Anonymous wrote:
I'd take the SC manufacturing resurgence any day. God bless Right to Work states. Enjoy your grapes and soybeans.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'd LOVE to be separated from the Bible Belt south!
No problem since you are going to HELL anyway.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do you remember the map that circulated a while after GWB was re-elected? The north + ne+ west coast became part of Canada and the rest became Jesusland? (Funny though offensive to genuine Christians.)
On a serious note, wouldn't the process be akin to what other countries have experienced? Czechoslovakia, the Koreas?
Presumably OP would prefer a peaceful separation, not one preceded by war.
I would actually love to see a real experiment--let's pick a few states where the Extreme Conservative agenda could be carried out for a limited time (like 3-5 years) to see whether their ideas could work. No abortion or birth control, low tax rates for the wealthy, no regulation of any industry, drill as much as you like...
Yep, and the northern states like Illinois, Connecticut, NJ, NY, and RI can go bankrupt. Sry, but the utter snobbery of this thread is offensive.
Anonymous wrote:Interest is subjective and a question does not automatically and retroactively become uninteresting because someone answers it. However, I'm glad you pointed me back to Freeman's early response, because I don't know where in the Constitution the question of secession is addressed. Did Lincoln have Constitutional grounds to keep the Union together? If not, has it been amended in?Anonymous wrote:Except that it's really not. The second response pretty well laid out the procedure- it's actually pretty simple - and identified several of the myriad reasons why it will not happen. So it ceases to become interesting, and becomes navel gazing.Anonymous wrote:OP asked a rather interesting legal/procedural question and we responded with our usual mud-flinging diatribes.
How about me answering a question with a question: How might we go about reuniting our country's two hostile tribes -- liberals and conservative? I'm not speaking of erasing philosophical differences, just learning how to treat each other like fellow Americans who have different ideas about how to reach common goals.
Anyhow, that offhand reference to the "interesting" question was just a polite intro to my main point that I would like to see schoolyard level nastiness removed from political discussion (which probably has less chance of happening that the splitting we are supposedly discussing.)
Interest is subjective and a question does not automatically and retroactively become uninteresting because someone answers it. However, I'm glad you pointed me back to Freeman's early response, because I don't know where in the Constitution the question of secession is addressed. Did Lincoln have Constitutional grounds to keep the Union together? If not, has it been amended in?Anonymous wrote:Except that it's really not. The second response pretty well laid out the procedure- it's actually pretty simple - and identified several of the myriad reasons why it will not happen. So it ceases to become interesting, and becomes navel gazing.Anonymous wrote:OP asked a rather interesting legal/procedural question and we responded with our usual mud-flinging diatribes.
How about me answering a question with a question: How might we go about reuniting our country's two hostile tribes -- liberals and conservative? I'm not speaking of erasing philosophical differences, just learning how to treat each other like fellow Americans who have different ideas about how to reach common goals.
Don't forget we have an Independent in the Senate, and even a Socialist.Anonymous wrote:I am sure there is more than democrats and republicans in this big country. Right now we are represented by either via location, 3 rd party would never win enough local votes to get a seat in the congress. I would like to see a parliament system where we have representation by % of population.