"Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us h

[KukriKhan]

The US is not going to split apart over this, many more political crisis's were postponed or ended with peaceful agreements then with violence in the US.

Who suggests violence? We're civilized nowadays. Courts rule.

States assert. The Union replies. Last time it took a call to arms. But this is 2009. All we gotta do is follow the the 1787 document. Or decide it no longer applies.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who suggests violence? We're civilized nowadays. Courts rule.

States assert. The Union replies. Last time it took a call to arms. But this is 2009. All we gotta do is follow the the 1787 document. Or decide it no longer applies.

The link Fragony posted, suggested the US was going to break apart. I don't think the Fed gov would let the country split apart without a fight. The only reason the Soviet Union dismantled peacefully was because the change was coming from within the gov itself. If instead of Gorbachev there was a Stalin like figure, I think the Soviet Union would have stuck around further.

[KukriKhan]

The link Fragony posted, suggested the US was going to break apart. I don't think the Fed gov would let the country split apart without a fight. The only reason the Soviet Union dismantled peacefully was because the change was coming from within the gov itself. If instead of Gorbachev there was a Stalin like figure, I think the Soviet Union would have stuck around further.

I take that (excellent) point.

And only (weakly) counter: some americans have not forgotten how they got to where they are. (Man, was that not some mangled grammar?)

That a very large 'many' of them reside in Texas might be material, I counter. I suggest that peaceful protest, sanctioned by courts, eventually, backed up by an armed population with determination to self-govern, and a list of grieveances going back 4 generations or so...

might be more successful at divorcing itself from a Union if thought counter-productive to the aims of its own people - from which it draws its power.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I take that (excellent) point.

And only (weakly) counter: some americans have not forgotten how they got to where they are. (Man, was that not some mangled grammar?)

That a very large 'many' of them reside in Texas might be material, I counter. I suggest that peaceful protest, sanctioned by courts, eventually, backed up by an armed population with determination to self-govern, and a list of grieveances going back 4 generations or so...

might be more successful at divorcing itself from a Union if thought counter-productive to the aims of its own people - from which it draws its power.

I'm sorry but for some reason I am very tired right now, could you clear up that grammar a bit or rephrase your statement, because I don't think I am getting the point you are trying to convey.

EDIT: Are you saying that peaceful protests, use of courts and a list of motives to secede would work better instead of violence for...(here is where I get confused at your statement, sorry.)