Arizona to Secede?

AndyE9503 said:
:hmm:How did this thread go from Arizona to abortion
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. Reminds me of other threads that were about almost anything, and became "Obama sucks" topics, complete with links, graphs, charts, polls, and pictures.
 
Won't be long before Hitler comes into here.

Hitler AND Arizona secession. It's possible, they just need to find his biological remains and launch the sons of liberty program to infuse the genome soldier projects mirrored in the image of mein fuhrer. After that, baby adolf arises from the WASP communities and gains a blitzkrieg amount of power in a short time.


saywhatkid said:
What would Arizona do by itself; sell more turquoise jewelry? Charge higher entry fees to Grand Canyon? Can you imagine the price of produce and seafood? Bwahahahaha....
Click to expand...
Honestly I tried coming up with an AZ joke but there's practically nothing there that I can think of that is worth jestering over..
 
naisho said:
Honestly I tried coming up with an AZ joke but there's practically nothing there that I can think of that is worth jestering over..
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is really not funny. What will they do with all the Native Americans that are on the reservations? Once those US dollars stop rolling in, what happens? From what I saw of Arizona, they would have a difficult time going independent. Granted, I did not tour the entire state, but geez. I think there are more trees in my county than the entire state of AZ. Guess they would sell solar powered electricity.
 
souggy said:
Following your uncle five times removed's footstep, eh?
Click to expand...

16jezki.jpg
 
saywhatkid said:
Yeah, it is really not funny. What will they do with all the Native Americans that are on the reservations? Once those US dollars stop rolling in, what happens? From what I saw of Arizona, they would have a difficult time going independent.
Click to expand...

True, them Native Americans.. hmm. perhaps they could claim nearby residency with CA, NM. AZ would be full of supremacists if this were to ever happen.

Preservation of the indian language?
Navajo is easy when you know how!
 
jillio said:
Yep. That was settled several pages ago. It is really a shame that there are people that are so wrapped up in their own little delusional existence that they continue to deny what has been proven over and over. All in an attempt to make themselves appear intelligent and well informed. Sad that they don't realize they are getting exactly the opposite result.:laugh2:
Click to expand...

Errors of Logic
Be it ordained by the people of Texas in Convention assembled, That we acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, and the laws passed in pursuance thereof; and that an Ordinance adopted by a former Convention of the people of Texas on the 1st day of February, A.D. 1861, entitled "An Ordinance to Dissolve the Union between the State of Texas and the other States, united under the compact styled 'Constitution of the United States of America,'" be and the same is hereby declared null and void; and the right heretofore claimed by the State of Texas to secede from the Union, is hereby distinctly renounced. Passed 15th March, 1866.

SOURCE:
The Constitution of the State of Texas, as Amended by the Delegates in Convention Assembled, Austin, 1866. Austin: Printed at the Southern Intelligencer Office, 1866, p. 32.
Click to expand...


You do realize that this document was merely stating that Texas had never seceded from the Union in 1861 don't you? That their State's Secession was "null and void" in 1861 and they were rejoining the Union ..... it did not waive any rights to secede as you and Jillio have been fallaciously stating.

Where is a document making it illegal for Texas to secede?

You have still not provided anything ..... I showed you a Constitutional Scholar's own words saying that States have the right to secede.
 
I can illustrate using an analogy to better show you with precise clarity .....


Mr. and Mrs. Union are a lawfully wedded couple. They both married, then began having marital disputes over marital duties. Eventually, Mrs. Union told her spouse, "you know what, I have had enough, you have made my life miserable and I simply wish to dissolve our marriage peacefully".

So with that, Mrs. Union planned her divorce. Mr. Union, however, was furious. He told her "You do not have the 'right' to leave me, it is important to our entire family that we stay together".

Mrs. Union said "Get bent, I am leaving".

Mr. Union then chased after Mrs. Union, beat her to a bloody pulp, burned down her parents back yard and house and dragged her kicking and screaming back into the marriage.


Did she have a right to leave?
 
Steinhauer said:
I can illustrate using an analogy to better show you with precise clarity .....


Mr. and Mrs. Union are a lawfully wedded couple. They both married, then began having marital disputes over marital duties. Eventually, Mrs. Union told her spouse, "you know what, I have had enough, you have made my life miserable and I simply wish to dissolve our marriage peacefully".

So with that, Mrs. Union planned her divorce. Mr. Union, however, was furious. He told her "You do not have the 'right' to leave me, it is important to our entire family that we stay together".

Mrs. Union said "Get bent, I am leaving".

Mr. Union then chased after Mrs. Union, beat her to a bloody pulp, burned down her parents back yard and house and dragged her kicking and screaming back into the marriage.


Did she have a right to leave?
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
Steinhauer said:
I can illustrate using an analogy to better show you with precise clarity .....


Mr. and Mrs. Union are a lawfully wedded couple. They both married, then began having marital disputes over marital duties. Eventually, Mrs. Union told her spouse, "you know what, I have had enough, you have made my life miserable and I simply wish to dissolve our marriage peacefully".

So with that, Mrs. Union planned her divorce. Mr. Union, however, was furious. He told her "You do not have the 'right' to leave me, it is important to our entire family that we stay together".

Mrs. Union said "Get bent, I am leaving".

Mr. Union then chased after Mrs. Union, beat her to a bloody pulp, burned down her parents back yard and house and dragged her kicking and screaming back into the marriage.


Did she have a right to leave?
Click to expand...

a very erroneous analogy. here - FIFY

if Texas chose to secede - it would be broken up into 5 states. There is no Constitutional rights but Texas can legally secede if it meets the legal parameter to secede. Nowhere in Constitution is specific about this.
 
Steinhauer said:
Errors of Logic



You do realize that this document was merely stating that Texas had never seceded from the Union in 1861 don't you? That their State's Secession was "null and void" in 1861 and they were rejoining the Union ..... it did not waive any rights to secede as you and Jillio have been fallaciously stating.

Where is a document making it illegal for Texas to secede?

You have still not provided anything ..... I showed you a Constitutional Scholar's own words saying that States have the right to secede.
Click to expand...

It is illegal for Texas to secede the way they want now. Do you even know the proper procedure to secede?
 
Jiro said:
It is illegal for Texas to secede the way they want now. Do you even know the proper procedure to secede?
Click to expand...

Do you realize you were arguing there was no proper or legal way to secede prior to this post?
 
Steinhauer said:
Do you realize you were arguing there was no proper or legal way to secede prior to this post?
Click to expand...

because there's none! hence illegal. Like I said - they can challenge this at court but know that there's a cost they must pay for seceding... like splitting up into 5 states.
 
Back
Top