth of information the Death Penalty Information Center provides, but they do not. I believe there are pro-death penalty websites that are comparable to DPIC, so there is no need to resort to political commentators.
No, you are simply reading them from a perspective of one who advocates the abolition of the death penalty, and thus it is tainted. Hey, I do so from a different perspective, so we are both biased in our way. However, what I have an issue with you is that you seem to be self-inoculated from the implications of your own biases (this is very typical of those on the "liberal" end of the spectrum). The information you provide has numerous flaws, which were pointed out. It really comes down to that they take the flimsiest of evidence and try and present it as something that occurs regularly. It is just as biased and slanted as those you attempt to portray as such...
So as bottom line? Pleeeeze name the innocent person and it can be discussed on a case by case basis. That is not an outrageous request, is it...?
There's no better place in the world to live than Texas the state. But if Texas ever seceded I'd be out. No way I trust a place that continually elected Perry as Governor to run itself as a country. Plus, the balance between the 50 states is good for every state. I wouldn't live in an independent republic of California either. Sometimes being under a federal government actually helps. The Civil Rights Acts of the 60s are a perfect example. I sometimes wonder what the south would be like today had there not been government intervention.
Texas would quickly become the equivelent of Mexico if it were an independent nation. I'd bail out too. Every state in the nation survives based on ridiculous amouts of federal support, power, and money. Without that, they would have long periods as failed nations before they were able to independenly function.
Yes, society can legislate "family structure". This goes back to that shared moral values are the key to a stable society. And once again you use extreme examples to make a case. It is like if someone said "men are taller than women", that it would translate into that all men are taller than all women." We all know that isn't the case on an individual basis. So yes, it stands to reason that some situations are better than others. However, here is one of the best refutations of a justification for "gay adoption" I have ever read...and written by a gay man:
These aren't extreme cases. Gay people are trying to adopt children who are unwanted or orphaned. This is common! These children would be better off outside of foster care even if it meant being with a single parent or a same-sex couple.
Quote:
Who explains to the young daughters when they reach an age how to deal with their growing breasts, their periods, boyz sniffing around them demanding blow jobs, how you stay chaste, how to deal with the meanness of other little girls, what PMS feels like and how to deal with it, the expectations of motherhood, what to expect with a baby in your belly, how you feel with various kinds of birth control, how other women feel and what is going on almost every day of your uniquely female life? Huh? How is it two men think they have what it takes to raise a female child, or two women think they have a clue about the pressures of being a boy and dealing with the pressures of testosterone, male bonding, etc. Oh yes, it’s so very
politically incorrect to dare suggest that a child is entitled to parents
of both sexes, but in point of fact, THAT IS HOW NATURE INTENDED human
children are raised. Sorry, I know it is a hanging offense to suggest in
this oversensitive age that child raising and homosexuality might have even
the slightest hint of a problem, but then of course who gives a **** about
children when we’re talking about OUR RIGHTS?
What do people do when a parent dies or isn't around? They find a family member or a close family friend of the same gender.
Quote:
LOL. I fully agree with you there. Not withstanding it is much more open and flaunted by the radical gays, those "sand for brains" straights (the hollering woooooo kids) at Spring Break or whatever, are disgusting as well. Although I have yet to see them having open sex for the sole reason of trying to outrage public norms. Sorry, but the homosexual bunch has an almost monopoly on that one!
I've seen heterosexual couples humping each other in clubs. They may or may not have been doing it to outrage people, but it was disturbing either way.
Quote:
No, you are simply reading them from a perspective of one who advocates the abolition of the death penalty, and thus it is tainted. Hey, I do so from a different perspective, so we are both biased in our way. However, what I have an issue with you is that you seem to be self-inoculated from the implications of your own biases (this is very typical of those on the "liberal" end of the spectrum). The information you provide has numerous flaws, which were pointed out. It really comes down to that they take the flimsiest of evidence and try and present it as something that occurs regularly. It is just as biased and slanted as those you attempt to portray as such...
Dennis Prager's argument had a huge flaw. He had no statistics to back up his assertion that the lack of the death penalty leads to more innocent people dying than having the death penalty. His reasoning is that prisoners kill each other, but hardly any of them are eligible for capital punishment.
Quote:
So as bottom line? Pleeeeze name the innocent person and it can be discussed on a case by case basis. That is not an outrageous request, is it...?
I named him two or three times already. If you didn't see his name in the previous posts, then you aren't going to see it now.
We've thrown this thread way off topic.
Quote:
That one has been addressed, so no point made. Many of us would prefer life without parole, IF, it actually worked and there were guarantees. But their aren't.
That wasn't in the poll question. If the majority of people preferred the "guarantee" of the death penalty, then they would have chosen it. When you kill an innocent person, guess what happens? There is less chance that the real perpetrator will be caught. This is not a death penalty case, but this is what happens when the system imprisons the wrong person.
Quote:
Norwood had killed Christine Morton. And since no one figured that out after her death, he remained free. He killed another woman in the Austin area, Debra Baker, in similar circumstances less than two years later, authorities say.
Since Michael Morton was alive, he had the opportunity to fight his case, and the real perpetrator was found. Imagine what would have happened if Morton was executed after 10 or so years on death row. Norwood would have still been out there.
It is a drastic move with a heavy cost, so the circumstances would need to warrant it. And, a situation that did, I'm afraid would be dire for all of us.
It would have to be after exhausting other avenues for resolution of whatever concerns.
I worry that too many jump on this idea before they have made sufficient good faith efforts to get resolution some other way.
The way I see things unfolding, I doubt it would be Texas alone but a large segment of the country that would be disaffected from the rest. Perhaps much of "fly over country". Movement by Texas might trigger other areas to join.
Texas would quickly become the equivelent of Mexico if it were an independent nation. I'd bail out too. Every state in the nation survives based on ridiculous amouts of federal support, power, and money. Without that, they would have long periods as failed nations before they were able to independenly function.
Ok, stop right there. Where -- fer gawds sake -- in the constitution do the feds have to power to tax the states and re-distribute the said taxes for purposes never approved by the said constitution. This is nothing more than the picture perfect example of a federal government totally out of control...and using that power so that politicians and lobbyists and bureaucrats can secure their own positions and wealth. I don't know for sure who first said it, but a truism for sure was expressed by whoever smart once said along the lines of "A democracy is doomed to fail, eventually...as the people will eventually figure out that they can vote themselves the treasury." This is exactly what is being done today, albeit under the devious guide of politicians who know this truth so well, and exploit it.
So what if Texas (and other red states) kept their own tax money and spent it as they saw fit...? What is wrong with that...?
And anyway, on a related tangent, federal money today is nothing more than worthless promissory notes. They have nothing to back them up save the ability to keep churning them out so long as they can afford ink and printing machines....
With all that said though, your post was insightful and made some good pragmatic points.
Last edited by TexasReb; 07-26-2014 at 03:19 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Same as -- in a different realm -- I believe the real key to controlling illegal immigration is to focus quite a bit on the businesses that hire them. 
