So, not to belittle the states hit by the tornadoes this week, but does it take over two weeks for the POTUS to declare a state an emergency? Texas has been burning for a while now, and the governor requested a state of emergency around two weeks ago.

I know Gov. Perry is extremely critical of Obama and has famously stated that Texas needs no federal aid, but correct me if I'm wrong but the residents of Texas still pay federal taxes, do they not?

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/120965399.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/04/29/2011-04-29_rick_perry_texas_governor_rips_obamas_trip_to_tornadodevastated_alabama_what_abo.html

So, is this partisan politics at its worse, or is the Obama administration criminally incompetent in taking so long to declare a state of emergency? What say you? Remember the flack Bush took for Katrina, not that fires compare but it is still a huge disaster.

Is it a case of your disaster isn't bad enough compared to others? So, fires don't meet the requirement, but tornadoes and flooding do?

Obama is not just punishing Texas, he's punishing the United States of America.

2012 can't come soon enough.

sleeper;755314 wrote:Obama is not just punishing Texas, he's punishing the United States of America.

2012 can't come soon enough.

I was just informed our plant in Pennsylvania is closing. Obama's fault? Nope. But I have to take my frustration and anger out on someone. Anyone ready for $5 a gallon yet? Coming soon to a gas station near you!

To steal a line from Quaker....

Change we can believe in..........

sleeper;755314 wrote:Obama is not just punishing Texas, he's punishing the United States of America.

2012 can't come soon enough.

+1, but I dont have faith we will elect anyone worth a shit to replace him.

justincredible;755339 wrote:+1, but I dont have faith we will elect anyone worth a shit to replace him.

+2

Change we can believe in...

I live in Texas. First of all, Perry is an idiot. (still thinks he can secede). Secondly, I am not sure the fires are causing a state of emergency. Its tragic, but not to the point of the tornadoes or the flooding. It barely makes news here in Houston.

The people who have lost homes might not agree with you.

Homes can be replaced. Thats what insurance is for. The fire moves slowly and lives are not in danger. Loss of life trumps anything going on with the fire. Texans need knocked off their high horse. The I love Texas crap can't be understood until you see it on a day to day basis.

I'm not aware of what's going on? Wildfires I take it? Are they threatening many lives? And also, are federal emergencies usually declared for fires of similar scale?

To premise my post. Where in the constitution does it grant the president the unilateral authority to declare a state of "anything"? Congress declares and the president administrates. Congress has its constitutional limits as to what it can declare. That said I will comment as things exist today. Not that I disagree with them per se. Just how these powers have been granted. My post should be viewed in that context.

georgemc80;755595 wrote:Homes can be replaced. Thats what insurance is for. The fire moves slowly and lives are not in danger. Loss of life trumps anything going on with the fire.

The loss of life has a lot to do with it but does not necessarily trump the declaring of a state of emergency. It is about a states physical and economic ability to deal with a crisis. When a state Governor requests the president declare a state of emergency the Governor is saying the state lacks the resources both physically and financially to deal with a said crisis on its own.

Many times states attempt to use the feds to protect their own budget. I don't have enough info at this point to determine whether politics plays a role in this. I would not doubt it. Likely on both sides. As an outsider Texas holds much more economic and physical means to deal with this wildfire. Mississippi and Alabama have less means physically and economically to deal with their crisis than Texas does. Without the details I see this as a pretty good decision.

georgemc80;755595 wrote:Texans need knocked off their high horse. The I love Texas crap can't be understood until you see it on a day to day basis.

As you noted in previous posts you were not born and raised in Texas. Neither was I. You need to cut those that were born and raised there some slack. Understand their history. They are the only state in the union that fought on their own and gained their independence. Not from the USA but from Mexico.

Texas was at one point a sovereign independent nation. Recognized as such by many nations of the world. Including the USA. Texas was an independent nation just 166 yrs ago. That spirit and history carries through generations. Grandparents share it with their grandchildren and they eventually with their grandchildren. And so on with their grandchildren. It takes hundreds of years for the spirit to be forgotten.

Texas also through its lot in with the confederacy during the civil war. Against their beloved governor Sam Houston's objections who refused to swear allegiance to the confederacy. They removed him as governor. The man that led them to independence from Mexico cast aside. There is a large base of independent minded Texans. Telling them to get off their high horse will only embolden them.

I lived in Texas for a while. Loved it there. Friendly people...southern in nature but distinctively Texan.

I understood the Texan pride or the "high horse" factor. Quite frankly I admired it. Texans understand we are the United STATES of America. Federal for the common defense but governed locally.

Texas boasts a robust economy. Great economic opportunity afforded by low taxes, light regulation, and generally conservative politics.

Texans no doubt give a rat's hairy ass if BHO hands them federal dollars for the wildfire issue or not. Texans take care of their own....as it should be.

Texas is where I may end up in retirement (already there, but later) after my niece and nephew are through college. The very things some of you dislike about the state are the very reasons it appeals to me -- the most prominent being its independent nature. Because of their history, they "get" that the United States was never intended to be a massive FEDERALIZED country, but a more loosely collection of states that each offered individual and unique aspects to the country.

Ohioans have a similar love of their state as Texans do, and have been criticized for being obnoxious in some of the same ways (here's where the football stuff can carry over) but Ohio is one of the few states in this country that at one time had a variety of agricultural and manufactured exports similar to a country, with a larger amount that many actual countries.

While much of that pride has been battered by the economy of the past 20 years, and the manufacturing downturn, I still see the potential here as being like that of Texas if our political leaders get their act together.

Writerbuckeye;755702 wrote:Ohioans have a similar love of their state as Texans do, and have been criticized for being obnoxious in some of the same ways (here's where the football stuff can carry over) but Ohio is one of the few states in this country that at one time had a variety of agricultural and manufactured exports similar to a country, with a larger amount that many actual countries.

While much of that pride has been battered by the economy of the past 20 years, and the manufacturing downturn, I still see the potential here as being like that of Texas if our political leaders get their act together.

I see as much hope for Ohio as I do for this nation...pretty much next to none.

I love Ohio but having lived in Pennsylvania the past 8 years it gives me a new perspective on the state. You need only drive across the state line to see immediate differences. Ohio's infrastructure, schools, etc. are are noticeably sub-par by comparison. I will say, however, that Pennsylvania is showing signs of heading down the same high taxed/over-regulated slippery slope as the Buckeye State.

After 17 years at the same facility in Ohio and facing a plant closure there, I just learned our plant in Pennsylvania will close this fall. Now after 8 years here, it appears that I'm heading south to Tennessee. Why did they close the plant in Pennsylvania and move it to Tennessee? Much lower taxes. There's a DUH.

Who knows? Maybe I'll end up migrating from Tennessee to Texas for retirement.

Insane.

majorspark;755649 wrote:
Understand their history.

I taught Texas History for 3 years.

The problem I have with the Texas pride is not the pride. Hell I am proud of Texas. The problem is the what they believe they have a right to do. For example, the US didn't ask Texas to join the union. Sam Houston said it best, the US doesn't need Texas, Texas needs the US.

Another misconception is that Texas has a right to secede.

The problem is not me understanding Texas history, its Texans misinterpreting their own history.

I'm sure you know more about Texas history than I do, but I thought that when they petitioned and were accepted into the United States they had reserved the right to secede. I thought this was an agreed upon stipulation.

Civil War changed everything. It is illegal to secede. Federal government trumps ALL State governments.

justincredible;755339 wrote:+1, but I dont have faith we will elect anyone worth a shit to replace him.

Indeed. I think both major parties are too stupid to actually come up with a good candidate and, while it might be possible to find a superior one on an independent party, the "you're just wasting your vote" stigma for backing anyone without a "D" or "R" in front of their name will make it so they don't seriously dent the status quo.

Does California get State of Emergencies declared every summer for their wild fires?

georgemc80;757402 wrote:Civil War changed everything. It is illegal to secede. Federal government trumps ALL State governments.

Whomever said secession would be granted without a fight? Do you believe the feds will just say, "OK dudes, carry on. Chat wit cha later."? It won't be peaceful and it won't be pretty. I just hope if shit doesn't improve, it will just be.

georgemc80;757402 wrote:It is illegal to secede.

Okay, I'm chuckling at this line. If one secedes successfully (actually committing the act), then is not one no longer under US federal law?

The notion that someone would want or attempt to secede essentially means they no longer recognize the authority of the governing entity, so why would it matter to them if that entity says that not recognizing their authority is illegal?

It's circular to suggest that US federal authority claims that it is illegal not to recognize US federal authority.

Having said all that, it's still stupid to consider seceding.

You speak the truth. It is circular and crazy to call secession illegal.

The reason you declare secession illegal is for world perception. To the world you are simply bringing criminals to justice. By not criminalizing the act, you are now supressing a rebellion. Which may or may not garner negative perception. The point I was trying to make (although silly) was it isn't legal to even bring it to a vote of the people. (which it would take)

Is that correct though? My original question was whether or not Texas had reserved the right to secede when they joined the Union, and that this was approved by the Congress at that time with this stipulation. I don't believe that they have gone back and renegotiated that contract, but I could be way off base.

I figured that if you taught Texas history then maybe you would have the answer. I haven't searched or anything. I suppose I could, but just being lazy.

No problem. No such clause ever existed. Confusion with the clause wanting to divide Texas into 5 total states.

Again, its one thing to be proud of your history, its another to be proud of your fictional history.


EDIT:

for all who disbelieve..

http://hnn.us/articles/80031.html

georgemc80;758043 wrote:You speak the truth. It is circular and crazy to call secession illegal.

The reason you declare secession illegal is for world perception. To the world you are simply bringing criminals to justice. By not criminalizing the act, you are now supressing a rebellion. Which may or may not garner negative perception. The point I was trying to make (although silly) was it isn't legal to even bring it to a vote of the people. (which it would take)

That makes a little more sense.

I just saw it and chuckled to myself. I almost made the comparison to calling suicide illegal, as obviously, if you've successfully committed suicide, you don't recognize the authority of the state, since you can no longer recognize anything.

bigkahuna;757703 wrote:Does California get State of Emergencies declared every summer for their wild fires?

Not that I'm aware of. Of course that won't get mentioned because it isn't an example of the big bad Obama trying to hurt the simple hardworking conservatives.