Slashdot Mirror

There are quite a few people who disagree (which in itself creates that association). And I suspect the people who started use of the term, "climate denier" were deliberately invoking that parallel.

Sure. And some people still disagree with the notion that the Earth orbits the Sun. They're also blabbering fuckwits, so what's the point?

Impress them with what? Your gullibility? You are quite misinformed and would do well to educate yourself before speaking urban legend as fact.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8425/can-texas-secede-from-the-union-no

Or this fine piece of Secessionist literature.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

Notice in the first answer it takes special pains to emphasize "note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...".

All that is well and good, but the gret secessionist geniuses down in Texas seem to forget the fact the Constitution of the United States does in deed outline our form of *guberment*, in particular the President, Congress, and the rights of States. That means they are getting exactly what they signed up for.

It's a handicap for the Right. Without robocall campaigns to catapulpt the propaganda, how are the Republicans supposed to have a fighting chance? For the sake of good sportsmanship, it's only fair that they be allowed.

Junior High was a long time ago I was remembering Rick Perry's recent remarks.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8425/can-texas-secede-from-the-union-no

Your right there is no explicit clause stating one way or another. Here are the different sides to the argument.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

and wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Texas

Finally, I don't agree with this guy but I like this quote.

http://westernfrontamerica.com/2009/04/20/texas-eventually-secede-union/

"I say Texans can do whatever the hell they want. Even if U.S. law says Texas cannot secede from the Union, the whole point of declaring independence is to free yourself from such laws"

Not quite as elegant as "For the People and By the People" but we ain't from Boston.

Time Warner completed it's "spin-off" of Time Warner Cable in mid March. Couple that with what Time Warner Inc. execs are saying about "TV Everywhere". With that in mind as well as the rise of streaming video services such as Netflix it is hard to not see these ridiculous bandwidth caps as an attempt to hang on to their current Cable TV business model. Especially since they are charging about the same for a full TV, Phone, and Internet package now (almost $140 a month after taxes) as they will charge for an Internet only connection with a 175 Gig cap (100 cap for $75 and $75 more gigs over that...). I live in Austin and honestly I am looking at AT&T (who only offers a 3 Mb downstream in my area) as a viable option. At least they are talking about caps of 150 GB a month... and that speed is only a a third of what I usually get from TWC. On the up side at least 2 mayoral candidates here have issued statements against the caps. While that is encouraging I am not sure if it will still be an issue after the election but it is nice to live in a city where this issue gets noticed by the politicians. The thing about this though that really gets to me is that it isn't a consumption model. After all one of the main points is that there will be NO rollover of unused bandwidth. To return to the over used analogy of a restaurant for the consumption model. If I pay you for a plate and don't finish it... give me a doggy bag! I understand if it is a buffet and I don't get one, but to have someone pay for a plate of food and then snatch the plate away after half an hour regardless of whether or not they are finished... that's just cruel! Now, can we all agree to NOT use the restaurant analogy again?

The goal of the presidential primary process (right or wrong) is to obtain delegates for the national convention in Denver. The delegate results for the primary seem to be Clinton 65 Obama 61. That's a net of 4 for Clinton. Obama looks to win 21 of the 31 state districts (which is how the remaining 67 remaining delegates get allocated). I can't speak as to how the TX caucus processes works from here forward. I know it's complicated and not as straight forward as the 21/31 senate districts number I sited above. But I would guess that Obama is going to net more than 4 delegates from the caucuses, and actually come out of Texas a delegate winner even though he lost the popular vote (see Nevada for details).

Also, don't think that only Texans understand how silly and convoluted the process is. Everyone outside of Texas also thinks "y'all are doing it wrong." However, it's the process that the state democratic party came up with, and that's the way you do it down there. Complaining about the disenfranchisement of voters because of a system that was created before the race began is a bad argument. You should complain about the incompetence of the plan on its own merits. However, it's the system Texas Democrats decided upon and that's the way it goes. (I have similar feelings about Michigan and Florida.) Lets all learn from our mistakes and get it right next time.

Are we still in the middle ages?

Sadly, yes, we are in the middle ages.