November 04, 2004

• Does that mean you'll have two countries with one-party rule? King John the Democrat and King George the Republican. It makes a weird kind of sense.
• there's always hawaii i'll make leis and coconut bras make your own tiki and monkey cups island nation!
• Two words: state's rights. It's what the conservatives have been preaching for a while anyway, they should be happy to give us a little local control. The problem of course is taxation. The more liberal parts of the country happen to also produce most of the revenue, California's been subsidizing a good sized chunk of the rest of the country for some time. They'll never let that go and we need that cash if we're to accomplish anything.
• Cascadia!
• I agree with that Cali, but the interior of the country makes most of our food. Cattle, grain, etc. With this in mind, couldn't we reach a happy medium?
• I mean, that way everyone would be happy. Delay could have his "God in public square" and SF and NYC could have civil unions up the yahoo. They could condemn us as sinners, and we could call the fascists, but as long as the financial symbiosis is there, wouldn't that be enough?
• *them fascists
• i dislike government but why have one if it doesn't help who needs it?
• Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear. What I mean is that we should all stay one country, but give each state more autonomy so that (for example) I could live here where we have gay marriage and stem cell research and legalized medical marijuana and bilingual classrooms and non-smoking areas, and people over in Alabama or wherever can have school prayer and whatever. So mostly just a split along social issues. Note: I haven't really thought this through, but it sounds good to me right now.
• I don't dislike our goverment per se. I just think that many states have their right to indulge in their "holiness" but to the detriment of more liberal states. We do need each other to survive. But I feel that we can coexist more peacefully under two banners instead of the one. After all, no matter who is elected, you're pissing off 50% of the country...
• Well looking at the map.. http://news.yahoo.com/elections You can choose either eastern wimp blue, or western wimp blue.
• ...or central Devil Red
• i meant like the initial republicans compared to wgat the party has become.
• I agree ethyl, and Cali. Secession, or more defined rights to states would adhere to the Republican's initial cause, which, funnily enough, called for the repeal of slavery. They sound a hell of alot like Democrats are supposed to be...
• But, do the Republicans really believe in states rights at this point. I think they want state's rights when it gives them the right to put religion into the government, but want federal rule when ti comes to abortion, gay marriages, and the like. I also think the evangelical push is to convert the rest of us. I know this is supposed to be somewhat lighthearted, but, in the end, succession would lead to another cival war. And, we wimpy, non-gun bearing, peaceniks would lose. Unless you'd be willing to fight your misguided contrymen.
• Speak softly. Carry a big stick.
• he got elected on nov 2 i just need to find a new stick *hoarse from one of many colds amok*
• 'Civil War'? Nonsense! First of all there will be no war. You can't fight a war against no opponents, and the Republicans today are not opposed. Second, when and if the war finally comes it will be anything but civil. Secession is a pipe dream. Wake up and smell the subversion. America is solid red today. You are probably three fifths a Republican already.
• hawaii never asked to be annexed and as far as i know still want to secede, according to their reps then
• So what you're telling me is that the North should rise again?
• I'm hearing the rhetoric of surrender, people. I spent all day defending my existence, let alone my political position. Are you talking about exile, as opposed to secession? What good would it do?! We are still a people, if not a nation, and we have to survive, if not prevail.
• My brother and I are still family and I love him, but we get along a lot better when there's some space between us. I'm just saying is all.
• path has it nailed, Cali. Republicans have only been calling for "States' rights" when it's been a code to ignore federal decisions on Jim Crow laws or abortion rulings. The present admin has started, eg, challenging California's right to implement clean air laws and vehicle emissions standards, and the notion of the homophobic Constitutional amendment are pretty much a "fuck you" to the notions of States' rights.
• i'm standing my ground but i don't mind playing directions/tour guide i just thank cable for comedy central i feel drawn together *weeps single tear*
• These Red States are the ones getting all the agricultural subsidies, and the subsidies are pretty significant... something seems fishy to me. Why not a little 'turn about is fair play' and keep that money for yourselves (talking to Cali here). Whatever happened to free market capitalism, eh Red States? It's enough to make a Democrat have second thoughts about the welfare state.
• all wars are civil now as in amongst the like not mannered a "world war" makes the news like sporting events it's all infighting or "debate" or a slapfest *readies glove for cheek slapping*
• If any state could pull it off, California could. They have a decent agricultural base and a huge population with a lot of cash.
• If Monaco can do it, why not Rhode Island?
• I've posted this in another thread, but it seems apropos here too: the country is more purple than you may think. The red and blue sections of the maps are artifacts of the electoral college, not of what your neighbors think. You are not alone, whether you're a conservative in California or a liberal in Texas.
• Which country are we talking about, then?
• A few people in my lab have agreed not to buy things that come from devil-red states. Difficult to avoid corn syrup, but better for our health to do so anyway. I'm not sure if I'm totally on board, since we'll (I'm in California) just end up subsidizing them anyway.
• What would a state have to do to secede? Is it even possible? I realize that's an oversimplified statement, but what would be the legal process if a state did decide to secede? Would it be as simple as voters amending their state constitution, declaring they will accept no federal funds, and saying "see ya later?" Is this something that could be peacefully accomplished solely by the will of the voters of the state, or would there be resistance at the federal level possibly leading to bloodshed? The reason I ask this, is that I remember hearing a story on NPR a few years ago about a movement of libertarians who were trying to form a libertarian "state". I remember there was some advocacy for choosing an existing state and it seemed like New Hampshire was considered the best candidate because of the size of its population and their libertarian mindset.
• Ah, look. No state is going to secede. While it may be nice to dream about, it won't happen. California, which is maybe one of the closest to successful,large candidates, is liberal on the coast and conservative in the agricultural center. So, if the coast went for leaving the Union, and the food producing valley said "no", who do you think would win? Much of California's income is based on international sales of agricultutal products. I don't think Los Angeles, the extended Bay Area and the fringe of Northern coastal counties could make it without the food that's produced in the farming valleys and the income from it. New Hampshire, maybe. I seem to remember reading some years ago that there are areas of northern NH which switch between US and Canadian ownership, depending on where the bordering river flows. The constant changes seemed to have engendered a group of wildly independent citizens. Anyone have any more info on that? In any case, both CA and NH went Democrat in this election. So, should we cut one or both off to make the next election even more red?