It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Texas consider expanding?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Definitely not. To expand the state would have to cecede with it's own military. A bloody civil war would ensue and ultimately the USA would crumble because of it. America would be split into 3 new countries divided up by the Russians in the west, EU in the east and the Spanish in the south.
edit on 26-1-2015 by Asynchrony because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: vtcajun

An interesting point. As you say, it's already occurring.

To play devil's advocate on your point, I'd assume this kind of move to be WAY outside what the left could tolerate, in state or not. I suggest many on the left would leave Texas and any state that decided to join Texas, as well.

Plus there'd be plenty like me-Attila the Hun's direct descendent- that would also fill the ranks from outside as well.

I do agree OK would closest match Texas.

Did you here about the Longhorn who transferred to Oklahoma? The average I.Q. went up in both schools....



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asynchrony
Definitely not. To expand the state would have to cecede with it's own military. A bloody civil war would ensue and ultimately the USA would crumble because of it. America would be split into 3 new countries divided up by the Russians in the west, EU in the east and the Spanish in the south.
Russians in the west? They'd get mowed down in California by Sex and The City viewers splashing boiling hot half-caff double shot mochaccinos with extra cream and hearts for 'i's on the cup on their way to Zumba.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Asynchrony That's a depressing thought, indeed.

How about Texas winning? A slightly more positive outlook.

Look, I'm not targeting you in this comment, but let's recognize there is one group that LIKES things the way they are-and the direction that follows. Well, let's say two.

The first are those that are happy campers where life is good and no change to that is preferable. (There's less of those than there used to be)

The second are those that use the producers to pay for the rest of 'em. As if there isn't enough of those, we invite more in!

Those will also come up with reasons this is a bad idea-maybe it is-if for no other reason than they need the current status quo for their agenda to work.

Still, it's just an old man's silly thought...



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Hey, if the right wants to lose votes in the Senate, then by all means. Knock yourselves out. Maybe you guys should relook into your state's motto, you like to say everything is bigger in texas, but bigger doesn't necessarily mean better.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Hey, if the right wants to lose votes in the Senate, then by all means. Knock yourselves out. Maybe you guys should relook into your state's motto, you like to say everything is bigger in texas, but bigger doesn't necessarily mean better.
When they say "Everything is bigger in Texas". That also means egos, ignorance, religious fundamentalism, racism, etc. It's say it's a pretty fitting motto as is.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Hey, if the right wants to lose votes in the Senate, then by all means. Knock yourselves out. Maybe you guys should relook into your state's motto, you like to say everything is bigger in texas, but bigger doesn't necessarily mean better.


Thought that was the motto of the federal government, and republican opposites.

Same reason.

Pot meet kettle.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Oh I know. I was stationed in Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, went in and out of Texas quite regularly (Wichita Falls is only a 45 minute drive away) and was exposed to quite a few Texas who were also stationed there. You aren't telling me anything I don't know. I would NEVER move to Texas. There are much better states protecting our liberties and expanding our freedoms than Texas (like Colorado or Washington).



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Teehee! Cute little Texas way down there could absorb all 4 states you listed and still not overtake Alaska for largest land area of the 50 states. Texas is like the biggest toddler in the day care as far as those of us in America's northern enclave are concerned.

Oh, and New Mexico is very different from Texas, politically speaking. The past 15-20 years have seen NM take a troubling shift leftward to the point the state isn't even remotely conservative.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

No you can't pass that quote off onto another entity. You Texans OWN that motto. It's yours, no matter how arrogant and stupid it is in practice.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexanThose

OK. Devil's advocate "mandatory". That implies resistance. An enforcement. Far better that it's a 'given', an automatic in any curriculum.

Two directions it could be mandated, on a state level and federally. Those states that are inclined to do so-excepting local county school boards who 'know better'- are probably already/ never stopped this practice.

Those that have stopped are likely left in their politics and wouldn't 'mandate' it.

The result no big change.

Federally, to mandate a curriculum based on the Constitution and The Bill of Rights would almost immediately be challenged by those opposed via the Judicial Branch. They would find it violated the 10th. They would be correct in doing so, Constitutionally speaking.( Not to mention the Judicial is infested with those that have already messed with the Constitution and hold their tenures based on the very system that has evolved. An educated public would be a non-starter).

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass on this. I hold the view it is NOT fixable. The above is just an EG..


edit on 26-1-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Re Alaska...I remember a few decades back when Alaska was whining about how bad they were being treated by the Feds, there was talk about joining Canada...


Re NM. That thought also crossed my mind. Yet, there is a large bunch that aren't left at all.

Probably a poor choice on my part, though. The state invited/requesting to join would have to have passed a plebiscite before being considered, therefore self-disqualifying would handle that issue.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Uh,oh, Colorado and Washington...LOL. Read that civil liberties are defined as legalized recreational doobies....

Hopefully, this thread stays at a higher level than that. Loco weed...a National issue...cough, cough...



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

That's exactly why we need blue states. We need somewhere that you can be happy too...



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Re Alaska...I remember a few decades back when Alaska was whining about how bad they were being treated by the Feds, there was talk about joining Canada...



Actually the Alaskan Independence Party is pretty big here. They've tried to get seccession on the ballot. I'd vote for it, but there's no mechanism to allow it to be a reality under current interpretation of the law.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'd bet if you leave the Feds the military bases, perhaps a mutual defense pact, it's possible.

Isn't Obama looking at self-rule for Hawaii??



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

That's exactly why we need blue states. We need somewhere that you can be happy too...


I don't really consider myself blue. Economically and Foreign Affairs(y) I'm conservative. Socially, I lean progressive. I'm more a purple gal. Thought that tends to draw the ire of the far left and far right more often than I'd like. I'm like a political pin-cushion. Not far enough down one path or the other, so both sides hate me.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Volund

Hmm, they were just thoughts. You don't think a serious water shortage is down the road?



Everyone knows that the raindrops are bigger here in Texas. Why does everyone always think we have a water shortage? Besides, Nestlè is in California, we own our water.


edit on 26-1-2015 by Volund because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

That must hurt. LOl.

Maybe a purple state will come about..


There's quite a few that fall into that same area code. I don't think anyone is 100% in any direction, now that you mention it.

I view the conduit that is the Federal gov't as beyond repair. No matter which party attempts to run it. I feel no political party is capable of repairing it-including, if not especially, Libertarians- and that Texas has shown more than a little spunk in standing up to this edition of Feds.

This loony idea is based on those premises. Truth be told, dissolving the Union and letting each state either go it alone or form new, smaller groups, be they left or right is the least traumatic. Agree to disagree and move on, so to speak.

Of course, this idea won't happen, but discussion does break down some of the mental barriers so maybe it has some worth...I hope so.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'd bet if you leave the Feds the military bases, perhaps a mutual defense pact, it's possible.

Isn't Obama looking at self-rule for Hawaii??



He's pushed for a race based self rule for Hawaii natives. The state, itself, would still be under the fed's crushing thumb, as would all the "howlies." As far as AK's bases go, since Senator Stevens was forced out, Alaska's military windfalls have shrunk tremendously. I can see a day in the future that sees Alaska hardly registering on the military's map. The state was vital as a stopgap. first line of defense against the Axis powers in WWII and Russia in the Cold War, but modern warfare technology has really lessened the need for strategic locations like AK. Satellites and long range drones combined with much more sophisticated weaponry than NIKE missiles have sort of made 'tweener bases obsolete.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join