?Prepare for Civil War?


New member
Yes Walt. Remember that during this election season. If someone doesn't have the same opinion as you, just call them a troll and walk away. They are probably dumb.

Oops! Stuck a nerve, did I?

You know Otis, Some conversation aren't even worth getting into. And this one came close as soon as the haters jumped onboard. If there is an opinion to give, fine give it. But to condem an entire state because a couple of people either didn't like the state, were afraid to live there, got scared away by "the crime rate", found that there are others in the state that don't agree with their point of view or had to run from marital affairs is a sign or stupidity and childish outlook and IMHO, lands you in the Troll section at Walmart.

You don't like the state? Fine. But to condem the entire state because of a narrow view of that state due to your personal experiences? That would be like me condemning the entire left of our political spectrum because of your interaction in this site. Not too fair for the rest of the left leaners in here now is it?

And what, pray tell, does some idiot judge in Texas have anything to do with the Presidential election? Oh! Wait! You think that everyone that is not an Obama lover are all cut from the same cloth. Fortunately there are more 'free thinkers' that are not not part of the Obama Zombie Nation than you are willing to admit to yourself.

I'd be willing to bet you could actually bring some unexpected insight to the conversations if you could just get over that case of cranial-rectum inversion you suffer from.


New member
I'd love to live most anywhere IF:

Nobody got "elected" and thereby pretended to own me and my property, to tell me what I could consume, how I could dress, how I raised my children or any of the other million things our overlords pretend to have "authority" to dictate.

Nobody got "elected" and were thereby "authorized" to steal ANY of my property, or what I worked to earn, on the pretense of "the common good" or "the community." If people want roads, hospitals, etc... they can work together and make it happen through voluntary action and hard work - as they used to do - not via theft and coercion.

Not meaning to argumentative here, just asking a question that your statement raise.

If not elected officials to conduct sate or federal business on the behalf of the people, then what? Anarchy?

Everybody minded their own business and didn't try to dictate to their neighbors, yet were open to friendships and voluntary organizations for mutual aid and defense.

So, you live in a neighborhood where the mean average cost of the homes are $400,000 and your neighbor decides to set up a low rent trailer park next door on his property, thus driving your property values into the dumper is okay with you? Because it is his business what he does on his property and by your statement you wouldn't care because it would be none of you business what he does on his property? And you wouldn't want the government imposing laws that would prevent someone from devaluating your property by action?

Everyone took personal responsibility for their own safety and that of their legitimate dependents, by whatever means worked for them - as long as it did not include theft from and coercion of their neighbors.

I agree we all need to be responsible for our own wellbeing. But by your statement, it would be okay for me, sitting in my fortified dwelling situated right next to your home, to build parapits on each corner of my property and arm each with a .50 cal ma-duce? After all I'm protecting me and mine "by whatever means works for me" And if I feel threatened by your actions and I take what I think is appropriate preemptive action to prevent a potential threat to my family, it okay because it "works for me", right?

Does this describe Texas? Or anywhere else in the world? Not yet. We all have a lot of work to do.

I agree that people need to be self sufficient. And looking out for your family, friends and neighbors is all part of belonging to a community. And we really do have a long way to go to getting the over abundance of governmental regulation out of our lives. However I have to disagree with your premis that we can coexist with our neighbors without regulation and someone to equally enforce those regulations. I'm not too sure I'd want to belong to a community that is governed by their own desires and there are no laws or officials to enforce comunal regulations. Imagine the Superbowl without judges, referee's and rules to play by.


Thank you for proving my point. It's hard to believe how morons one state can house! Texas....the winner...and I'm from radical old Michigan!

Yeah....you 'really proved' your over bloviated points. :rolleyes:

I'm guessing that you must be the only moron within the entire state of Michigan eh?? :yes4:

Outlaws word of the day calendar taught him "bloviated". Hahahah. Aol.com word of the day.


New member
Cascadia is a lovely dream.

As for Texas, do you think if we asked nicely, Mexico would just take it back?

Actually I think we could resolve a vast majority of the problems we have in the US if we just took over Mexico. Send in the military to wipe out the drug cartels, put all of Mexico under US law and regulation, equalize the monetary system by putting the newly acquired states on the US dollar. Cut Mexico up into comparatively sized sates. Incorporate the existing industries into our economy. Kick out the existing government. Right away the "illegal immigrant" issues goes away. The out flow of US dollars to Mexico would stop putting a hole in our economy. Northern citizens would be clamoring for beach front property along the Pacific and Gulf coasts. Tourism would be a huge boon to the lower under developed area. Retirement communities would pop up all ove the arid sections of the newly formed states. It would be a marvelous expansion of the US!

Sounds just about as stupid as giving Texas back to Mexico doesn't it?


New member
In the early 80's I worked in Houston with a man from Michigan. The auto industry was going bad. The oil industry was doing good so he came here to work. He bitched all the time about how good it was in Michigan. We got tired of his crap and told him to go back if he didn't like it. The same thing still applies. If you don't like it leave.

Ironically for all you complainers that think you know anything about Texas and how great this state is consider the following: Over 75,000 people moved to Texas in 2010. In the 2000-2010 period, we had about 200,000 migrants to Texas a year -- about 2 million for the decade. The following head line was in the Ft Worth Star Telegram: Fewer people move to new states, but Texas is still their top choice.


So mouth off all you want and stay away if you don't like it but nobody is leaving once they get here. As for me personally I wish they would go back home. We don't have as many pure blood TEXANS now. It is also getting to crowded and I like the open spaces. So if you don't like we have Interstate highways going every direction.....SO TAKE ONE AND LEAVE.


Looks like I may have to post my welcome to Texas, now go home photo. All states have great things about them NY, whining and Taxes, CA, whining and Taxes, IL anybody still live there?


New member
And because I don't believe what the left believes I'm racist and a bigot. Once again. Pot calling the kettle black


New member
The conditions under which another state, New Hampshire, would consider seceding from 2009 is interesting. Interesting that several of these conditions have come to pass, or seem likely to.


That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.
Source: gencourt.state.nh.us

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: New Hampshire Legislature Defining Conditions For Secession | NowPublic News Coverage Link Removed

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest member