[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Nebraska-37th
[/quote]
YAY! We’re not 50th!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
DB,
Would you support a peaceful secession by the south & midwest? Would you support us if we wanted to (as varq already suggested) scrap the USC and start back with just the constitution, excluding the Bill of Rights and other ammendments? (I do agree with you on that point)[/quote]
Hey Tedro, remember this map? This would be an interesting redivision of the continent. [/quote]
Mexico gets the Pacific coast north of San Francisco Bay? WTF? Where did that come from?[/quote]
Yeah, I’m gonna have to revise that map. I was just up in Humboldt county and I’d hate for the Mexicans to get their hands on that.
From the Abolut Aztlan thread:
I will revise this opinion, however, and cede only the coast south of Marin County. Then we’ll have full access to the Bay.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
So, I’ve been thinking about this general topic for a while now. I think that the way this country is run, organized, divided up into states and all that shit needs to be completely redone. Everything right up to and including tearing up the Constitution and writing a new one. [/quote]
I stopped here. Sorry, that’s just dumb. You’re not going to get perfect government no matter how many times you ‘start over’. Starting over means blood, means war, means chaos. Without a strong federal, that’s what you will have. If you are seeking a do-over, you destroy the structure that is in place you will have chaos because without the rule of law, all kinds of nuts will come out of the woodwork.
There is no way to peacefully transform a government like that. Peaceful transitions only happen after a defeat in a war. Fuck that. Our government, despite all the idiots in it, actually runs really well for the most part.
I have been around the world and there is no place I would rather live than here, under the government that was founded by collection of geniuses the world will not soon see again in such concentration.[/quote]
If this is how you feel, then why do you complain about the way the country is run in so many of these threads? It sounds to me like you are resigned to the reality of the situation and have given up all hope of ever changing it. Your attitude is exactly like those who wanted to remain under a monarch at the time of the American Revolution.[/quote]
So, if I am not in favor of shredding the constitution, then I don’t have the right to complain about things and also a Torrie? Sound logic.
There is a method setup in the structure to make changes to the way things are done. Voting and speaking out. I do both, I write my elected representatives when I have a beef and I vote for the people that most closely represent my views.
The constitution is also a fluid document in that it can be amended, so it’s technically always under construction.
The difficulty of setting up a new government is beyond the pale, getting people to respect that new government as rule of law is even worse.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
They don’t follow it now, so what assurances would we have that they’ll follow it if it’s rewritten?
GIven the current state of the union, can you IMAGINE how fucked up it would be? We’d all be getting tracking implants “for our own protection”.
Leave it alone. The opportunity to rewrite it will come soon enough when the rotting husk of the current empire collapses upon itself.
The only changes I would make now would be to set term limits, like the presidency. For congress and the judicial branch. I think that would eliminate much of the problems.[/quote]
In addition to campaign finance limits, and the length of time the campaigns actually last, and I am all for it…
[/quote]
All that shit can be implemented without writing it into the constitution. Or, if you really want it to be a constitutional law, that can be done through amendments.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
DB,
Would you support a peaceful secession by the south & midwest? Would you support us if we wanted to (as varq already suggested) scrap the USC and start back with just the constitution, excluding the Bill of Rights and other ammendments? (I do agree with you on that point)[/quote]
I’m down with a peaceful secession of the South. Unfortunately for the South, all y’all would be begging to come back into the Union in no time at all. The southern states that originally seceded are for the most part the largest recipients of federal gov’t welfare in the country. The fact is that half of the southern states that would be first in line to secede are entirely dependent on federal money in order to remain solvent. Where is that massive source of southern income going to come from without the federal gov’t there to hand it out? Texas can’t support everyone. Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas and Mississippi would be completely fucked.[/quote]
As I recall this has been tried… It wasn’t the succession that was unpeaceful.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Anyways I don’t think we’re ready yet. This might actually be the way to go eventually, but I don’t think yet. People are still more interested in arguing about BS than actually coming together - which this would require.
[/quote]
This may be one of the most insightful series of words ever transcribed in PWI. The petty bickering and general lack of respect for anyone else’s opinion that is obvious here is exactly why we could not achieve this without force. We are a nation of useful idiots, somehow distracting ourselves from the big picture. [/quote]
Give em hell VT. I think this article somewhat backs his opinion:
Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in Boise, laments alarming degree of public ignorance…
… About one-third can name the three branches of government. Fewer than one-fifth of high school seniors can explain how citizen participation benefits democracy.
… Less than one-third of eighth-graders can identify the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence, and it’s right there in the name, she said.
… That ignorance starts in the earliest years of a child’s schooling, she said, but often continues all the way through college and graduate school.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/06/201376/retired-justice-sandra-day-oconnor.html#.Uip7lX_tG1g
To the OP’s idea on new state boundarys here’s a story you may not have heard:
"
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Anyways I don’t think we’re ready yet. This might actually be the way to go eventually, but I don’t think yet. People are still more interested in arguing about BS than actually coming together - which this would require.
[/quote]
This may be one of the most insightful series of words ever transcribed in PWI. The petty bickering and general lack of respect for anyone else’s opinion that is obvious here is exactly why we could not achieve this without force. We are a nation of useful idiots, somehow distracting ourselves from the big picture. [/quote]
Thanks
No disrespect intended - something to consider
When you said “here”, were you thinking PWI or USA?
If PWI specifically, then you’ve got to give consideration to Push’s harness - maybe you’ve earned it?
If so you could make up for it of course. I’m not in a position to know, just a thought[/quote]
I meant here in PWI…and I am obviously aware that I take part in it just as much as the next guy…
I have no idea what is hypocritical about that since I wasn’t pointing fingers at anyone and will be the first to admit I am part of that problem. I thought the multiple uses of such inclusionary words such as “WE” and “OURSELVES” would have made it clear that I was including myself, thus precluding hypocrisy, but some people obviously read what they want to see.
I don’t really bother replying to much of anything some of these useful idiots write anymore as it quickly became evident that they don’t have much to ever offer to a conversation outside of SAMA exploits and general bitching about some mythical boogie man that exists in their state…
[quote]tedro wrote:
You can build a bank anywhere, but good luck getting sugar, cotton, corn, beans, wheat, etc. to grow in the rest of the country. [/quote]
Every one of those except cotton are grown in large quantities are grown in large quantities in Michigan.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
You can build a bank anywhere, but good luck getting sugar, cotton, corn, beans, wheat, etc. to grow in the rest of the country. [/quote]
Every one of those except cotton are grown in large quantities are grown in large quantities in Michigan.[/quote]
All of them including cotton are grown in California. The only problem is… it’s California. Michigan has a similar problem.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
You can build a bank anywhere, but good luck getting sugar, cotton, corn, beans, wheat, etc. to grow in the rest of the country. [/quote]
Every one of those except cotton are grown in large quantities are grown in large quantities in Michigan.[/quote]
All of them including cotton are grown in California. The only problem is… it’s California. Michigan has a similar problem. [/quote]
What problem is that? It is a great state to live in.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
You can build a bank anywhere, but good luck getting sugar, cotton, corn, beans, wheat, etc. to grow in the rest of the country. [/quote]
Every one of those except cotton are grown in large quantities are grown in large quantities in Michigan.[/quote]
All of them including cotton are grown in California. The only problem is… it’s California. Michigan has a similar problem. [/quote]
What problem is that? It is a great state to live in.
[/quote]
You evidently don’t live in Detroit.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
You can build a bank anywhere, but good luck getting sugar, cotton, corn, beans, wheat, etc. to grow in the rest of the country. [/quote]
Every one of those except cotton are grown in large quantities are grown in large quantities in Michigan.[/quote]
All of them including cotton are grown in California. The only problem is… it’s California. Michigan has a similar problem. [/quote]
What problem is that? It is a great state to live in.
[/quote]
You evidently don’t live in Detroit. [/quote]
No about forty miles out, but I know a lot of people that do and love the city.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
You can build a bank anywhere, but good luck getting sugar, cotton, corn, beans, wheat, etc. to grow in the rest of the country. [/quote]
Every one of those except cotton are grown in large quantities are grown in large quantities in Michigan.[/quote]
All of them including cotton are grown in California. The only problem is… it’s California. Michigan has a similar problem. [/quote]
What problem is that? It is a great state to live in.
[/quote]
Numero 1 is consumption. Does the northeast and West produce enough to meet their own demand and can they do it without subsidies or federal crop insurance?
Maybe they can, that would be great. It’s not the natural beauty of those states that the rest of America disdains, it’s the policies that they wish to impel on the rest of us.
If we really want to have a legitimate discussion without throwing out all of the hypotheticals, the problem isn’t so much state versus state. What we really have is a gap between urban and rural, ‘educated’ and otherwise, and of course liberal and conservative.
A growing section of the country just wants to be left alone. I don’t need you, a federal government, or a bunch of city slickers deciding where my and my community’s money should go,
what kind of health care I need, or what kind of guns I can own. This is the gap. It’s not inherently geographical, but the trend does suggest the behavior to want to control others largely resides in the greatest population centers.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
You can build a bank anywhere, but good luck getting sugar, cotton, corn, beans, wheat, etc. to grow in the rest of the country. [/quote]
Every one of those except cotton are grown in large quantities are grown in large quantities in Michigan.[/quote]
All of them including cotton are grown in California. The only problem is… it’s California. Michigan has a similar problem. [/quote]
What problem is that? It is a great state to live in.
[/quote]
You evidently don’t live in Detroit. [/quote]
No about forty miles out, but I know a lot of people that do and love the city.
[/quote]
Okay, well, different strokes for different folks, I guess. I’ve never been particularly fond of Los Angeles, but I hear there are those who like living there, too.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
You can build a bank anywhere, but good luck getting sugar, cotton, corn, beans, wheat, etc. to grow in the rest of the country. [/quote]
Every one of those except cotton are grown in large quantities are grown in large quantities in Michigan.[/quote]
All of them including cotton are grown in California. The only problem is… it’s California. Michigan has a similar problem. [/quote]
What problem is that? It is a great state to live in.
[/quote]
You evidently don’t live in Detroit. [/quote]
No about forty miles out, but I know a lot of people that do and love the city.
[/quote]
Okay, well, different strokes for different folks, I guess. I’ve never been paticularly fond of Los Angeles, but I hear there are those who like living there, too. [/quote]
Not a fan of L.A. either, but I have never really been in any city in which I would care to live. I guess my favorites if I had to live in a city would be Ann arbor, Seattle, San Diego, San Fran or traverse city.
I know it is an easy and popular thing to rip on Detroit but I doubt the people that do have ever spent any appreciable time there.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
You can build a bank anywhere, but good luck getting sugar, cotton, corn, beans, wheat, etc. to grow in the rest of the country. [/quote]
Every one of those except cotton are grown in large quantities are grown in large quantities in Michigan.[/quote]
All of them including cotton are grown in California. The only problem is… it’s California. Michigan has a similar problem. [/quote]
What problem is that? It is a great state to live in.
[/quote]
You evidently don’t live in Detroit. [/quote]
No about forty miles out, but I know a lot of people that do and love the city.
[/quote]
Okay, well, different strokes for different folks, I guess. I’ve never been paticularly fond of Los Angeles, but I hear there are those who like living there, too. [/quote]
Not a fan of L.A. either, but I have never really been in any city in which I would care to live. I guess my favorites if I had to live in a city would be Ann arbor, Seattle, San Diego, San Fran or traverse city.
I know it is an easy and popular thing to rip on Detroit but I doubt the people that do have ever spent any appreciable time there.[/quote]
Just imagine if California did not have the Colorado River, and siphoning off all of it. Would they still be able to grow everything?
Just imagine if California decided to be apart of Mexico or Independent. The easiest way to bring them to their knees is by taking land around the Colorado River, so they do not have access to it.
[quote]tedro wrote:
A growing section of the country just wants to be left alone. I don’t need you, a federal government, or a bunch of city slickers deciding where my and my community’s money should go,
what kind of health care I need, or what kind of guns I can own. This is the gap. It’s not inherently geographical, but the trend does suggest the behavior to want to control others largely resides in the greatest population centers.[/quote]
This is a good post.
As to the bolded part, the reasons for this is proximity. The more people you have packed into a smaller area the more the chances of nuts cases and otherwise undesirables messing up the lives of the vast majority that just want to go about their day.
Yes you have crimes and drama in the 'burbs, but in urban areas it is more prevalent simply due to proximity, density and anonymity.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
You can build a bank anywhere, but good luck getting sugar, cotton, corn, beans, wheat, etc. to grow in the rest of the country. [/quote]
Every one of those except cotton are grown in large quantities are grown in large quantities in Michigan.[/quote]
All of them including cotton are grown in California. The only problem is… it’s California. Michigan has a similar problem. [/quote]
What problem is that? It is a great state to live in.
[/quote]
You evidently don’t live in Detroit. [/quote]
No about forty miles out, but I know a lot of people that do and love the city.
[/quote]
Okay, well, different strokes for different folks, I guess. I’ve never been paticularly fond of Los Angeles, but I hear there are those who like living there, too. [/quote]
Not a fan of L.A. either, but I have never really been in any city in which I would care to live. I guess my favorites if I had to live in a city would be Ann arbor, Seattle, San Diego, San Fran or traverse city.
I know it is an easy and popular thing to rip on Detroit but I doubt the people that do have ever spent any appreciable time there.[/quote]
Just imagine if California did not have the Colorado River, and siphoning off all of it. Would they still be able to grow everything?
Just imagine if California decided to be apart of Mexico or Independent. The easiest way to bring them to their knees is by taking land around the Colorado River, so they do not have access to it.
[/quote]
When you say “California” I think you mean “Southern California”, and more specifically, “Los Angeles”.
Northern and Central California don’t use a drop of water from the Colorado River Aqueduct, and that’s where most of the agriculture is.