Arizona to Secede?

souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Would be a lot easier to legalize pot than to secede.
Click to expand...

Won't happen, the Feds makes too much money seizing drugs and property as well as cash if any. But their seizures never supersedes what the Czars makes in Mexico. They make way too much cash that would make the Federal Reserves blush.

Whomever makes the most cash has the means to win the war by any means necessary, in this case, it's the Drug Czars. We're the ones that is losing.

But yes, if marijuana were ever to be legalized (and that worries the Drug Czars and for good reasons), it won't mean an end to the drug war, but in a small part, it will. When and if ever marijuana is legalized, it would hurt the sales tremendously to the drug dealers as the current street prices would drop dramatically (down to maybe a pack of cigarettes for a quarter ounce) and become a number one choice over harder drugs. That would also means that sales on harder drugs to drop as well.

We need to keep pushing for the legalization of marijuana, especially in the upcoming elections this November. Make this an issue with them that is what you will be looking for as a reason to vote.

Yiz
 
you would have to use territories by States that did not follow Texas into secession correct?
 
souggy said:
Worse tham embargo.

Naval blockade and no-fly-zones.
Click to expand...

Won't matter anyway, it's a big state and has the means of self sufficiency. We won't need the Feds or any neighboring states for help, they'll have what they need there and more.

They got plenty of National Guard bases and armory to defend itself should the Governor decide to use them as well as the local militias to back up the state. Plus Air Support. Problem is recalling our National Guardsmen from locations like Iraq and Pakistan in order to come home and defend the state, but thank goodness not all of them left Texas.

Let's not forget the Texas Rangers, ohhhh, you don't wanna mess with these guys.

Yiz
 
Er... how is that related to arms sales?

Remember the naval blockade on the Confederacy that led to the collapse of their army? Because the French couldn't supply them with new firearms?

What TXgolfer is suggesting is selling unusable military arms such as nukes to OTHER countries. How can they leave Texan soil if a blockade is preventing them from going into other countries?
 
Won't happen anyway........People are too lazy to care. If it did Texas obviously wouldnt be going it alone.
 
Nothing more than a bunch of pandering to the Tea Partiers. :roll: Tell 'em what they want to hear, no matter how improbable, and work to get those votes. Nothing more than that.

Texas gave up their right to suceed. Check a little history and legal fact.
 
jillio said:
Nothing more than a bunch of pandering to the Tea Partiers. :roll: Tell 'em what they want to hear, no matter how improbable, and work to get those votes. Nothing more than that.

Texas gave up their right to suceed. Check a little history and legal fact.
Click to expand...

Texas Secede! FAQ

Q: Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State? [BACK TO TOP]
A:

No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce.[4] Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.[5]

The South's rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn't prove secession is "not an option" or unlawful. It only affirmed that violent coercion can be used—even by governments (if unrestrained)—to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.[6]

It bears repeating that the united States are "united" explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Click to expand...

whose version of historical facts?
 
Last edited:
And from the same article as linked above:


Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.

he said: "I'm just not real sure you're a bunch of right-wing extremists. But if you are, we're with you."
 
Back
Top