Online Now 3311

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1925
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3340
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Ramifications of secession movement in Texas

  • EarshotCock said...

    I'm going to make a radical suggestion. I'm certain it will get flamed. The US needs to pay its elected officials more.

    There are really smart people in this country who could do great things on Washington, but most can't be distracted from their own self interests because of the drastic reduction in pay they'd be taking. The president of the United States has a salary of $400,000 per year. Do people not think this job is worth more than that? It is essentially the most important job in the world, and he makes about 1/40th what the worst commissioner in professional sports makes.

    Yes, I realize there are ancillary benefits, but I still think the job is not attractive to the right type of leader.

    This argument might work for the legislature, but is unnecessary for president. The presidency is a job after you have made your way at something else before hand. It's not a career in itself. Besides there are plenty of benefits to being president. The only thing that makes the job unattractive is the media.

    Sorry for grammar I am on the phone.

    TroyTide

  • Clemson said...

    I agree with most of this.

    The cool thing now for college students is to be as liberal as possible, and anyone who is not, is just an ignorant racist. yada yada.

    Most of the people that I went to undergrad with that are liberals, don't really understand how the world turns, as they have never had to fend for themselves. When they are in their 30's and have a mortgage, two kids, and a real job, they may understand what I've been trying to tell them for years.

    I don't know about all that. I think most college students tend to line up with their school for the most part. I used to spend a lot of time dealing with demographics when I was involved in marketing and we usually found that Public State schools everywhere tended to have a higher percentage of conservative voters than the state as we whole. This didn't mean that they were a majority Republican, but that if they were in a red state, they had a higher % of republican voters and if they were in a blue state, they still might be in the minority, but the % of republican voters was still higher than the % for that state.

    The opposite was true at most private Universities, even the ones that were religious based. Private schools would have a higher % of liberal voters than the rest of their state regardless of whether is was already a blue state or if it was a red state.

    We covered about 300 Univerties with the study (which started in Texas as that was where a campaign that we were hired to run numbers for) across the country and I would say this was true in just under 80% of the cases.

    The only states in which it seemed backwards were in South Carolina, Hawaii, Utah, and Florida. Not sure why for South Carolina or Florida, but we understood the difference for Hawaii and Utah.

    We began this study in 2005 and the number held true through 2008. Maybe things have changed in 4 years, but I don't see that change happening in that time frame.

    BetterOff

  • BetterOff said...

    I don't know about all that. I think most college students tend to line up with their school for the most part. I used to spend a lot of time dealing with demographics when I was involved in marketing and we usually found that Public State schools everywhere tended to have a higher percentage of conservative voters than the state as we whole. This didn't mean that they were a majority Republican, but that if they were in a red state, they had a higher % of republican voters and if they were in a blue state, they still might be in the minority, but the % of republican voters was still higher than the % for that state.

    The opposite was true at most private Universities, even the ones that were religious based. Private schools would have a higher % of liberal voters than the rest of their state regardless of whether is was already a blue state or if it was a red state.

    We covered about 300 Univerties with the study (which started in Texas as that was where a campaign that we were hired to run numbers for) across the country and I would say this was true in just under 80% of the cases.

    The only states in which it seemed backwards were in South Carolina, Hawaii, Utah, and Florida. Not sure why for South Carolina or Florida, but we understood the difference for Hawaii and Utah.

    We began this study in 2005 and the number held true through 2008. Maybe things have changed in 4 years, but I don't see that change happening in that time frame.

    I'd think that most liberal arts universities are private schools, so obviously the liberal base is going to be higher there.

    Clemson is still considered a conservative school, but with the high percentage of out of state students, I'm not sure it will always be that way.

    I guess my point was that in the age group 18-29, there are more liberals (at least more liberals that vote),evidenced by the last two elections.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Clemson

  • TroyTide said...

    If the economy is better in four years I will reevaluate my economic and political opinions regarding economics. But unfortunately it won't be. Liberals don't understand money...at all.

    I ma not glued to an ideology just like it is a religion and I have changed my mind many times in the past and likely will again. But when it comes to economics it's just not something the left understands. So I have little hope.

    Maybe the problem isn't the left doesn't understand the economy. Maybe it's that you continue to point out problems and you do little to point out solutions. Instead of helping, you continue to bicker.
    The problem isn't that the left doesn't understand economics and the right doesn't understand social issues. It's that both sides have to big of an ego to reach across, help each other understand and fix the problems.

    Accusing each other of lack of intelligence or whatever only makes the problem larger. It really does nothing. You're doing the exact thing that JC says (most agree) hurting our country.

    dkerns ●

  • Clemson said...

    I'd think that most liberal arts universities are private schools, so obviously the liberal base is going to be higher there.

    Clemson is still considered a conservative school, but with the high percentage of out of state students, I'm not sure it will always be that way.

    I guess my point was that in the age group 18-29, there are more liberals (at least more liberals that vote),evidenced by the last two elections.

    I don't disagree with you. Why college students vote the way they do basically balances out. Among non college students, you see it sway very liberal.

    Over half the population will change their view from when they are 22 to when they are 30. I have become more liberal the older I get, honestly on a lot of issues. Not enough that I vote a Democratic ticket, but enough that I voted both ways on about half my ballott. I would love to see the Federal Government stay more conservative, but allow for states to become as liberal as they seem fit, if that makes any sense. What's right in Alabama isn't what people in California want and vice versa. My problem is that used to be the Republican party, but now both are trying to yield too much Federal power, IMO.

    BetterOff

  • dkerns said...

    Maybe the problem isn't the left doesn't understand the economy. Maybe it's that you continue to point out problems and you do little to point out solutions. Instead of helping, you continue to bicker.
    The problem isn't that the left doesn't understand economics and the right doesn't understand social issues. It's that both sides have to big of an ego to reach across, help each other understand and fix the problems.

    Accusing each other of lack of intelligence or whatever only makes the problem larger. It really does nothing. You're doing the exact thing that JC says (most agree) hurting our country.

    clap

    BetterOff

  • Keith Niebuhr said...

    Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

    THIS is classic!

    attachment

    E-mail: jc@247Sports.com/Twitter: @jcshurburtt/Instagram jcshurburtt

    JC Shurburtt ●

  • oufisherman said...

    Pretty sure most OU fans live in Texas, I do...lol

    That's a good one.

    E-mail: jc@247Sports.com/Twitter: @jcshurburtt/Instagram jcshurburtt

    JC Shurburtt ●

  • And BTW- what a good thread. Props to Keith for starting it.

    E-mail: jc@247Sports.com/Twitter: @jcshurburtt/Instagram jcshurburtt

    JC Shurburtt ●

  • TroyTide said...

    This argument might work for the legislature, but is unnecessary for president. The presidency is a job after you have made your way at something else before hand. It's not a career in itself. Besides there are plenty of benefits to being president. The only thing that makes the job unattractive is the media.

    Sorry for grammar I am on the phone.

    What exactly has the current president, "made his way" at before a useless term in the senate?

    EarshotCock

  • JC Shurburtt said...

    And BTW- what a good thread. Props to Keith for starting it.

    Upvote

    Keith Niebuhr ●

  • fsufsu said...

    Do you honestly think that? Forget about us being on tBB. Serious discussion: I think Texas would do extremely well.

    They could establish energy independence, food independence. Fresh water will be a colossal issue for everyone within 25 years but they'd have coastline for de-salinization.

    Anyone saying they'd get overrun with liberal minded hispanics is not wise. They'd straight up build a wall and likely make everyone prove English literacy within a year of immigrating or something like that and basically liberal ideas would just be outlawed. Liberals would call that everything shy of a new form of Cuba but it is the way it is.

    Thoughts? I am just going to respond to you.

    Didn't have time to respond before now, and you deserve a thoughtful response, so here goes:

    I think the main issue is that the chaos that would ensue from the initial secession would be too much to overcome.

    All military bases would be immediately closed. Military personnel and materials would be relocated to the Texas border. All national guard funding would cease, and national guard resources would all be removed to the border as well. All Texans would be required to surrender their U.S. passports, rendering travel to anywhere outside Texas functionally impossible in the short-term. Texas would be incapable of importing anything.

    Due to travel restrictions, major companies would immediately relocate headquarters back into the US until Texas' border situation resolves. The loss of major employers like Exxon Mobil would cause an immediate recession. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people would find themselves immediately out of a job. No US company would continue to operate until the costs of doing business in this newly-foreign state were established and clarified. All Texan businesses would immediately find themselves subject to numerous new laws regarding international trade. Outside of locally-owned and operated businesses, commerce would grind to a standstill.

    Big box retailers would run out of product soon enough - distribution centers are a great idea when travel is easy across state lines, but the newly-established border would prevent practically all restocking or resupply. Consequently, retail workers will find themselves jobless. Just like the white-collar workers released by the relocation of company HQs, retail workers will find themselves without any source of income. Texas is currently 9th in the nation in poverty levels. The rapid shutdown of commerce would spike poverty to unheard-of levels as people ate through their savings.

    In the immediate short-term, all federal funding would cease. TANF, Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, and all federal funding of any kind. In order to survive such a drastic shut-off, the newly-formed country would need tremendous cash reserves and the ability to distribute such aid to its citizens - however, considering one of the main reasons Texas would be seceding is the protest of "entitlements," I guarantee they won't have a massive benefit distribution network set up to handle the immediate aftermath of secession. The last thing the new Texas would do is start handing out money and aid to all its citizens.

    Over 50% of illegal immigrants families with children in Texas receive welfare benefits. Ceasing these benefits without any other social safety net will cause an exodus of unskilled workers. The vacuum created by this exodus will further erode the Texan economy, as crops go un-harvested. Of the ten biggest cash crops in Texas, only one is primarily used as food for humans (rice). Absent any ability to export these goods (cotton, hay, peanuts, etc.), the agricultural economy will slow down. Of course, Texas is also one of the biggest takers of federal farm subsidies, so it'll be a miracle if the agricultural industry doesn't outright tank with the sudden loss of federal funds. One harvest cycle without federal funds will result in a massively decreased harvest.

    So, we're now left with a society with rampant unemployment, no social safety net, an incredibly depressed economy, no foreign trade to speak of, a small, disorganized military, and a vacuum where large corporations normally exist.

    What about healthcare? Regarding healthcare, 25% of Texans are currently uninsured. Approximately 16% of Texans are on Medicaid. Absent federal funding, around 40% of the state will have no funding for healthcare whatsoever. Again, this is not a state founded on handouts, so almost half the state will have no access to healthcare. Rural medical centers will also find themselves running out of supplies soon enough - it's not hard to imagine that injuries and the need for medical care will increase in the chaos of secession.

    Infrastructure? All federal funding of highway repair and maintenance will cease. Air travel? The FAA will pull out immediately, and there'll be no supervision of air traffic control. On top of that, the largest airline headquartered in Texas doesn't fly anything larger than a DC-9. Air travel would effectively end. How about boating? With no Coast Guard or Navy left to protect or monitor the Gulf Coast, Texans would be vulnerable to attacks by sea from smugglers, drug dealers, terrorists, you name it, and any attempts to utilize the Gulf for natural resources would most likely be halted by a U.S. embargo.

    On top of everything else, simple communications would instantly become infinitely more complex. Absent the FCC, Texas would be in charge of licensing its own ISPs, and once most of the large corporations have pulled out of Texas for the time being, it's very likely that there would be large periods of time in which much of the state had no internet access, until Texas could license and establish its own ISPs. Cell phone rates would be recalibrated, and call transmission would be challenged - with no guarantee of payment or established telecom agreements with a new nation, many IXCs (interexchange carriers - aka long-distance-carriers) would simply refuse to carry calls to-and-from Texas.

    Ultimately, the only way to successfully secede and maintain any type of order is to have exactly the type of controlling, overreaching government that most Texans seem to despise. Since the only actor whose behavior can be predicted by the seceding government is the seceding government itself, the new government would need to have contingency plans in place for practically every single aspect of daily life, and it would need to act on these plans before any of the negative consequences of the secession became apparent in a given field. Even if everyone involved in state administration from Rick Perry on down started seriously planning for secession, Texans won't want to break away from the US just to find themselves living in a state with considerably bigger government than the U.S. that hands out necessary entitlements left and right and nationalizes industries to provide government jobs for the many unemployed. There's simply no way for Texas to secede without going against almost all of the reasons so far advanced for secession.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • CMXI said...

    Didn't have time to respond before now, and you deserve a thoughtful response, so here goes:

    I think the main issue is that the chaos that would ensue from the initial secession would be too much to overcome.

    All military bases would be immediately closed. Military personnel and materials would be relocated to the Texas border. All national guard funding would cease, and national guard resources would all be removed to the border as well. All Texans would be required to surrender their U.S. passports, rendering travel to anywhere outside Texas functionally impossible in the short-term. Texas would be incapable of importing anything.

    Due to travel restrictions, major companies would immediately relocate headquarters back into the US until Texas' border situation resolves. The loss of major employers like Exxon Mobil would cause an immediate recession. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people would find themselves immediately out of a job. No US company would continue to operate until the costs of doing business in this newly-foreign state were established and clarified. All Texan businesses would immediately find themselves subject to numerous new laws regarding international trade. Outside of locally-owned and operated businesses, commerce would grind to a standstill.

    Big box retailers would run out of product soon enough - distribution centers are a great idea when travel is easy across state lines, but the newly-established border would prevent practically all restocking or resupply. Consequently, retail workers will find themselves jobless. Just like the white-collar workers released by the relocation of company HQs, retail workers will find themselves without any source of income. Texas is currently 9th in the nation in poverty levels. The rapid shutdown of commerce would spike poverty to unheard-of levels as people ate through their savings.

    In the immediate short-term, all federal funding would cease. TANF, Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, and all federal funding of any kind. In order to survive such a drastic shut-off, the newly-formed country would need tremendous cash reserves and the ability to distribute such aid to its citizens - however, considering one of the main reasons Texas would be seceding is the protest of "entitlements," I guarantee they won't have a massive benefit distribution network set up to handle the immediate aftermath of secession. The last thing the new Texas would do is start handing out money and aid to all its citizens.

    Over 50% of illegal immigrants families with children in Texas receive welfare benefits. Ceasing these benefits without any other social safety net will cause an exodus of unskilled workers. The vacuum created by this exodus will further erode the Texan economy, as crops go un-harvested. Of the ten biggest cash crops in Texas, only one is primarily used as food for humans (rice). Absent any ability to export these goods (cotton, hay, peanuts, etc.), the agricultural economy will slow down. Of course, Texas is also one of the biggest takers of federal farm subsidies, so it'll be a miracle if the agricultural industry doesn't outright tank with the sudden loss of federal funds. One harvest cycle without federal funds will result in a massively decreased harvest.

    So, we're now left with a society with rampant unemployment, no social safety net, an incredibly depressed economy, no foreign trade to speak of, a small, disorganized military, and a vacuum where large corporations normally exist.

    What about healthcare? Regarding healthcare, 25% of Texans are currently uninsured. Approximately 16% of Texans are on Medicaid. Absent federal funding, around 40% of the state will have no funding for healthcare whatsoever. Again, this is not a state founded on handouts, so almost half the state will have no access to healthcare. Rural medical centers will also find themselves running out of supplies soon enough - it's not hard to imagine that injuries and the need for medical care will increase in the chaos of secession.

    Infrastructure? All federal funding of highway repair and maintenance will cease. Air travel? The FAA will pull out immediately, and there'll be no supervision of air traffic control. On top of that, the largest airline headquartered in Texas doesn't fly anything larger than a DC-9. Air travel would effectively end. How about boating? With no Coast Guard or Navy left to protect or monitor the Gulf Coast, Texans would be vulnerable to attacks by sea from smugglers, drug dealers, terrorists, you name it, and any attempts to utilize the Gulf for natural resources would most likely be halted by a U.S. embargo.

    On top of everything else, simple communications would instantly become infinitely more complex. Absent the FCC, Texas would be in charge of licensing its own ISPs, and once most of the large corporations have pulled out of Texas for the time being, it's very likely that there would be large periods of time in which much of the state had no internet access, until Texas could license and establish its own ISPs. Cell phone rates would be recalibrated, and call transmission would be challenged - with no guarantee of payment or established telecom agreements with a new nation, many IXCs (interexchange carriers - aka long-distance-carriers) would simply refuse to carry calls to-and-from Texas.

    Ultimately, the only way to successfully secede and maintain any type of order is to have exactly the type of controlling, overreaching government that most Texans seem to despise. Since the only actor whose behavior can be predicted by the seceding government is the seceding government itself, the new government would need to have contingency plans in place for practically every single aspect of daily life, and it would need to act on these plans before any of the negative consequences of the secession became apparent in a given field. Even if everyone involved in state administration from Rick Perry on down started seriously planning for secession, Texans won't want to break away from the US just to find themselves living in a state with considerably bigger government than the U.S. that hands out necessary entitlements left and right and nationalizes industries to provide government jobs for the many unemployed. There's simply no way for Texas to secede without going against almost all of the reasons so far advanced for secession.

    Lol. It's not like it would happen overnight.

    If Texas decided to secede as a pro business nation, your predictions would be way off. In fact Manhattan would have more to worry about than Tejas. Also don't know why the military would move to the border???

    The US wouldn't just kick Texas to the curb if they seceded, especially since they agreed to explicitly allow Texas that option when they came in.

    Also don't see why Exxon would leave they would be treated more favorably in Texas than in Obama land.

    This post was edited by TroyTide on 11/16/2012 at 2:19 AM

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    Lol. It's not like it would happen overnight.

    If Texas decided to secede as a pro business nation, your predictions would be way off. In fact Manhattan would have more to worry about than Tejas. Also don't know why the military would move to the border???

    The US wouldn't just kick Texas to the curb if they seceded, especially since they agreed to explicitly allow Texas that option when they came in.

    Also don't see why Exxon would leave they would be treated more favorably in Texas than in Obama land.

    I think the issue is would a "peaceful secession" actually happen? Personally, I doubt it.

    Also, why would the military forces in Texas be more loyal to Texas than the U.S.? Some may be, I think that's safe to say, but all of them? They are the U.S. Military, after all.

    Personally, given the weakened state of the U.S. at the moment, I think it's safe to say secession would leave everyone open to some pretty bad sh!t.

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4

  • sf2k4 said...

    I think the issue is would a "peaceful secession" actually happen? Personally, I doubt it.

    Also, why would the military forces in Texas be more loyal to Texas than the U.S.? Some may be, I think that's safe to say, but all of them? They are the U.S. Military, after all.

    Personally, given the weakened state of the U.S. at the moment, I think it's safe to say secession would leave everyone open to some pretty bad sh!t.

    Well the US told Texas when they joined that they could leave whenever they wanted. If Texas actually did decide to secede and the US tried to stop them militarily it would be a disaster. The fallout would literally rip the country apart.

    So if Texas chose to leave the US could either plunge the country into endless war in the state, or do the smart thing and let them go on good terms so that trade and commerce could continue and they would have good relations with their Southern neighbor.

    There is really no reason to not let them secede. They would be friendly, they would be responsible for their portion of the Debt etc. Only the ego of the federal government being a reason to keep them by force.

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    Well the US told Texas when they joined that they could leave whenever they wanted. If Texas actually did decide to secede and the US tried to stop them militarily it would be a disaster. The fallout would literally rip the country apart.

    So if Texas chose to leave the US could either plunge the country into endless war in the state, or do the smart thing and let them go on good terms so that trade and commerce could continue and they would have good relations with their Southern neighbor.

    There is really no reason to not let them secede. They would be friendly, they would be responsible for their portion of the Debt etc. Only the ego of the federal government being a reason to keep them by force.

    I think the problem is that the economy is WAY more integrated now then it was back then, not only nationally, but internationally. I realize the concept of a "world nation" a la science fiction is no where near reality, but I think economically it's much more tangible than we'd like to admit.

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4

  • sf2k4 said...

    I think the problem is that the economy is WAY more integrated now then it was back then, not only nationally, but internationally. I realize the concept of a "world nation" a la science fiction is no where near reality, but I think economically it's much more tangible than we'd like to admit.

    It really isn't that big of a deal. The fact that commerce is so integrated would possibly be a benefit. I mean if companies can do business around the globe it wouldn't be a big deal to do it in Texas. There would be some changes, but laws and regs wound still be similar to the US, probably very similar. The big issue for both sides would be currency, but Texas could still have the Dollar a move the US would likely encourage.

    The whole thing just isn't that big of a deal assuming its peaceful.

    Scotland may be leaving the UK soon and nobody thinks they are going to plunge into chaos.

    This post was edited by TroyTide on 11/16/2012 at 2:49 AM

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    It really isn't that big of a deal. The fact that commerce is so integrated would possibly be a benefit. I mean if companies can do business around the globe it wouldn't be a big deal to do it in Texas. There would be some changes, but laws and regs wound still be similar to the US, probably very similar. The big issue for both sides would be currency, but Texas could still have the Dollar a move the US would likely encourage.

    The whole thing just isn't that big of a deal assuming its peaceful.

    Scotland may be leaving the UK soon and nobody thinks they are going to dissolve onto chaos.

    I think the issue would be trade regulations and tariffs. How hard would the U.S. (and the rest of the world?) hit Texas with trade restrictions.

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4

  • sf2k4 said...

    I think the issue would be trade regulations and tariffs. How hard would the U.S. (and the rest of the world?) hit Texas with trade restrictions.

    Why would they do that?

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    Why would they do that?

    'Cause the human race is greedy as fvck.

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4

  • TroyTide said...

    Lol. It's not like it would happen overnight.

    If Texas decided to secede as a pro business nation, your predictions would be way off. In fact Manhattan would have more to worry about than Tejas. Also don't know why the military would move to the border???

    The US wouldn't just kick Texas to the curb if they seceded, especially since they agreed to explicitly allow Texas that option when they came in.

    Also don't see why Exxon would leave they would be treated more favorably in Texas than in Obama land.

    Actually, given the number of people living paycheck-to-paycheck, a lot of this would happen literally overnight. As for the rest of it, much of what I've predicted would occur within months, a year or two at most.

    Texas seceding as a pro-business nation wouldn't matter one bit. The United States has foreign trade regulations that are decidedly different from domestic trade laws, so Texas' stance on business wouldn't change the accommodations U.S.-based companies would have to make. Please feel free to explain to me, in detail, why Manhattan would have more to worry about than Texas?

    Regardless of the contents of Texas' annexation resolution, the 1869 case Texas v. White held that no state in the union has the right to unilaterally secede. If Texas insists on seceding, it can only do so peacefully with the United States' consent. Any attempt at secession without the US Government's consent will be treated as an act of rebellion and insurrection.

    As for Exxon, the vast majority of their business holdings are located in the rest of America. Their business is incorporated outside of Texas. There is no financial reason to subject the company and its headquarters to unnecessary stress - Exxon would move their HQ immediately. However, as usual, please fee free to explain to me, in detail, why Exxon would be treated more favorably in Texas than in "Obama land."

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • CMXI said...

    Actually, given the number of people living paycheck-to-paycheck, a lot of this would happen literally overnight. As for the rest of it, much of what I've predicted would occur within months, a year or two at most.

    Texas seceding as a pro-business nation wouldn't matter one bit. The United States has foreign trade regulations that are decidedly different from domestic trade laws, so Texas' stance on business wouldn't change the accommodations U.S.-based companies would have to make. Please feel free to explain to me, in detail, why Manhattan would have more to worry about than Texas?

    Regardless of the contents of Texas' annexation resolution, the 1869 case Texas v. White held that no state in the union has the right to unilaterally secede. If Texas insists on seceding, it can only do so peacefully with the United States' consent. Any attempt at secession without the US Government's consent will be treated as an act of rebellion and insurrection.

    As for Exxon, the vast majority of their business holdings are located in the rest of America. Their business is incorporated outside of Texas. There is no financial reason to subject the company and its headquarters to unnecessary stress - Exxon would move their HQ immediately. However, as usual, please fee free to explain to me, in detail, why Exxon would be treated more favorably in Texas than in "Obama land."

    So I guess Scorland is screwedif they leave the UK in a few years? Lol. Look man in the last century alone countries came and went, empires were lost, countries expanded and contracted, governments rose and fell etc.
    it just isnt't that big of a deal. And I have yet to see how US trade agreements would effect Texas so badly. You are just wanting to think nobody can survive without the emperor and his court in DC. It just isn't true.

    This post was edited by TroyTide on 11/16/2012 at 12:58 PM

    TroyTide

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports