|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Gov Perry apparently wasn't kidding concerning Texas Secession

Talking Gov Perry apparently wasn't kidding concerning Texas Secession

April 17th, 2009, 19:40
So for those who didn't hear (or care) at one of those Tea Party things on Wednesday, the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, who is a major douche in his own right, made a statement that basically if Texas wanted to leave the US, we had the right to do so.

Well, the State department apparently agrees!

State Department Lists Texas As A Foreign Country

Unfortunately for Perry's detractors, the U.S. Department of State (until Friday morning) was with the governor on this one. On its website listing of 16 foreign countries visited by Secretary Hillary Clinton, State had Texas right there between Turkey and Switzerland.
I always knew I felt like a foreigner in NYC for a good reason!

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#1

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,051

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 19:51
hťhťh, very funny.

I hope they manage to secede, it will make the US look like a more sympathetic country and make the election of democrate candidates much easier!

What's a "douche" by the way?

Wordweb gives me the following definitions

Noun: douche doosh
1 A small syringe with detachable nozzles; used for vaginal lavage and enemas
2 Irrigation with a jet of water or medicated solution into or around a body part (especially the vagina) to treat infections or cleanse from odorous contents
But in the context, I guess it has nothing to do with vagina cleaning :-) In french the word "douche" is a synonym of "shower".
vanedor is offline

vanedor

SasqWatch

#2

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Quebec city
Posts: 459

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 20:01
Texas, that's middle east right? Lead by fundamentalists and make their money on oil.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#3

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,027
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 20:01
Both definitions are accurate. It's an insult in the US.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#4

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,051

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 20:01
There has been a small, but vocal, group in Texas for years that have wanted us to Secede and join OPEC.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#5

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,051

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 20:20
Sounds like a great idea to me. Go Texas!
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#6

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 20:21
Originally Posted by vanedor View Post
But in the context, I guess it has nothing to do with vagina cleaning :-) In french the word "douche" is a synonym of "shower".
The insult is a contraction of "douche bag," which is a bag that catches whatever the douche flushes out.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#7

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 20:29
And describes our esteemed governor perfectly.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#8

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,051

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 20:38
Seems to me that texans have a special knack for picking good governors!
vanedor is offline

vanedor

SasqWatch

#9

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Quebec city
Posts: 459

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 20:43
Well, to be fair Bush was actually a decent governor for us. Guess it was just a facade though! The governor in Texas is actually a very weak position. The Lt. Governor (which Perri was for two years before Bush moved to DC) really has the power in the state.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#10

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,051

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 22:39
Anyone see the movie ďSerenity?Ē During a flashback scene a teacher asks her class why some of the planets succeeded from the main planet/government, and the crazy girl says, ďBecause we meddleĒ.

Personally, Iím sick of being meddled with. Iím sick of having my life dictated to me. Iím sick of the hypocrisy, being marginalized, and the elitism of the blue blooded beautiful people who own the Truth and their peon cult members full of hate and rage and righteous hypocritical indignation and all the Orwellian double-speak. Iím sick of definitions being redefined and the one-sided unfairness. Iím sick of the intellectual oppression and the anger generated when you donít fall in step with the cultís hive mind.

I love how the same people that marginalize and throw their vitriol at the tea-parties and tea-party attendees (who, unlike Acorn arenít paid to set-up, attend, and be rabble-rousers, but of course are cult members so get only positive coverage and it would of be racist and anti-intellectual to give them the slightest hint of criticism) have no idea about the history of Texas and successions as it uniquely applies to Texas. It makes sense that a state whose slogan is ďDonít mess with TexasĒ to talk about succession at a time where the Government believes it has an intrinsic right to mess with everyone and meddle in the name of the Truth and the furtherance of the Cause.

I donít want to pay for bastard-factories across this country to have kids who will in turn be dependent on the fruit of my labor for sustenance. Has everyone heard the story of the industrious mouse and the lazy mouse? I donít want to break my back preparing for the winter so some fucking lazy ass retard who did nothing can take half the shit I worked for. Iím sick of my family going without as I break my back trying to get ahead and do the right thing and all the leeches sucking the blood out of me, while telling me how to think, how to believe, what to value, how to raise my children, how to be a good father, and what the new and correct definitions of words now are under the Truth.

And like any other marginalized group, for everyone who has been knocked down, held down, and kicked around, I have only two choices: take it like a chump ass bitch or stand-up and fight.

Watch this and tell me why Texas shouldnít succeed, or at least start a narrative about it. The Department of Homeland Security says all the tea-party attendees are racist terrorists by the way, or at least fit the profile. I guess Iím a black guy who hates himself and his people. I canít be a racist so either that or I have Stockholm syndrome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAAHMDpk7Ik

I of course could link to the CNNís fair and awesome coverage of the tea-party. Or maybe the Globeís and the NY Timeís abundant coverage. But it doesnít matter since fairness and hypocrisy do not impact the ďcerebralĒ cult members because their brains work right and normal. And to be honest, the more the cult meddles the faster this shit will come to a head, the faster I can get back to living a normal life free of meddling, blue-blooded beautiful people, and insanity.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#11

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 22:58
Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
Stuff
Yeah, I wish states could secede. It'd be cool. Also, then we could make awesome movies about wars between the states. That's why I liked the cold war, they had awesome movies instead of all the "OH NO IS TEH ARABS RELY OUR ENEMY???" movies we have now. Plus, without Nuclear war we wouldn't have games like Fallout. Notice that Fallout 3, which is lame, came out now that developers have no inspiration?
Thoth is offline

Thoth

Thoth's Avatar
Sentinel

#12

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 354

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 23:42
The problem with secession, unless it is a full and at least semi-orderly breakup of the entire US, is that even if it were peaceful, it was be a massive clusterfuck.

Off the top of my head I see the following problems:

1) Replacing all federal programs that benefit the citizens of our state (IE social security and other non-state based federal assistance programs, FDIC insurance for banks, etc.)

2) Breaking apart of federal assets in Texas. The good news is that Texas has less federal land per acre than I think just about anyone else, but has a ton of state land (this is due to some of the provisions of becoming a state in 1845). I also think that the National Guard assets belong to the state, but they were paid for by the federal government, so ownership would be tricky. We'd need an immediate standing army though to handle the unrest and protect our southern boarder

3) Keeping industry in Texas. I'd love to say that we have enough oil that it doesn't matter, but those days are past. Unless it is done in a very orderly manner (and with appropriate tax and worker permit treaties) any organization with half a brain would move assets out immediately. So while our economy is strong enough to stand on its own currently, the very act of standing on its own would cause it considerable weakness.

4) Even if we had an army, we have no navy unless the US government hands over a few boats or we sign a treaty for them to provide naval protection for us.

Now with the massive unsustainable spending of our central government, secession in the long run may provide better economic stability for the people of Texas, but in the short run, it would cause a lot of suffering, even without a military conflict.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#13

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,051

Default 

April 18th, 2009, 01:19
I respectfully disagree on most points. Secession/succession (however its spelt, I hate that word; if I were smarter I would edit my above post and get it right, but I got it wrong first so Iíll live with my retarded mistake) of Texas wouldnít just be a, ďhere you go US, take back your shit,Ē instance. Texas would capitalize on the turmoil it would cause, seizing military assets. I believe, besides Ft. Hood there is a navy base or a navy port, and there seems to be an AFB in every state. But it really wouldnít need a strong military as who would go to war with it? The US? No. Mexico? No. Cuba? No. Who then? No one. And Texas has an armed population, the same defense and army the US first had. I also believe there is a Federal Reserve there, which would be seized. Texas is a huge state and has one of the highest enlistment rates of any state per capita, if anything the US would have to worry about too much defection and loss of assets. I was in the 82nd as an infantryman, and I can honestly say I didnít serve with anyone who would open fire in any situation on a Texan in this situation unless maybe to defend themselves. And Texas will seize assets, but would never start hostilities or be stupid enough to open fire on the US first. And Texas can grow whatever military arm it needs thereafter 9coast guard/whatever).

And why would businesses pull their assets out? Texas would have no choice but to make sure there were all the incentives and enticements in the world for businesses not just to stay, but move to and open shop in Texas. And how Social Security works is the people working today pay the people collecting today, so a transition wouldnít be difficult. Yes, Texas would lose a lot of people but probably gain far more. And it would lose most of its underclass, as Iím sure there would be little no to welfare or even relief. I can see a brain-drain of the top performers/achievers of the US to Texas if Texas the country has little welfare/relief. Iím sure 18 year olds with ďmental disabilitiesĒ collecting social security would come to an end as well, so the US would gain not just those just arenít into that working and being self-sufficient hooey, but Texasí crazies to boot as an added bonus. And Iím sure the minute men wouldnít mind changing roles in helping future lazy folk and mental invalids illegally boarder jump into the US, which would not only be hilarious, but also ironic.

But at the end of the day what the world would gain, and North America specifically, would be another choice and more diversity. If you like being a cult member filled with hate and rage who likes to call everyone who disagrees with you racists and retards all willy-nilly you have the US as well as Canada. If you believe people should work for a living you have Mexico and Texas. And if you believe people should work for a living in a prosperous and safe environment with a chance for social stratification you will have Texas. And Iím sure Texas wouldnít mind becoming a Territory like Puerto Rico and Guam.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#14

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

April 18th, 2009, 01:26
Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
I respectfully disagree on most points. Secession/succession (however its spelt, I hate that word; if I were smarter I would edit my above post and get it right, but I got it wrong first so Iíll live with my retarded mistake) of Texas wouldnít just be a, ďhere you go US, take back your shit,Ē instance. Texas would capitalize on the turmoil it would cause, seizing military assets. I believe, besides Ft. Hood there is a navy base or a navy port, and there seems to be an AFB in every state. But it really wouldnít need a strong military as who would go to war with it? The US? No. Mexico? No. Cuba? No. Who then? No one. And Texas has an armed population, the same defense and army the US first had. I also believe there is a Federal Reserve there, which would be seized. Texas is a huge state and has one of the highest enlistment rates of any state per capita, if anything the US would have to worry about too much defection and loss of assets. I was in the 82nd as an infantryman, and I can honestly say I didnít serve with anyone who would open fire in any situation on a Texan in this situation unless maybe to defend themselves. And Texas will seize assets, but would never start hostilities or be stupid enough to open fire on the US first. And Texas can grow whatever military arm it needs thereafter 9coast guard/whatever).
The U.S. would not allow Texas to try and secede. Even if it cost millions of lives and took years, the US would not allow it, because it would spell the end of the union. You don't think non-texan military personnel would fire on Texans in this instance? Pardon my french, but bullshit - and if anyone refused they should face a firing squad. Soldiers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and Texas seceding would be treason, and the punishment for treason is death. Besides, no aircraft carriers are based in Texas, so it'd easily lose any sort of naval conflict even if it could "seize" naval yards in the area. I'm sure those coast guard cutters would be pretty much wiped out by the Enterprise.

Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
And why would businesses pull their assets out? Texas would have no choice but to make sure there were all the incentives and enticements in the world for businesses not just to stay, but move to and open shop in Texas. And how Social Security works is the people working today pay the people collecting today, so a transition wouldnít be difficult. Yes, Texas would lose a lot of people but probably gain far more. And it would lose most of its underclass, as Iím sure there would be little no to welfare or even relief. I can see a brain-drain of the top performers/achievers of the US to Texas if Texas the country has little welfare/relief. Iím sure 18 year olds with ďmental disabilitiesĒ collecting social security would come to an end as well, so the US would gain not just those just arenít into that working and being self-sufficient hooey, but Texasí crazies to boot as an added bonus. And Iím sure the minute men wouldnít mind changing roles in helping future lazy folk and mental invalids illegally boarder jump into the US, which would not only be hilarious, but also ironic.
Because any businesses that chose Texas over the union would have their owners and board members tried, imprisoned, and possibly executed for supporting treason and fraternizing with the enemy in a time of war.


Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
But at the end of the day what the world would gain, and North America specifically, would be another choice and more diversity. If you like being a cult member filled with hate and rage who likes to call everyone who disagrees with you racists and retards all willy-nilly you have the US as well as Canada. If you believe people should work for a living you have Mexico and Texas. And if you believe people should work for a living in a prosperous and safe environment with a chance for social stratification you will have Texas. And Iím sure Texas wouldnít mind becoming a Territory like Puerto Rico and Guam.
No, all the world would gain is a massive bloodbath and war while China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran would gleefully profit over our massive waste of resources.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#15

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

April 18th, 2009, 01:47
You know your history well. Especially on Texas and secession. And I promise you, as a combat veteran, I donít know one person who would fire on a Texan. I also donít know one person willing to shoot a defector or traitor in this situation. The US coddles traitors and gives them jobs in every university, or makes them senators or workout video stars. The definition of traitor has been rewritten by the same people who would try to redefine it back. But you canít say you know anyone in the military that would shoot non-hostiles who they consider countryman or brothers-in-arms over a state seceding who specifically has the unique right to secede.

You could say you are a veteran and you know plenty of people who would obey commands to open fire on Texans or US military defectors to Texas, and if you are you really believe it you are crazy and beyond help. But the reality is the orders would never come for the troops to disobey them, which they definitely would. Ask korplem, who is currently in the Navy I believe, what would happen if a ship he was on was ordered to open fire on Texans or Texas. Again, I was an infantry paratrooper in the 82nd airborne. Our mission was to kill. And just in my platoon alone there was 3 to 5 Texans at any given time. And I know 100% for a fact we would 100% ignore any order to open fire on Texas or Texans. The only way we would open fire is if we were receiving hostile fire and had to defend ourselves. And I also know for a fact that there hasnít been a firing squad in God knows how long. We donít kill actual traitors; you think the military would start killing itself over what it would really have to stretch its imagination to consider traitors? Donít forget, the department of homeland security just released a report saying veterans are terrorists, and the far left is anti-military. You think the military is going to abandon all its loyalty and go to war with each other and kill Americans because people who despise them and who they themselves dislike ordered it? Thatís pretty hilarious.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#16

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

April 18th, 2009, 01:56
Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
You know your history well. Especially on Texas and secession. And I promise you, as a combat veteran, I donít know one person who would fire on a Texan. I also donít know one person willing to shoot a defector or traitor in this situation. The US coddles traitors and gives them jobs in every university, or makes them senators or workout video stars. The definition of traitor has been rewritten by the same people who would try to redefine it back. But you canít say you know anyone in the military that would shoot non-hostiles who they consider countryman or brothers-in-arms over a state seceding who specifically has the unique right to secede.
Actually, I think the civil war proved Texas didn't have the right to secede. And I really don't think most people will care texas was a sovereign nation before the 1840s.

Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
You could say you are a veteran and you know plenty of people who would obey commands to open fire on Texans or US military defectors to Texas, and if you are you really believe it you are crazy and beyond help. But the reality is the orders would never come for the troops to disobey them, which they definitely would. Ask korplem, who is currently in the Navy I believe, what would happen if a ship he was on was ordered to open fire on Texans or Texas. Again, I was an infantry paratrooper in the 82nd airborne. Our mission was to kill. And just in my platoon alone there was 3 to 5 Texans at any given time. And I know 100% for a fact we would 100% ignore any order to open fire on Texas or Texans. The only way we would open fire is if we were receiving hostile fire and had to defend ourselves. And I also know for a fact that there hasnít been a firing squad in God knows how long. We donít kill actual traitors; you think the military would start killing itself over what it would really have to stretch its imagination to consider traitors? Donít forget, the department of homeland security just released a report saying veterans are terrorists, and the far left is anti-military. You think the military is going to abandon all its loyalty and go to war with each other and kill Americans because people who despise them and who they themselves dislike ordered it? Thatís pretty hilarious.
So it wouldn't be treason for a state to pull out from the union and for soldiers to defect? Glad to know soldiers take their oath to defend the constitution so seriously and would refuse legitimate constitutional orders. You do realize you are making every single far-left wing's person argument for them? "The military can't be trusted and won't defend the United States!" And I'm not a combat veteran, but I know many, including hard-core conservative ones who *would* fire on a traitor or a rebel (which your hypothetical Texans would be). My grandfather served in Korea, has never voted Democratic in his life, and would quite happily put a bullet in the head of anyone who tried to secede from the Union. Same goes for most of my far-right Christian friends actively serving in the military now.But then again maybe I am just a silly loyalist who believes treason would be rebelling against the lawfully elected federal government.

And hey, guess what? You texans wouldn't be Americans anymore if you tried to secede. You'd be the enemy. So don't talk about loyalty when you're openly talking of seceding, please. It's disgusting.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#17

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

April 18th, 2009, 02:15
Here's an interesting poll of Texans on the subject:
Rasmussen Secession Poll
Thirty-one percent (31%) of Texas voters say that their state has the right to secede from the United States and form an independent country.

However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they'd choose. …
The underlying views of Texans about government are generally similar to those in the rest of the nation. By a 73% to 11% margin, Texans trust the collective judgment of the American people more than the judgment of political leaders.

By a 62% to 21% margin, voters in Perry’s state believe that big business and big government typically work together against the interests of consumers and investors. And, by a 63% to 24% margin, Texans view the federal government itself as a special interest group.
Pretty much shows that most of the state has more sense than the governor.

538 has some even better reasons for them to go for it:
Hey Rick, Can We Talk?
Maybe Democrats should take Rick Perry up on his idea that Texas should secede from the Union.

Consider
— If Texas were not in the Union, the Democrats would currently have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — or at least they would once Al Franken gets seated. This is because, in a 98-seat Senate, only 59 votes would be required to break a filibuster.
— If Texas were not in the Union, the Republicans would operate from a significantly weakened position in the House, since the net 8-vote advantage their congressional delegation gives them in the state (they have 20 seats to the Democrats' 12) is by far their largest.
— If Texas were not in the Union, George W. Bush would never have become President in 2000 — not because he'd be constitutionally ineligible (Bush, despite his Texas twang, was born in posh New Haven, Connecticut). Rather, he wouldn't have had enough Electoral Votes to defeat Al Gore…

— If Texas were not in the Union, Bush would still have defeated John Kerry 269-267, but Kerry would have an easier go of things, winning the election if he'd won either Iowa or New Mexico; he would not have had to win Ohio or Florida.

— If Texas were not in the Union, there'd be a good case for making football an Olympic sport, which would sure as hell beat rhythmic gymnastics.

This all sounds like a pretty good deal to me, provided there weren't import duties on Shiner Bock.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch
RPGWatch Team

#18

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

April 18th, 2009, 02:57
You are very certain of the willingness of people you know to murder others. If soldiers blindly defended the constitution any state that could be seen as imposing limitations on the 2nd amendment would have been invaded a long time ago. And the question of Texasís unique right to secede was never brought up in the Civil War. And the state had a split, Governor Sam Houston was a unionist. Thatís a bad example. And a different time. What was the definition of torture back then? What happened to traitors. Why would you hold the military to a higher standard to support and defend the constitution than our politicians?

Have you done a two-month field problem, or sat in a LP/OP for three days talking about anything and everything, including what you would do if Texas seceded? Would you have obeyed orders in a Wako-like situation, etc. I have. Call all your many military friends (make-believe or no) and your grandfather now, and ask them. If you havenít specifically asked them what you are doing is lip-service. And seeing in just the Army alone there is like 24 pogues and remfs for every combat soldier, and that Texans seem to like (in my experience) combat arms over pogue and remf MOSís, and that every single infantryman I know and served with would never, I repeat never, shoot a Texan-Texan, or US-Texan (other than self-defense), you can say whatever you want and it doesnít make it true. We wouldnít see them as traitors. But we do see (or did when I was in), and talk about with great anger, blatant coddling of actual traitors. We see them get cush jobs at universities, we see them be media darlings and friends and compatriots of political traitors.

If any orders came down (which, again, they wouldnít) to mobilize against Texas it would quickly go through the enlisted ranks to ignore any order, to state that they are illegal orders we canít obey, and everyone would be on board. The military would be paralyzed. Not one shot would be fired. This isnít about the conservative bent of the military. If San Francisco decided to totally abandon the constitution (more so than now) and the military was ordered in to attack it, they wouldnít. We would never attack countrymen or non-hostiles just because we were ordered to do so. Donít believe the movies that show the US Military as brain dead automatons who follow orders blindly.

The legality and morality of it would show no clear cut traitors; you never served so you donít have a leg to stand on in this aspect of the argument, which seems to be your only aspect. I could be wrong, Iíd like to hear what the veterans or current military members here will agree or disagree, especially the combat arms veterans/members who would have to do the murdering.

Keep in mind, Obama deciding to have statisticians guesstimate the population of the US is a violation of the constitution. I didnít see any soldiers shooting anyone over that. Your argument is based on your beliefs which are not the belief of the US military, the ones who would actually have to pull the trigger.
And Iím not a Texan; I was born in raised in Brockton, MA. And maybe seceding would be the most loyal thing to do to support and defend the constitution. I find your sureness of our military to murder each other disgusting, and I find the cult members dialogue about people who disagree with them disgusting. I find the marginalization of a huge demographic disgusting. But, please, go on being disgusted.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#19

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

April 18th, 2009, 03:04
Controlled poll is the most reliable way to show public sentiment Perry is a neocon who just jumps on any bandwagen. Given a chance, he would have join the NAU…secession? Don't make me laugh.

"A strong president, means having the strength to resist the temptation of taking all that power isn't yours" - Ron Paul

"If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions",- Government
mudsling3 is offline

mudsling3

mudsling3's Avatar
Sentinel

#20

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 558
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Gov Perry apparently wasn't kidding concerning Texas Secession
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 23:22.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch