<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Good For Oklahoma, Texas Should Follow in Texas Gulf Coast Region</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20676655</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:26:04 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:26:04 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Good For Oklahoma, Texas Should Follow</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20705508</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/112089"><b>JerryC23</b></A> : Slavery was not the only <small>(some say NOT even the MAIN)</small>  question answered/decided by the "War Between the States" ** <br><br>Sucession from the United States is NOT allowed. Thus Sayeth Abe Lincoln, the first Republican President, (backed by thee Federal Army.)<br>----------------<br>** NAME of the war -  see &raquo;<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_the_American_Civil_War" >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_the&middot;&middot;&middot;ivil_War</A><br><br>(As a Marine from Texas, <br>I subscribe to:<br>    -- The name "War Between the States" as inscribed on the USMC War Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. This name was personally directed by Lemuel C. Shepherd, Jr., 20th Commandant of the Marine Corp<br><small>--<br>~~ "Don't mis-underestimate me, too"  :)~</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20705508</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:56:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good For Oklahoma, Texas Should Follow</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20704194</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/858299"><b>McSummation</b></A> : But, the deduction is not 1:1.  And, since we (Texas) don't have a state income tax, it's doubtful that we would get any deduction at all.  <br><br>Think about it: We pay 10-30% in federal income taxes.  The feds are still going to take all that, but the states get nothing back, so we would have to pay that much in state taxes, on top of the 10-30% that the feds are taking.  It just doesn't work out.<br><br>"Secede" is the only answer.  Form the country of Texahoma.  We've already got an army (Nat. Guard), air force (Air Nat. Guard), some of the best universities around.  We could join OPEC and squeeze the yankees. :D]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20704194</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:19:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good For Oklahoma, Texas Should Follow</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703306</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/801264"><b>Seandhi</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  McSummation <A HREF="/useremail/u/858299"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>What they said is true.  99.999% of the stuff done by the US Congress is unconstitutional.<br><br>However, the feds have full grasp of the purse strings and use them to control the states.  Texas has tried things in the past, but capitulated when the feds said, "In that case, you get no more money."  Our legislators then yielded because the feds would still be extracting money from the citizens of this great state, but would be giving it to the DamnYankees up nawth.<br> </div>I wondered how we would be able to solve this problem, so I decided that I would rather pay more state tax than fed tax.  If the state forces us to pay more tax, then that means that we have a greater deduction on our federal income taxes.<br><small>--<br>You're an enlightened cat, and I dig that.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703306</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:23:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good For Oklahoma, Texas Should Follow</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20696109</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/858299"><b>McSummation</b></A> : What they said is true.  99.999% of the stuff done by the US Congress is unconstitutional.<br><br>However, the feds have full grasp of the purse strings and use them to control the states.  Texas has tried things in the past, but capitulated when the feds said, "In that case, you get no more money."  Our legislators then yielded because the feds would still be extracting money from the citizens of this great state, but would be giving it to the DamnYankees up nawth.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20696109</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:47:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good For Oklahoma, Texas Should Follow</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20676710</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/161103"><b>SandShark</b></A> : Booya!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20676710</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:21:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Good For Oklahoma, Texas Should Follow</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20676655</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/801264"><b>Seandhi</b></A> : In my opinion, Texas is in a much better position to tell the Feds to shove it than Oklahoma, but good for them having the balls to do it.<br><br><div class="bquote">AS INTRODUCED<br>A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the<br>Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United<br>States over certain powers; serving notice to the<br>federal government to cease and desist certain<br>mandates; and directing distribution.</div>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf" >www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/&middot;&middot;&middot;_int.pdf</A><br><small>--<br>You're an enlightened cat, and I dig that.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20676655</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:02:40 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
