Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on July 30, 2009, 11:37:02 am
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html
AUSTIN, Texas -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!"
An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall -- one of three tea parties he was attending across the state -- that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.
Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package.
Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, 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.
"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. 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."
LOL Texans..
-
"There's a black man in the white house and we're terrified"
-
The US would have to import burgers, country and western, and drill sergeants :)
-
They want to secede! Great! I can join an army of loyal Texans and kill or imprison all of these old southern segregationalists that pretend that they're real Texans, and then we can reenter the union much healthier than before. Sounds great to me.
-
The US would have to import burgers, country and western, and drill sergeants :)
Nashville Tennessee is generally considered the capital of country and R. Lee Ermey is from Kansas.
Besides Kinky Friedman will be the next Governor of Texas
-
Besides Kinky Friedman will be the next Governor of Texas
Hell, I voted for him :p
-
I don't think many Texans want to secede. I think a lot of them DO consider it an option, though, if things get "bad enough."
Which, IMO, is an important check on the power of the federal government. I LIKE the idea that states have enough autonomous power to make secession a viable reality if/when the federal government gets out of control. Do I think that Texas (or any other state) has a good case for secession right now? Heck no. Could that possibly change someday? Heck yes.
And if the federal government really does ever degenerate to the point where it entirely ceases to protect its people, then states SHOULD secede if they value their freedom.
-
New update
Interesting part bolded for easy reading and extra funny
In March, Texas Gov. Rick Perry rejected $555 million in federal stimulus money that would have expanded unemployment benefits for Texans. Perry argued at the time that accepting the stimulus dollars would force the state to expand eligibility to include thousands of low-wage workers — including part-time employees like single mothers, college students and senior citizens — which Perry bemoaned would burden tax payers with “higher taxes and expanded obligations.” When explaining the decision, Perry told Fox News, “this was pretty simple for us.” But now Perry is reversing his decision. Texas has asked the federal government for a $170 million loan to ensure the state is able to continue paying out unemployment benefits:
Texas is now asking the federal government for a $170 million loan so that benefits keep getting paid.
“This is nothing out of the ordinary. We’re following protocol that we put in place,” said Governor Rick Perry.
Texas has asked for this loan only one other time, in 2003. This year however, the decision is getting extra attention after Governor Rick Perry rejected federal stimulus money that would have replenished the fund.
Texas is expected to request $650 million, roughly $100 million more than Perry initially rejected. At a “tea party protest” in April, Perry trumpeted his decision to reject stimulus dollars from the Obama administration. “I believe the federal government has become oppressive,” he said, adding that he might even consider seceding from the Union.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/16/perry-follows-protocol/
"We don't want your money! We'll leave before we take your money!"
(later)
"Can we have more money please?"
-
Mexico called. They said they'll have Texas back if America is done with it. :p
-
This whole "secession" thing is just waah waah politico tactics which nobody takes seriously.
They want to secede! Great! I can join an army of loyal Texans and kill or imprison all of these old southern segregationalists that pretend that they're real Texans, and then we can reenter the union much healthier than before. Sounds great to me.
That didn't really work very well last time.
-
Silly Texans.
-
I was suggesting I'd fight for the Union silly.
-
Also, Perry is a nut who wins because he's friends with all the other rich Southern nuts in the state who give him money. And people outside Texas forget that Texan governors have NO power whatsoever. He's like Ahmadinejad- he can afford to be a nut because he sure as hell can't actually do anything that the legislature disagrees with. Doesn't make the actual Texas part of Texas any less likable. You want to bash Texas in general, first you have to bash San Antonio, one of the most beautiful cities in the country. You have to go after Austin. Need I break out my no overgeneralizations rule again? ;)
-
Can states legally leave the union, or is the current composition set in stone now?
Wonder if the same applies here too... could England legally leave the UK?
Any constitutional (I know we don't have a written one - yet) law experts out there?
-
Lincoln described it as an unlawful insurrection, and since the North won the Civil War, it's safe to say no.
-
There is no place in the Constitution prohibiting state secession. Since it isn't in the Constitution, specifically applied to the Federal Government, 10th Amendment gives the issue to the individual states' governments.
-
I was suggesting I'd fight for the Union silly.
No, I meant that the last civil war didn't really work out for the loyalist sentim... never mind.
-
Can states legally leave the union, or is the current composition set in stone now?
Wonder if the same applies here too... could England legally leave the UK?
Any constitutional (I know we don't have a written one - yet) law experts out there?
It's kind of moot, really. If your state is really pissed off/abused enough that they're determined to leave, they'll attempt it whether or not it's "legal" to do so.
-
Can states legally leave the union, or is the current composition set in stone now?
Wonder if the same applies here too... could England legally leave the UK?
Any constitutional (I know we don't have a written one - yet) law experts out there?
if England leaves the UK then the UK would become the Disunited Kingdom as we are the only 'full' member of the kingdom now.
the other way to look at it would be that NI, Wales and Scotland now have their own national assemblies so i suppose the UK would become a mini USA style government which scares the crap out of me tbh
-
Lincoln described it as an unlawful insurrection, and since the North won the Civil War, it's safe to say no.
Lincoln never considered the states themselves seceded. He treated it as the citizens themselves committing treason. And since there are no provisions for states leaving the union, you can see it as a state's right, if you want. But since a state government is people, if the government decides to secede the state, there's a good argument for "the state didn't secede, the government officials are just committing treason."
Can states legally leave the union, or is the current composition set in stone now?
Texas is a special state. States can't legally split into more states (just ignore Maine and West Virginia for a moment...), but Texas can split into up to 5 states if it wants. It can also legally leave at any time. Texas was an independent country before we annexed it, IIRC, and it came in by treaty with its own special provisions.
-
Who was that ex-KGB guy that predicted that the US would split up soon?
-
"There's a 1 trillion dollar a yaer deficit in the white house and we're terrified"
-
Who was that ex-KGB guy that predicted that the US would split up soon?
the one who thought eastern Siberia would fall to the yellow chinanmen andf California would unite with Utah or something like that?
-
Who was that ex-KGB guy that predicted that the US would split up soon?
the one who thought eastern Siberia would fall to the yellow chinanmen andf California would unite with Utah or something like that?
Yeah. The one that thought New England would join the EU and Canada would take over the Midwest. :p
-
It can also legally leave at any time. Texas was an independent country before we annexed it, IIRC, and it came in by treaty with its own special provisions.
No, it can't leave. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White)
US Supreme Court held in 1868 that Texas, like any other of the states, has no right under the US Constitution to secede from the Union. Any act of the legislature in any state attempting to do so is null and void.
Texas may have had the right to secede when it was originally entered into the Union, but not so anymore.
-
There it is, then.
-
Plus there's the fact that, if they tried, the US Armed forces could probably blow them to Kingdom Come.
-
I vaguely recall something like that happening a few years back. I can't imagine it would get any easier.
-
"There's a 1 trillion dollar a yaer deficit in the white house and we're terrified"
The fault for which lies more with previous Presidents than the current one, to be fair.
-
Plus there's the fact that, if they tried, the US Armed forces could probably blow them to Kingdom Come.
But.... all the armed forces come from Texas... :nervous:
-
But.... all the armed forces come from Texas... :nervous:
Actually, Kansas provides about half and Georgia does the other.
-
Don't forget NC.
-
But.... all the armed forces come from Texas... :nervous:
Actually, Kansas provides about half and Georgia does the other.
Don't forget NC.
Serious cat wants statistics. :P
-
It's more a matter of "corporate culture". The Navy generally doesn't have a detectable point of origin, save for senior NCOs who all apparently want to be from New England or Alaska. The Marines all want to be from Virginia.
Everybody in the Army wants to be from Georgia or Kansas depending on the prevailing mood that year.
The Air Force wants to be from somewhere in the Midwest.
-
"There's a 1 trillion dollar a yaer deficit in the white house and we're terrified"
The fault for which lies more with previous Presidents than the current one, to be fair.
well you see they didn't give **** about taxes or deficit until the BLACK KENYAN SUPERMUSLIM SOCIALIST won the white house, after which the GOP lunatics immediately started to oppose... well, everything.
It's quite entertaining, actually. Besides the crazy secession talk and crazy birther talk, there is also steadfast opposition to tax breaks for middle class. And many people who are completely reliant on social security propose both the idea that social security be gutted and banks/car companies/whatever are left to fall. They oppose economical stimulus packets - but only when it's the Black Man from Kenya; when republicans did it it was a-ok. Among all this lunacy there's also a leadership crisis, Sarah Palin, Michael "Hip-Hop" Steele and crazy people advocating violence.
It's a failure so excessive that it becomes a farce.
edit: Oh it was Bobboau who said this, I was kinda perplexed. Hey Bob, why did the crazy republicans only start to ***** and moan after they lost the elections, and why didn't they oppose spending when it skyrocketed during the previous administration? The trade deficit hit record numbers continuously after 2001. I mean, if you're worried about deficit and debt spending perhaps you could've protested during the economic increase, when you kinda had a chance of reducing it.
-
Can't people just go to those tea parties and get everyone there to sign away their rights to the social security benefits they're complaining about so much? :D
-
Can't people just go to those tea parties and get everyone there to sign away their rights to the social security benefits they're complaining about so much? :D
I ****ing wish, and also let their bussiness fall as well. As well as to collect on their debt, and unability to grant any loans.
BOOTSTRAP YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT ****HEAD
-
Plus there's the fact that, if they tried, the US Armed forces could probably blow them to Kingdom Come.
This fact seems to escape many who indulge in their little "oh I'm gonna stick it to the federal government" masturbation fantasies. :pimp:
-
Plus there's the fact that, if they tried, the US Armed forces could probably blow them to Kingdom Come.
This fact seems to escape many who indulge in their little "oh I'm gonna stick it to the federal government" masturbation fantasies. :pimp:
They seem to think that because they are right and awesome, and because army is right and awesome, then of course the army would be on their side!
-
Dunno about there, but here in England they're always banging on about making government more local and accountable (never really happens of course - it just gets more expensive and meddling).
We've got some delightfully tax-absorbant devolved parliaments set up in Scotland and Northern Ireland though. They make a lot of noise and cost a lot of money. Not sure what else they do practically apart from maybe being an olive branch to local nationalists; might need a Scot or Irishman to educate me on that.
Kinda seems like secession would be the ultimate expression if this. Fissioning into smaller bits that have their own elections (hopefully!) and policies.
That happened in the Baltic didn't it, with the old Soviet republics? Mind you, it also happened in the Balkans, and no-one ever uses the politics-verb Balkanize in a positive way...
-
"United States" is the name of our country. We can't just let states leave. People would laugh at us. :(
-
The "loosely affilited states" doesn't have the same ring to it. . . .
What the odds, seriously, of Texas trying to break away. . .in an actual militant fashion. Moving on down the line. Not strong I think.
-
Dunno about there, but here in England they're always banging on about making government more local and accountable (never really happens of course - it just gets more expensive and meddling).
We've got some delightfully tax-absorbant devolved parliaments set up in Scotland and Northern Ireland though. They make a lot of noise and cost a lot of money. Not sure what else they do practically apart from maybe being an olive branch to local nationalists; might need a Scot or Irishman to educate me on that.
Kinda seems like secession would be the ultimate expression if this. Fissioning into smaller bits that have their own elections (hopefully!) and policies.
That happened in the Baltic didn't it, with the old Soviet republics? Mind you, it also happened in the Balkans, and no-one ever uses the politics-verb Balkanize in a positive way...
Not comparable. Baltic states have a history of independence and are relatively homogenous, compared to former Yugoslavia. In Baltic states the previously independent states were soviet republics; after the crash they declared independence and recently their racial conflicts have been quite mild and focused on Russians, who colonized the nations by thousands during the Soviet rule. They were under single occupying command and didn't really interfere with each other - the Soviet Republics had the same borders and quite similar lifestyle as previous Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
Compare with balkans - former Yugoslavia, where the entire state racial structure and power was different. It's... well, much more a convoluted mess, with different religions and sudden lack of a unifying power met fresh and radical nationalism. First there was Tito who kept the populace - all living here and there, with bosniaks and croats and serbs living relatively happily together - and then there was no one to keep the tinpot idiots in check. Balkanization is hostile fragmentation; in Baltics the old occupying rule ended and nations went back to bussiness as it was in 1930s.
That said, I have no idea what's going on in GB so I won't comment. I just like to notice that meddling and local are not mutually exclusive. Far from it.
-
Given the crazy (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/education/24texas.html) stuff they are doing with their education system, they are more than welcome to leave the union.
-
"There's a 1 trillion dollar a yaer deficit in the white house and we're terrified"
The fault for which lies more with previous Presidents than the current one, to be fair.
Wrong. The fault for which lies mainly with previous congresses, not the president. The legislative branch is the one with all of the real control over the money. The President can't raise/lower taxes or set the budget: congress does all of that. RTFC(Constitution). :p
Can't people just go to those tea parties and get everyone there to sign away their rights to the social security benefits they're complaining about so much? :D
I agree with Janos here: if I could opt out of Social Security, I would. That's impossible, of course, for a number of reasons.
1. Even if Social Security actually worked in the first place, it would cease to be self-supporting if people opted out. Everyone who could afford to deal with their own retirement would opt out, leaving only those people who couldn't afford it. There wouldn't be enough money to go around and the system would have to be either funded by other parts of the federal budget or collapse. (All of this is, of course, assumes that Social Security works as advertised, which it does not).
2. The U.S. government basically uses social security money like all of the other taxes it collects, and there's no way the government is going to let people start opting out of their taxes.
-
Can't people just go to those tea parties and get everyone there to sign away their rights to the social security benefits they're complaining about so much? :D
I agree with Janos here: if I could opt out of Social Security, I would. That's impossible, of course, for a number of reasons.
1. Even if Social Security actually worked in the first place, it would cease to be self-supporting if people opted out. Everyone who could afford to deal with their own retirement would opt out, leaving only those people who couldn't afford it. There wouldn't be enough money to go around and the system would have to be either funded by other parts of the federal budget or collapse. (All of this is, of course, assumes that Social Security works as advertised, which it does not).
2. The U.S. government basically uses social security money like all of the other taxes it collects, and there's no way the government is going to let people start opting out of their taxes.
He means opt out of the benefits, not out of paying the taxes.
-
Can we get them to opt out of evul-socialized fire rescue and police services also? Oh, and deny them access to evul-socialized roads? What about government gas subsidies?
-
Can we get them to opt out of evul-socialized fire rescue and police services also? Oh, and deny them access to evul-socialized roads? What about government gas subsidies?
There is a subtlety you're overlooking there. The vast majority of people are perfectly happy to pay tax dollars that go to fund such services, because there are obvious tangible benefits that accompany each of them. But even from where I'm sitting, being forced to pay into a retirement benefit fund which will be bankrupt long before I'm able to take advantage of it leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth.
-
I agree with Janos here: if I could opt out of Social Security, I would. That's impossible, of course, for a number of reasons.
1. Even if Social Security actually worked in the first place, it would cease to be self-supporting if people opted out. Everyone who could afford to deal with their own retirement would opt out, leaving only those people who couldn't afford it. There wouldn't be enough money to go around and the system would have to be either funded by other parts of the federal budget or collapse. (All of this is, of course, assumes that Social Security works as advertised, which it does not).
You keep talking about how it does not work. Well, just how exactly does it not work? It's purpose is to keep people alive. Does it suck at that?
-
Compare with balkans - former Yugoslavia, where the entire state racial structure and power was different. It's... well, much more a convoluted mess, with different religions and sudden lack of a unifying power met fresh and radical nationalism. First there was Tito who kept the populace - all living here and there, with bosniaks and croats and serbs living relatively happily together - and then there was no one to keep the tinpot idiots in check. Balkanization is hostile fragmentation; in Baltics the old occupying rule ended and nations went back to bussiness as it was in 1930s.
Now see, that would be interesting for us, as arguably the Germanic/Norman English are historically a different bunch from the original Celts. We're continental interlopers that took over half the island. Of course, that was a very very very (very!) long time ago and there has been a lot of mingling and other immigration, plus hundreds of years of mostly peacefully co-existence (as bad as they were, I don't think the Irish Troubles were as bloody as what kicked off in places like Kosovo).
But there are still lingering cultural differences and independence movements. Doesn't normally turn into a brawl too often though - at least on the mainland. If El Gordo McGabe Brownski Jong-Il keeps hanging on to power that might change, but one way or another it looks like we'll be shut of the guy next year. The poor Scots must be so embarrassed about that bloke. Wouldn't surprise me if they disown him.
That said, I have no idea what's going on in GB so I won't comment. I just like to notice that meddling and local are not mutually exclusive. Far from it.
Yep, they meddle however you put it. More local government = more people on the taxpayers' backs meddling (and blaming central government for not giving them enough power or money to meddle more). Of course, I'm very cynical about the state, so I would say that.
Has anyone ever "wargamed" the idea of a state like Texas leaving at a serious academic level? You know, how would central government respond, likely international reaction, that kind of thing?
-
Texans: Secede! We don't need yer damned fdril guvment
USA: Okay...
Texans: srsly we kin defend ourselves..
USA: With what, that there Fort Hood, Lackland AFB, Fort Sam Houston, Dyess AFB...?
Texans: yeeee doggies!
USA: Sorry bro, federal government property.
Texans:...oh
USA: Plus, we'll be taking NASA, the postal service, FEMA, our highway system, the CDC, Social Security, and the NRA.
Texans: ...can we still keep the Cowboys?
USA: You can keep the Texans.
Texans: Gol durnit!
-
Has anyone ever "wargamed" the idea of a state like Texas leaving at a serious academic level? You know, how would central government respond, likely international reaction, that kind of thing?
Contact the CIA. I'm sure they've done it.
-
The CIA?
The military response is what the Pentagon is for. What's the big geometric shape for otherwise?
-
i imagine that file would in in a homeland defense file somewhere now
-
See, I would have expected that to be the kind of thing they would farm off to academia. If the DoD themselves started researching it, and some enterprising young officer from said state happened to come across the paperwork... the revelations could be incendiary.
Get a bunch of profs to put something together unofficially though, and you can quietly dismiss it as, "That'll never happen: the union is forever, and this is pointess conjecture!" - but only after having a bloody thorough read and taking a few notes.
I just wondered if any of you knew if any serious studies had been done.
-
some enterprising young officer from said state happened to come across the paperwork... the revelations could be incendiary.
Only if some enterprising young officer is a flaming idiot. It's the DoD's job to research and plan for every conceivable eventuality in regards to defense. If that includes a plan for if Texas seceeds and threatens the U.S., that would be completely expected.
I just wondered if any of you knew if any serious studies had been done.
It's possible, and I would say even probable that some kind of study has been done on that. One that we would be able to find out about. . . not so much.
-
I know im a brit but how about starting our own study
what do we know
1: Texas is a huge chunk of land which would need a large amount of manpower to defend.
Highly probables
1: there will be a large section of the US population that will flock to the area to defend it with reasons from anti-federal feeling to simple anarchist agenda.
2: Texas would quickly seize any US federal loyal assets in state quickly
Variables
1: a huge chunk of the armed forces will have family, friends or hail from the state so would have pro Texan sentiment, how many would lean more towards their US armed service loyalty.
2: foreign intervention
a: Islamic fighters looking to destabilize the US or at least turn its attention inwards
b: Ex-pats returning
c: Official international action
3: how fast could assets be withdrawn from foreign deployment
4: Which military commanders would fall where
any thought?
-
any thought?
US Govt has nukes.
-
Hopefully no-one takes offence at us talking about a civil war in their country! None is intended.
Playing along with Headdie and Iamzack:
Unless the Republic of Texas was to use them first, I'm guessing Special Weapons of any kind would be off the table for Federal commanders. WW2 aside, first use isn't likely from the Americans.
It is possible - depending on the amount of warning given - that Texan forces would be able to get their hands on chemical and nuclear munitions. The chemical ones would be the biggest potential threat initially, as the nuke warheads would probably be harder to set off.
The Texas National Guard only comprises around 20,000 troops. Likewise the Texas Air National Guard has about one squadron of Falcons. Not sure how many of the Reserve and Regular forces would side with them.
Texas would have to go for a political victory, backed by the threat of fighting a losing but phyrric military campaign against the Union.
With support for Kosovo and East Timor in recent memory, it could be a little awkward for the US to block a popular independence movement on their own borders - especially with the use of force.
Mind you, to the Republic's disadvantage, we have to remember that a lot of Texans will remain loyal to the US.
Who's next to chip in?
-
I think most Texans would not be in favor of independence. Especially Texans in the US military and their families.
Besides, Texans are all fat, useless walrus-things. Like my brother.
-
Besides, Texans are all fat, useless walrus-things. Like my brother.
no
-
Besides, Texans are all fat, useless walrus-things. Like my brother.
no
Most people would expand that to most Americans.
-
It is possible - depending on the amount of warning given - that Texan forces would be able to get their hands on chemical and nuclear munitions. The chemical ones would be the biggest potential threat initially, as the nuke warheads would probably be harder to set off.
Given that the launch codes would still be in the presidents hands they might be impossible to set off. Exactly how secure is a nuke without the codes?
-
AFAIK Texas doesn't have any nuclear weapons on its soil. It certainly has nuclear power plants, but no weapons itself. It is, however, a short distance away from the headquarters of the USAF's Global Strike Command at Barksdale AFB, which has authority over all of the USAF's nuclear weapons. I don't know if Barksdale has nukes itself though. Most of the US's nuclear armament is in the Dakotas (Minot AFB), Wyoming (FE Warren AFB) and Montana. All well out of Texas's reach.
Canada has a better chance of getting a hold of our nukes than Texas :p
-
Given that the launch codes would still be in the presidents hands they might be impossible to set off. Exactly how secure is a nuke without the codes?
Not very, to be honest. The strength of the system lies in the two-man rule and similar conventions. It's designed to prevent any single person from being able to order or intitate a strike to protect against the rogue looney. An organized rebellion could probably find a way.
-
'Ware the Neo-Texan Front!
-
Given that the launch codes would still be in the presidents hands they might be impossible to set off. Exactly how secure is a nuke without the codes?
Not very, to be honest. The strength of the system lies in the two-man rule and similar conventions. It's designed to prevent any single person from being able to order or intitate a strike to protect against the rogue looney. An organized rebellion could probably find a way.
I thought the exact timed sequence for the explosives that will detonate the nuke are encoded in the launch codes, and any attempt to launch it without the codes will result in just a dirty bomb? (given that you bypass any electronic security first)
It's apparently possible, so I would be surprised if they don't do it that way..
-
The possiblity had to be allowed for that a second strike would be necessary with the SSBNs. (Second strike capablity is something land based installations simply don't do; they're all already dead.) In such a situation the world's communication apparatus is shot, there is no way to communicate the launch codes, only a go order; maybe not even that, just the knowledge that the exchange is underway or has happened. The sea-based systems at least depend solely on the fact it requires more than one man to initate or order a launch.
-
AFAIK Texas doesn't have any nuclear weapons on its soil. It certainly has nuclear power plants, but no weapons itself. It is, however, a short distance away from the headquarters of the USAF's Global Strike Command at Barksdale AFB, which has authority over all of the USAF's nuclear weapons. I don't know if Barksdale has nukes itself though. Most of the US's nuclear armament is in the Dakotas (Minot AFB), Wyoming (FE Warren AFB) and Montana. All well out of Texas's reach.
Canada has a better chance of getting a hold of our nukes than Texas :p
No but better yet we can take those nukes and turn them around to smack Texas......and we might as well nuke Detroit while we're at it.
-
Why? There is nothing in Detroit. I've been there. You'd be wasting a good weapon.
-
.and we might as well nuke Detroit while we're at it.
Some would argue that's already happened.
-
Sorry this is late, but I only just found it:
(http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20050228texasflag.gif)
-
:lol: that's pretty good actually. :)
-
I am from London and am in London at the moment,but from 1991 to 1997 I lived and worked in Houston, Texas, as it was, I was running a games company! :)
Anyway, I found the Texan people to be extremely friendly and generous of nature. More so than other States I had lived in from Indiana, Minnesota to NY State. I have no doubt in a referendum 80% would vote to stay in the union.
Of course the reason for this is the fact that in the next 20 years Hispanic Americans will constitute the majority of voters in Texas! They will also represent around 30% of voters in the whole country!
Within that same 20 years is it likely the USA will be bilingual, with English/Spanish road signs,etc. Like they do, but in French, in Canada and in Welsh in Wales, etc.
-
Of course the reason for this is the fact that in the next 20 years Hispanic Americans will constitute the majority of voters in Texas! They will also represent around 30% of voters in the whole country!
I doubt it:
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_c4Y3prhpz7U/RrwYljB36BI/AAAAAAAAATw/ORjunsS_LBI/s912/14662_211.jpg)
Hispanics aren't that crazy.
-
Given that the launch codes would still be in the presidents hands they might be impossible to set off. Exactly how secure is a nuke without the codes?
Not very, to be honest. The strength of the system lies in the two-man rule and similar conventions. It's designed to prevent any single person from being able to order or intitate a strike to protect against the rogue looney. An organized rebellion could probably find a way.
I thought the exact timed sequence for the explosives that will detonate the nuke are encoded in the launch codes, and any attempt to launch it without the codes will result in just a dirty bomb? (given that you bypass any electronic security first)
It's apparently possible, so I would be surprised if they don't do it that way..
This is why I figured the nerve gas would be easier to make use of. That said, if someone - anyone - got their hands on a 1980s-era bomb, would you want to take a chance on them not working out how to use it?
Nice of UK_John to drop in and defend our Texan friends. You US guys give 'em a ribbing worse than we take the piss out of scousers.
They did give us the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, don't forget.
-
If its anything like the silos in Europe, domestic silos will have air support on hand ramping up steadily from helicopter gunships to having fighter bombers bomb the **** out of the entire facility if it becomes apparent its going to be breached.
-
They did give us the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, don't forget.
Yes, but they also gave us the Dallas Cowboys. :p
But seriously, from what I've heard, most areas of Texas are generally very nice places to visit, probably more than the average in this country. I wouldn't take the words of a whackjob governor probably pandering for some fringe votes to heart too seriously.
-
Admittedly, it's too fraking hot here. :p
-
Texas is a southern state. As long as you are a straight-looking white guy, people will be respectful and nice to you. But, the more rural the town, the less different-ness is tolerated.
-
masturbation fantasies of a civil war in the us ITT
-
Texas is a southern state. As long as you are a straight-looking white guy, people will be respectful and nice to you. But, the more rural the town, the less different-ness is tolerated.
Sounds like home used to be before the chavs really took hold. Just a lot warmer and with way more latinas. I think I'd enjoy it.
Do you reckon I might score bonus points if I played up the English accent a bit? We did kinda support the CSA back in the 1860s...
(stops there as he gets dangerously close to tripping someone's automatic "he's a racist!" alarm)
-
<accent>
We don't take kindly to Englishmen 'round these parts.
</accent>
-
Do you reckon I might score bonus points if I played up the English accent a bit?
Doubt it. We have more and more retards with Brit accents in our pop culture, so it's no longer as cool as it used to be to be foreign.
-
Are you talking about our fine exports: Simon Cowell and err... um... Posh Beckham? Have we shipped Jordan out too yet?
I hope you are all enjoying Cheryl Cole at least. Even if it is hard to make out what she's saying.
-
I always thought of Cheryl Cole-Tweedy as a visual artist more than an audio artist....
-
Are you talking about our fine exports: Simon Cowell and err... um... Posh Beckham? Have we shipped Jordan out too yet?
I hope you are all enjoying Cheryl Cole at least. Even if it is hard to make out what she's saying.
We did it with Australia years ago. I'm just hoping the Americans don't figure out what we're up to. :nervous: :p
-
It's cyclical. We just got over the Beatles so you sent us another wave. :P
-
I suppose someone English ought to apologise for Russell Brand.
SORRY!
(Fortunately, I think he's the only one we've got)