Time to break up the USofA

[Avatar]

True that.

It would be painful to watch most of the red states implode.

Especially if they had nukes.

 

[Glaz]

Red states would go broke when they stopped getting their interstate welfare payments from the blue states.

Money isn't everything; try living without food from the red states though. Maybe Canada will open a soup kitchen for ya

 

[Alarum]

This will only occur when the combination of cheap, worldwide communications and viral attacks limiting physical mobility has destroyed the nation as either an ideal or a concept.

Which will happen eventually. Nations are relatively new historically, and I doubt they'll last a millenia. Too many flaws in the idea.

 

[CCGirl]

This is a proposed economic union. No borders for the multi national corporations, but people will continue to be restrained by artificial borders. They do not want anything or anyone stopping the flow of goods.

 

[Verv]

But really, here is a question:

I think people from all over the States are proud of us as a whole, and the fact remains that we are stronger united. We share a common bond. I grew up in three different states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota) and I have lived also in California and Texas. I have no idea how I would feel about these being so autonomous.

We are united as one, and I see no reason to have such huge gaps between our states. I think that it would put a divide between us as people that should not exist.

 

[Grizzly]

Money isn't everything; try living without food from the red states though. Maybe Canada will open a soup kitchen for ya

Sure, until the first drought comes. Then with no aid and nothing to trade, the red state suffering will be catastrophic.

But I don't want to see the dissolution of the states. That would be horrible. We all need each other.

 

[marshlewis]

Thanks to nukes it is no longer necessary to have a large population for a nation to exist. I propose the U.S. Constitution be dissolved and 50 nations be formed under the Articles of Confederation. The possessions can be freed to do whatever they will.

I would submit the very probable nuclear war within the former USA borders as an argument against this. You cant have Sanfrancisco values existing alongside decent former 'Right thinking Americans'

 

[marshlewis]

This will only occur when the combination of cheap, worldwide communications and viral attacks limiting physical mobility has destroyed the nation as either an ideal or a concept.

Which will happen eventually. Nations are relatively new historically, and I doubt they'll last a millenia. Too many flaws in the idea.

I would debate you on this if you could spare the time?.

 

[Praetor]

I dont think we ought to break up the USA. Instead, we need to expand the USA! We need to confer US Statehood on all our current posessions and incorporate Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Liberia, and Haiti as US Territories.

We also should diversify the population growth in this country and resettle the urban poor in new communities both rural and urban in the sparsely settled regions of America as well as in new cities erected in Iraq and A-Stan. We also should encourage legal immigration and assimilation into the USA.

 

[billwald]

Washington State is the best place in the world. If I knew of a better place I would go there.

The USofA is to large to run efficiently. The Scandinavian countries do better in social services because they are smaller. The melting pot has failed. Now days everyone wants to be a hyphonated American.

 

[rppearso]

Canada would like to start the bidding with 10,000,000 Euros on Washington State, and another 10,000,000 Euros on Alaska.

As long as I dont have to pay into socialized medicine and I can maintain my same standard of living (ie not get slammed with outragoius taxes and still be able to retain my write offs and tax breaks).

 

[rppearso]

We dont need to break up the united states we just need to get rid of the mexicans and stop supplying china, if we stop our out sourcing everything we will be fine. We are the reason we are falling apart, no one wants to offend anyone so now our demographic has changed so much that we no longer have an identity as a nation. One nation indivisible means you dont tolerate mexicans on our street protesting when they shouldent be here in the first place, we have so many degenerates that bring there crap here and divid our nation, these people arnt nuclear scientists or doctors most of them are bums (who claim to work hard at there 10$ an hour job and enroll there 10 kids into OUR schools who then influance OUR kids to think they have to tolerate this nonsense and WE have to pay for it). "No nation in history has had its demographics changed as much as the USA that were not conqured by another nation" (Michael Savage), so are we being conqured by mexico?

 

[JohnLocke]

The Articles of Confederation were scrapped for a reason, that reason being "They did NOT work."

Would the Articles work today?
No.

Do you have any idea how many different states are involved in the production of a single Chevy truck, loaf of bread, roll of telecom wire? We're specialized and distributed across the states and totally interdependent. There is no way New York could feed itself. And how would the Midwest keep from freezing if Louisiana decided to embargo Natural Gas shipments? or New York decided to embargo oil?

What you are really asking for is a more limited Federal Government. A Federal Government that does the important stuff like National Defense, and leaves almost all of the rest of it to the States. I'm right there with you, but the Articles ain't it. If for no other reason than the overwhelming majority of the trained military personnel in this country come from the South and West (not a problem for me, being a true blue... er.. pinko-commie hick, but for the rest of y'all....)

The Articles aren't it, but maybe a new understanding of the 9th and 10th Amendments would work, which say in very close paraphrase
"The Federal Government is a government of limited and specific powers, any powers not EXPLICITLY granted to it under the Constitution of the United States are reserved by the Several States or the Individual Citizen, respectively."

Three Cheers for the 9th Amendment!

Hip...hip huzzah!
hip.. hipp huzzah!
hip hip?

Cheers

 

[rppearso]

When everyone has nukes they are no longer a deterant, You have to have the ability to threaten and carry out that threat without retaliation. If the other nation has the ability to retaliate you cant make a threat without it being empty or risk MAD. This creates a problem because it infringes upon your ability to do what is best for your nation for fear of retaliation. This is why so much money has to be spent on weapons development most notably missle interception that way you can devestate there nation and population without incuring the same devistation yourself, this then again enables you to not have to compromse to insane/terrorist nations.

Compromise is good in marrige and friendships but not with the enemy, we should not have to give up one shred of quality of life for the degenerates of the middle east or any other nation that threatens our way of life, there opinions and views are irrelavant, the question is can we develope the needed technology to extinct there race so we dont have these problems and grow back the resolve and intolerance we once had that made this nation great.

I want to be able to sip margaritas and view the beatiful scenery of this nation, and there is no reason myself or US solders should have to roll in the mud together when we have to resources to bring the middle east to its knees. IF they want to slap the margarita out of our hands (ie 9/11) there should be profound consequences to biblical proporitions, that was the way of our ansestors but thoes days are gone now we all have to compromise to nations that would take your childrens future because its the political correct thing to do. In my mind I can sit around and be polite until you break into my house, then you have to answer to a G-3 or 9mm, at least we can still defend ourselves personally and not have to consider the feelings of the assailant.

 

[rppearso]

It does not matter if its states rights or federal rights when the enemy has infiltrated your nation and can swing votes becasue we did not weed them out when it was most critical.

 

[SkepticalOne]

Erm...if what you're saying is that we should use our nuclear stockpile on the Middle East, I think you need to consider Russia/China's feelings towards that (both nuclear powers).

Also, anti-ICBM technology is in its infancy, there in no way we're getting anything good soon. Currently you need to hit the target while it's in its launch phase which is a little difficult if you intend to knock out Chinese rockets blasting out of central China.

 

[Bleeah]

I chanced on this website today:

"ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

 

[rppearso]

Erm...if what you're saying is that we should use our nuclear stockpile on the Middle East, I think you need to consider Russia/China's feelings towards that (both nuclear powers).

Also, anti-ICBM technology is in its infancy, there in no way we're getting anything good soon. Currently you need to hit the target while it's in its launch phase which is a little difficult if you intend to knock out Chinese rockets blasting out of central China.

Ahh, it doesnt have to be nuclear, we also have a whole stock pile of MOAB's. Also Russia is our ally and China is not going to do something as rash as shoot nukes at us if we are not threating them, considering we owe them lots of money it would not make sense for them to blow us up and them never get there money back when we never threatened them to begin with. I dont think any nation cares about the middle east enough to risk a 3rd world war. Also the future of anti missle technology will be laser systems, once we have, I think we would need portable nuclear generators to supply the power required to burn up an ICBM (or develope anti matter technology for power) and I dont think that technology is very far away. The rest of the world needs to understand that the USA takes what it wants when it wants and the will of its people will not be impeaded by invaders (ie mexicans) or external forign powers. Plus nukes would destroy the oil fields, I think it will be a great tradedy if we actually pay for the oil that comes out of the ground in iraq after all we have done over there. We should MOAB the population and secure the air fields and oil fields.

 

[JohnLocke]

It does not matter if its states rights or federal rights when the enemy has infiltrated your nation and can swing votes becasue we did not weed them out when it was most critical.

So...

How are the infiltrating enemies swinging votes? Surely not by voting themselves, because then they're us. I can only assume that you must refer to the notion that a terrorist type attack may influence an election result.

Sorry, boss, but that's one of those infirmities and strengths of democracy; it does, in fact, adapt to changes in local conditions. Otherwise, I totally miss your point, and I apologize.

 

[CCGirl]

Ahh, it doesnt have to be nuclear, we also have a whole stock pile of MOAB's. Also Russia is our ally and China is not going to do something as rash as shoot nukes at us if we are not threating them, considering we owe them lots of money it would not make sense for them to blow us up and them never get there money back when we never threatened them to begin with. I dont think any nation cares about the middle east enough to risk a 3rd world war. Also the future of anti missle technology will be laser systems, once we have, I think we would need portable nuclear generators to supply the power required to burn up an ICBM (or develope anti matter technology for power) and I dont think that technology is very far away. The rest of the world needs to understand that the USA takes what it wants when it wants and the will of its people will not be impeaded by invaders (ie mexicans) or external forign powers. Plus nukes would destroy the oil fields, I think it will be a great tradedy if we actually pay for the oil that comes out of the ground in iraq after all we have done over there. We should MOAB the population and secure the air fields and oil fields.

Is this a serious post?