NationStates Jolt Archive

The Rebels in the south, especially the southeast, have always been against Northern, or "Yankee", ideals. They ceded from the union once, and even now, feel that that was their greatest moment -- protecting "states-rights pertaining to slave-holding".

Every election, they try to get only their views heard with the primarily southern Republican party.

Why don't we expel them? They are not wanted half the time, and they are ideologically different from the north:

This is what I propose:

http://www.kuattech.com/usa.png
Blue is the United States of America
Red is the Christian States of America

That's actually somwhat amusing. I don't know how you will be able to get half of some of those states to succeed. People tend to want all-or-nothing, not half measures.

In all seriousness, the I live in the south west - Arizona and no one here feels the need to succeed. What you are thinking of may have to do with the sterotype of the south. The deep louisiana and alabama types that we all laugh at. Those kind of people would love to leave the United States (there are many places that still believe in slavery). I don't think this will ever happen though because the south does bring in reasources to the U.S\.


if my typing sucked, i'm sorry, I'm on a laptop.

Arizona has voted Conservative every election.

That's actually somwhat amusing. I don't know how you will be able to get half of some of those states to succeed. People tend to want all-or-nothing, not half measures.

In all seriousness, the I live in the south west - Arizona and no one here feels the need to succeed. What you are thinking of may have to do with the sterotype of the south. The deep louisiana and alabama types that we all laugh at. Those kind of people would love to leave the United States (there are many places that still believe in slavery). I don't think this will ever happen though because the south does bring in reasources to the U.S\.


if my typing sucked, i'm sorry, I'm on a laptop.

Actually, most of the economic wealth from the United States comes from the Northeast/ Mid-Atlantic region and the West Coast. The people who live here put in more tax money into the government and recieve much less of it back through government services. The South, on the otherhand (particularly the Southeast) gains a lot more through governmental services and funds than they put in through taxes. So, in a way, the United States would become more profitable if this plan was approved, although the US might want to keep all of California.

The Rebels in the south, especially the southeast, have always been against Northern, or "Yankee", ideals. They ceded from the union once, and even now, feel that that was their greatest moment -- protecting "states-rights pertaining to slave-holding".

Every election, they try to get only their views heard with the primarily southern Republican party.

Why don't we expel them? They are not wanted half the time, and they are ideologically different from the north:

This is what I propose:

http://www.kuattech.com/usa.png
Blue is the United States of America
Red is the Christian States of America

I propose something similar, except that there should be no division of states, Florida can be its own country, and CA, NM, and AZ should stay in the Union. Utah, Kansas, and Nebraska (maybe not Nebraska, but definitely Kansas) can go to the South. The North capital should be moved to someplace in the central North, like, say, Minnesota.

Arizona has voted Conservative every election.

still. we do not want to succeed. We just want conservatives in office. Which is unfortuante because I'm a liberal

you evil bastard
you would put southern california into the christian states?
HOLLYWOOD ???
thats just asking for trouble

what about hawaii and alaska?
what about the current US possessions?

mark utah and parts of the surrounding states in green - the mormon states of america

Alaska would remain part of the Union, as well as Hawaii. Puerto Rico would probably become a CSA territory, though.

mark utah and parts of the surrounding states in green - the mormon states of america
We should have "Radical Fundie" reservations in the US...

In all seriousness, the I live in the south west - Arizona and no one here feels the need to succeed.

Here's admission that everyone in Arizona is a slacker, then :D

I hope you meant secede, because it sounds really funny otherwise...

Alaska would remain part of the Union, as well as Hawaii. Puerto Rico would probably become a CSA territory, though.

Shouldn't Puerto Rico just get its independence, since its culture is similar to neither the USA or "CSA"?

I propose something similar, except that there should be no division of states, Florida can be its own country, and CA, NM, and AZ should stay in the Union. Utah, Kansas, and Nebraska (maybe not Nebraska, but definitely Kansas) can go to the South. The North capital should be moved to someplace in the central North, like, say, Minnesota.
YES YES YES! I DO NOT WANT MY STATE TO BE SPLIT OFF AND GENERALISED WITH THE SOUTH! I DON'T! We have a Democrat governor for crying out loud, and yes, I know she's only there because of deals with the Republicans... or not know but at least am under that impression... BUT YOU CANNOT SEPARATE US! WE'RE NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES! Arizona...;.;

Well, which half of Arizona is more conservative?

Well, which half of Arizona is more conservative?
I don't bloody know :|

Edit: There's no one half that's more conservative, although I imagine the northern half would be more liberal; the southern half is half-liberal, half-conservative

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fotos/2000county.gif

We'll take our parts, you take yours :p

It suddenly became far more difficult.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fotos/2000county.gif

We'll take our parts, you take yours :p
That's over half the country in population, not to mention productivity...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fotos/2000county.gif

We'll take our parts, you take yours :p
Yep, nice, accurate, four-year-old map from a right-wing website. And I draw that conclusion because of the "Bush Kills Terrorists" and "Annoy a Liberal T-shirt" ads.

Yep, nice, accurate, four-year-old map from a right-wing website. And I draw that conclusion because of the "Bush Kills Terrorists" and "Annoy a Liberal T-shirt" ads.
I didn't look at what website it was, I think it was the first one that popped up on my search. If you think the 2000 election results change depending on which website you visit, then perhaps you need to think over what you draw objections about.

Most of y'all have never even been to the south (I mean real south Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi) have you? We like being in the U.S. and many of us don't agree with what our ancestors did and every time we go farther north we're persecuted because we have an accent or because of the stupidest fucking stereotypes so the next time you propose something so freakin' stupid learn the facts not just what the radicals want you to think.

I didn't look at what website it was, I think it was the first one that popped up on my search. If you think the 2000 election results change depending on which website you visit, then perhaps you need to think over what you draw objections about.
Link me to the search page, because by that map, it's making it look like Bush won by a landslide. Which I find extremely hard to believe.

That's over half the country in population, not to mention productivity...
I dunno. Gore alone didn't get over 50%, Gore with Nader did, but that dosen't mean it would reflect it in a division by county, it depends on the margin of victory in all the counties, if Bush won his by 55% to 45% where Gore won his 99% to 1%, you're looking at a substantial amount of people who voted for Gore being in the red while very little of those who voted for Bush being in the blue. I don't (and don't plan on) going county by county through the USA to see which would end up having the bigger economy or population, though, I'd imagine whichever side had the majority would have it by a slim amount and it would end up being pretty even.

Link me to the search page, because by that map, it's making it look like Bush won by a landslide. Which I find extremely hard to believe.
You must not be from the US...that is what the election 2000 map looked like by county, just that the counties that are blue happen to be extremely big and populous.

Link me to the search page, because by that map, it's making it look like Bush won by a landslide. Which I find extremely hard to believe.
Here's USA Todays map, which is a replica of the other one :
http://images.usatoday.com/news/electmap.jpg

Which actually has an interesting little thing at the bottom, Bush's counties had more population and growth.

Magnificent gerrymandering!

You must not be from the US...that is what the election 2000 map looked like by county, just that the counties that are blue happen to be extremely big and populous.
I am, however, merely misviewing the map and not taking into account population figures. Actually, I paid little attention to the 2000 elections, but on finding another map, which shows the same thing, but is a bit bigger, it claims population to be 127m. won by Gore, and 14..3m i think by Bush.

This is what I propose:

http://www.kuattech.com/usa.png
Blue is the United States of America
Red is the Christian States of America

Ummmm .... no.

1] Louisiana has Democratic Senators.
2] Nearly half of Texas is Democratic and a full third is Progressive/Populist.
3] A huge chunk of your blue states are excessively Christian (like Colorado, Minnesota, etc).

Why not learn something before you open your mouth?

Why yes, Southern California IS all Christian Conservatives.
/sarcasm

Here's my proposal:

http://www.nativeamericans.com/tribe_map_1.jpg

We make a Christian Nation out of ... let's say Cuba ... build a 50 foot wall around it and fill it with water.

Ok? Ok!

Yes...Texas is at the heart of the USA.We're surrounded by the Yanks in the north(which I think are still breeding with "redcoats"),the Rebels(which have been breeding with the slaves since day one(making a nice mix)), the mexicans from "our" south, and some where between the rocks and the cactus(but far enough away) is the west.
We have 4 of the top 20(population)cities in the USA. We are the only state in the union to legally have the right to succed and become our own nation again !!!


SO....PLAY NICE !!!

Yes...Texas is at the heart of the USA.We're surrounded by the Yanks in the north(which I think are still breeding with "redcoats"),the Rebels(which have been breeding with the slaves since day one(making a nice mix)), the mexicans from "our" south, and some where between the rocks and the cactus(but far enough away) is the west.
We have 4 of the top 20(population)cities in the USA. We are the only state in the union to legally have the right to succed and become our own nation again !!!


SO....PLAY NICE !!!
No you don't.

No state has the right to secede... you and the rest of the south tried it in 1861.

Also, I am sorry I did not look EVERY SENATOR, REPRESENTATIVE, GOVERNER, AND MAYOR in EVERY STATE before I made the map.

And no, Lousiana is a southern state, and primarily christian.
I was going to make the Christian midwest (from Missouri to California) CSA, but that would split up the USA too much.

Yes... I am sure you are 'digusted' by what your ancestors did... I am sure Lousiana is now a benchmark for civil rights.

The Rebels in the south, especially the southeast, have always been against Northern, or "Yankee", ideals. They ceded from the union once, and even now, feel that that was their greatest moment -- protecting "states-rights pertaining to slave-holding".

Every election, they try to get only their views heard with the primarily southern Republican party.

Why don't we expel them? They are not wanted half the time, and they are ideologically different from the north:

This is what I propose:

http://www.kuattech.com/usa.png
Blue is the United States of America
Red is the Christian States of America

What I offer as an alternative is to cut the NorthEast US off from the rest of the Country and set it adrift in the Atlantic.

Why don't we just make a fundie christian state?

Put them in colorado, or one of those other square states. Then, build a huuuuuuuuuge wall around it. They can have their country, we can have ours.



Then, give some time-a few years aughta do-and, what with the atrocities they'll obviously be performing, we can invade them on the guise of WMDs and liberate them.

It'll be awesome.

The Rebels in the south, especially the southeast, have always been against Northern, or "Yankee", ideals. They ceded from the union once, and even now, feel that that was their greatest moment -- protecting "states-rights pertaining to slave-holding".
What ideals are you talking about?

Every election, they try to get only their views heard with the primarily southern Republican party.
From 1872-1964 (give or take), the south voted heavily democratic :rolleyes: Ever hear of the dixie-crat?

Why don't we expel them? They are not wanted half the time, and they are ideologically different from the north:
Realistically, speaking, if we want to expel them for their different ideas, why don't we just let California and New England separate too? I mean those states have tended to be a lot more liberal than the Midwest. Southerners, while a bit crazy about their roots, are FAR more patriotic than many Americans.

Why split states up anyways? North and South California? While we don't necessarily like each other politically, we're not ready to break away from each other. Socal isn't exactly the religious breeding ground either? And in your model, why isn't Utah in the *south*? It is the Mormon zion.

The North capital should be moved to someplace in the central North, like, say, Minnesota. What the crap? What's in Minnesota other than moose and confused Canadians that just wanna get home?

Yes...Texas is at the heart of the USA.We're surrounded by the Yanks in the north(which I think are still breeding with "redcoats"),the Rebels(which have been breeding with the slaves since day one(making a nice mix)), the mexicans from "our" south, and some where between the rocks and the cactus(but far enough away) is the west.
We have 4 of the top 20(population)cities in the USA. We are the only state in the union to legally have the right to succed and become our own nation again !!!


SO....PLAY NICE !!! Play nice? Texas is lucky we don't offer y'all back to Mexico ;)

The following should be implemented immediately:

God bless the CSA!
Long Live Dixie!
http://roadhouse-classic-rock.com/images/Gibson_rebel.jpg
I am American, but a proud Southerner. However much I love the South, and love Dixie, the United States is just that, United, and will stay that way. God bless America.

The following should be implemented immediately:
Wrong Utah was a state before it joined Union and it can be one again. If it does I say bring back Polygamy, whoohoo!
Stupid US. You say no laws can be made to abridge religions and go and make a law to abridge Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints religion. That there is justice is you are cross-eyed.

The following should be implemented immediately:
So...There can be eternally civil unrest in the Confederate border states? Especially in what is today, West Virginia and Maryland.

The Southern States were anything but glorious, impressive fighters and loaded with capable officers, but not glorious.

I propose something similar, except that there should be no division of states, Florida can be its own country, and CA, NM, and AZ should stay in the Union. Utah, Kansas, and Nebraska (maybe not Nebraska, but definitely Kansas) can go to the South. The North capital should be moved to someplace in the central North, like, say, Minnesota.
I agree with that. Southern California is very liberal, isn't it? Utah definitely in the Religious Zealot States of America, (although the mormons are the most pleasant sort of religious zealots ive met. they aren't all 'you're going to hell" at you.) I am neutral on Kansas and Nebraska.

But i definitely like Florida being its own country. :)

Hey, Texas retained the right to seceed when they joined the union. Maybe Bush should take Texas out of the Union and make it his own dictatorship. I don't think any Americans would really miss Texas.

I agree with that. Southern California is very liberal, isn't it? Utah definitely in the Religious Zealot States of America, (although the mormons are the most pleasant sort of religious zealots ive met. they aren't all 'you're going to hell" at you.) I am neutral on Kansas and Nebraska.

But i definitely like Florida being its own country. :)

Hey, Texas retained the right to seceed when they joined the union. Maybe Bush should take Texas out of the Union and make it his own dictatorship. I don't think any Americans would really miss Texas.
Seeing as Texas has most executions, would they run outta people eventually?

Ummm.. have you informed the good people of LA that they're now part of the Redneck States of America? Don't think they'll be too happy..

Otherwise, good plan. I just have a few amendments:

Give back a large portion of Texas to Mexico, just out of spite.

Keep SoCal in the blue.

Let the Mormons have their own damn country all to themselves.

Cede upstate New York to Canada (please? =D)

Ummm.. have you informed the good people of LA that they're now part of the Redneck States of America? Don't think they'll be too happy..

Otherwise, good plan. I just have a few amendments:

Give back a large portion of Texas to Mexico, just out of spite.

Keep SoCal in the blue.

Let the Mormons have their own damn country all to themselves.

Cede upstate New York to Canada (please? =D)
Why hiving New york? It isn't theirs...
I like the own country for the M's though.
Giving texas and New Mexico Sure.

Why don't we just make a fundie christian state?

Put them in colorado, or one of those other square states. Then, build a huuuuuuuuuge wall around it. They can have their country, we can have ours.



Then, give some time-a few years aughta do-and, what with the atrocities they'll obviously be performing, we can invade them on the guise of WMDs and liberate them.

It'll be awesome.

Yes, exactly what i was thinking, only using Texas, which is already overrun and has it's ruling party already in place.

And to the goof that says Texas does not have the right to seceed ( bet im spelling it right)--you need to check your Texas history. One of the agreements they made when joining the Union was keeping that door open, exactly BECAUSE of the war of secession. They didn't want to have to go to war to leave the Union. The US wanted Texas bad enough at the time, they agreed.

Hell no it ain't theirs, but I'm living in the area for the moment and frankly we'd be better off. Lowered drinking age, marijuana in the process of decriminalization, actual left-leaning political parties.. can you think of a good reason a college student wouldn't want to live in a newly formed Greater Canada-New York besides the weather?

Yes, exactly what i was thinking, only using Texas, which is already overrun and has it's ruling party already in place.

And to the goof that says Texas does not have the right to seceed ( bet im spelling it right)--you need to check your Texas history. One of the agreements they made when joining the Union was keeping that door open, exactly BECAUSE of the war of secession. They didn't want to have to go to war to leave the Union. The US wanted Texas bad enough at the time, they agreed.
Texas was a state during the Civil War, you are thinking of the clause that allows them to subdivide themselves.

but i think if you took a vote, actually i would say a great deal of the country w2ould vote to let the northeast secede, actually. dig a ditch through central pennsylvannia and set it adrift, and the "money" that is "made" in the northeat would dry up.....the cost of living (exorbitant, and for the same job with the same company, i would literall double my salary and still lower my cost of living in new york or boston than here in the ol' midwest) and old history of headquarters of companies', wall street, etc. wouldn't stay there, not after the tariffs were slapped on, lol. and the value of a dollar, or purchasing power of the dollar, is much higher outside of the northeast than the midwest, the fed is making a killing on the northeast because of it....anyway.....

But i think a lot more of the country would rather be rid of the northeasterners, if you took a national poll, sorry to say.

but i think if you took a vote, actually i would say a great deal of the country w2ould vote to let the northeast secede, actually. dig a ditch through central pennsylvannia and set it adrift, and the "money" that is "made" in the northeat would dry up.....the cost of living (exorbitant, and for the same job with the same company, i would literall double my salary and still lower my cost of living in new york or boston than here in the ol' midwest) and old history of headquarters of companies', wall street, etc. wouldn't stay there, not after the tariffs were slapped on, lol. and the value of a dollar, or purchasing power of the dollar, is much higher outside of the northeast than the midwest, the fed is making a killing on the northeast because of it....anyway.....

But i think a lot more of the country would rather be rid of the northeasterners, if you took a national poll, sorry to say.

Dude, if the northeast seceded, California would then seceded because they would not carry the entire financial weight of the United States. No matter how much you dislike the politics of the northeast, the northeast is the most productive, profitable part of the country. Basically the rest of the United States (excluding California, parts of Texas, and parts of the Midwest) are basically on welfare that comes from the taxes that the Northeast pays.

Dude, if the northeast seceded, California would then seceded because they would not carry the entire financial weight of the United States. No matter how much you dislike the politics of the northeast, the northeast is the most productive, profitable part of the country. Basically the rest of the United States (excluding California, parts of Texas, and parts of the Midwest) are basically on welfare that comes from the taxes that the Northeast pays.

I started out agreeing--that California wouldn't want to support the nation. If it were a country, it would have the 3rd highest GDP in the world. That being said, I dispute the claim that the Northeast pays a disproportionate amount.

Friend, i am in the financial business and specialize in creating econmoic reports, and you are right to A POINT. The midwest is entirely independent by the terms you are stating.....and most of the west, as well...and the northeast makes out like bandits on corporate tazes...think the northeast would keep their corporate offices there? the south is the big drain on the federal coffers, my friend. when i say south, i mean east of texas, south of indiana/ohio (with exceptions being new mexico and oklahoma).....the northeast would implode without the rest of the country's financial and banking dependence being headquartered almost en masse in the northeast. conjecture, sure....and plus, like i said, stop and think about it.....there is huge regional inflation from the northeast to the rest of the country.....a dollar in new york is worth roughly 2.25 on average outside the northeast, excluding the west coast states, the fed government makes a steal redistributingcheaper dollars to the the south.....

it;s all conjecture, anyway, i love the people from the northeast, once you scratch the surface, most are very interesting people.....was born there, besides....most people just hate the elitist for nothing attitude and the politics, that's all.......the south would be screwed, but the midwest and great plaines, and most western states would be totally indifferent......

the only reason i even brought up my profession is i have actually studied exactly what you are talking about....if you kept your in state taxes up there, though, your out of state business would also dry up rapidly, and boom....implode...there is an interdependency that cannot be denied, i am afraid.

i wish i could type for sh$%

california is the real econmic giant, but. i need to do a per person gdp output study.....whoa, you guys gave me a panacea.....find out who the msot productive states in the union are! be right back

[snip]......


that was my gut feeling, but nice to have it confirmed by someone in that circle.

I do think Florida could get by on its own, though. Its economy is diversified enough.

but a simple gdp/population factoring in comparable cost of living index will tell us who would thrive and who would fail. i think we all know what it would say, but this would tell us for sure.

god, i am a nerd.

I started out agreeing--that California wouldn't want to support the nation. If it were a country, it would have the 3rd highest GDP in the world. That being said, I dispute the claim that the Northeast pays a disproportionate amount.

"Essentially, the Northeast—for my definition here, I use New England plus New Jersey and New York—subsidizes the federal government to a massive degree. Incomes are far higher in the Northeast—and the equally Democratic West Coast—than they are in other regions. Meanwhile, many other regions—say, the South and the Great Plains—subsist on federal largesse. On a per capita basis, those in the Northeast pay far more taxes and receive far fewer benefits than people in other regions."

Source: Northeast of Eden by Daniel Gross (www.slate.com)

for the entire article go here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2089990

wealthy in average wealth of the indivdual, but in federal payouts, all those retirees are paying some taxes, but raking in a lot. simple division, really, thus the intangible tax in florida.....tourism dollars helps a lot too, so the eocnomy is good in florida, before it got blasted by 13,000 hurricanes, but from a federal gain/loss, florida is a loser, net...but not if you take into account what all those retirees paid INTO the system originally...so it is a complicated argument....

only a northeasterner would take that at pure face value....you are not factoring in the cost of living and dollar inflatiion in context...when someone in alabama can have the same standard of living on 40k as someone in new york earning 130k (it;s a fact) simplifying the numbers as this author does makes the northeast more relvant than it is. when you factor vs cost if living index, that number narrows dramatically.....and the author uses a dollar for dollar example.....when purchasing power is factored, new york is actually behind most states, lol...again, the fed makes a steal on how expensive and inflated the northeast is....again, simply look at corporate salary structures...due to cost of living, literally, my national company DOUBLES my salary if i transfer to new york with no promotion, a lateral move....my point is, don;t break your arm patting your own back if you are a nrotheasterner, your salaries are as inflated as your tax payments.....

Friend, i am in the financial business and specialize in creating econmoic reports, and you are right to A POINT. The midwest is entirely independent by the terms you are stating.....and most of the west, as well...and the northeast makes out like bandits on corporate tazes...think the northeast would keep their corporate offices there? the south is the big drain on the federal coffers, my friend. when i say south, i mean east of texas, south of indiana/ohio (with exceptions being new mexico and oklahoma).....the northeast would implode without the rest of the country's financial and banking dependence being headquartered almost en masse in the northeast. conjecture, sure....and plus, like i said, stop and think about it.....there is huge regional inflation from the northeast to the rest of the country.....a dollar in new york is worth roughly 2.25 on average outside the northeast, excluding the west coast states, the fed government makes a steal redistributingcheaper dollars to the the south.....

it;s all conjecture, anyway, i love the people from the northeast, once you scratch the surface, most are very interesting people.....was born there, besides....most people just hate the elitist for nothing attitude and the politics, that's all.......the south would be screwed, but the midwest and great plaines, and most western states would be totally indifferent......


While it's true that the Northeast would still rely on the rest on the nation for its banking dependance being headquarter there, I don't agree that most of that would leave New York. The Northeast, after all, is so highly upper-class, elitist, and financially concentrated, because it has such a high number of intellectuals and learned professionals. The experience and education these men have is not easy to come by. They come from Harvard, Dartmouth, Cornell, MIT, Princeton, among others. They have the experience, and they have the infrastructure to continue doing what they're doing. I find it difficult that many corporations or businesses would pull out their financial dependence from the Northeast instanteanously. Sure, they probably would over time, but the Northeast would probably just find a new economic livliehood; they have before in the past. The Northeast is quite an amazing region of America.

Why do I find myself defending the Northeast, I'm not even from there.

only a northeasterner would take that at pure face value....you are not factoring in the cost of living and dollar inflatiion in context...when someone in alabama can have the same standard of living on 40k as someone in new york earning 130k (it;s a fact) simplifying the numbers as this author does makes the northeast more relvant than it is. when you factor vs cost if living index, that number narrows dramatically.....and the author uses a dollar for dollar example.....when purchasing power is factored, new york is actually behind most states, lol...again, the fed makes a steal on how expensive and inflated the northeast is....again, simply look at corporate salary structures...due to cost of living, literally, my national company DOUBLES my salary if i transfer to new york with no promotion, a lateral move....my point is, don;t break your arm patting your own back if you are a nrotheasterner, your salaries are as inflated as your tax payments.....


Ok, but lets use a simple example here. You are from New York and you pay $10,000 year in taxes. You recieve only $6,000 back in services from the government. Either way, with or without regional adjustment, you are losing money. If the standard dollar we're talking about is the national average dollar, then you are losing more money than you even think, because you are giving $10,000 New York but only getting $6,000 Average American (using your $2.25 number that means you really get $2,667 New York back). If you get $6,000 New York back, you still lose $4,000 New York. Either way, the analysis is sound in this conclusion: the Northeast loses money when it pays taxes. It subsidizes other states.


The analysis is independent of dollar value.

and totally valid...my point is in dollar analysis, the imprtance of the northeast is greatly magnified using this author's arguments. the fed is getting a great deal on inflationary aspect on a reginal basis, and more power to them. of course, i can quickly counter that the rest of the country is rapdily gaining in education and education quality, if not caught.....big ten schools are awfully competetive per dollar of tuition, for instance....and want to know the most educated per capita state in the union? IOWA! lol. its' all perspective...the point here, really, is the interdependence, my friend....this argyument tries for an elitist view...it is easily debunked...the country would be much less without the northeast. of course....but also if we lost the south.....maybe not as much, but the room for growth in the south, for instance, makes our econmoy more viable....the northeast has been here the longest, too, it SHOULD be more developed.....California, economically, is the most necessary state in a purely financial scholarly view. culturally, it is new york. my point is, in a lot of words, is inflation is why the northeast has these numbers in this study...not productivity....

per job title, let's use the 2.25 figure. for the same job title, responsibilities, etc....a new yorker gets 112,500. a south carolina worker gets 50,000. yes, the new yorker pays more taxes. gets hosed in dollar terms....i totally agree with you

my point is simply this....it ain;t due to productivity...it is due to regional inflation. in fact, if new york gets .66 to the dollar while having 125% inflation for the same productivity...it can be argued statistically that a new yorker is less productive.....the disadvantage should be more like .48, if productivity is the same....i am just changing the perspective in real dollar terms, you are right, the northeast pays more into the feeeral syastem than it gets back, no question....i just say it is regional inflation, not productivity......

Well, when the southern states tried to leave on their own in 1861 the North invaded and conquered them in a bitter 4 year war.....

If you go by ideological splits by the way, California would have to be split east west as the coast is liberal and the central valley is conservative except for conservative orange county (south of LA) and liberal Sacramento (center of state)

the conservatives in the Southwest are generally in the rural areas and smaller cities, the big cities generally go liberal (or moderate)

Besides, if you wait long enough, Florida may get washed away in any case....

Incidently, according to the last election, by ideology (voting for Bush vs Gore), ALL of the Plains states went for Bush (including the ones on the Canadian border)... so how do you want to split the US again?

i'm dr^nk, and i don;t want the northeast to seceds...a lot of really good looking chicks with liberal morals up there, lol.....you;re just not as important or irreplacable or cool as y'all think.

hehe

per job title, let's use the 2.25 figure. for the same job title, responsibilities, etc....a new yorker gets 112,500. a south carolina worker gets 50,000. yes, the new yorker pays more taxes. gets hosed in dollar terms....i totally agree with you

my point is simply this....it ain;t due to productivity...it is due to regional inflation. in fact, if new york gets .66 to the dollar while having 125% inflation for the same productivity...it can be argued statistically that a new yorker is less productive.....the disadvantage should be more like .48, if productivity is the same....i am just changing the perspective in real dollar terms, you are right, the northeast pays more into the feeeral syastem than it gets back, no question....i just say it is regional inflation, not productivity......

Ok, I'll concede that it's probably not productivity that makes the Northeast gain such high salaries, and I'll definetely agree that California is by FAR the most important state when it comes to America's economical productivity. But at the same time, you agree that the Northeast does get less back than it gives in terms of dollars. At the same time, education is a difficult thing to explain quantitatively since it is inherently quite qualitative. Obviously there are a large number of supremely intelligent kids in Michigan St., Iowa St., Ohio St., etc, but their numbers probably don't compare to the number of supremely intelligent kids in Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Cornell, or Michigan. These schools have the brightest and graduate the best the country has to offer because they are so self-selective and the kids buy that the prestige comes from the school and not the students. I'm not sure where your Iowa statistic comes from, but I'm assuming (let me know if I'm wrong here) that it basically compares the percentage of the populations with, lets say, a bachelors of science or arts. So, as for your example of Iowa; Iowa University has a student body of 38,000 and Iowa has a population of approximately 3 million. On the other hand, Harvard and MIT combined have student body of approximately 20,000 (just a rough estimate, each are comparable in size and have about 4,000 undergrads and 6,000 grads), but the population of Massachusetts is nearly 6.5 million.

Big Ten schools are much larger than the small, private, elitist schools and are usually located in smaller, midwestern states (obviously there are some exclusions). This would probably skew the data towards smaller states with large, public, cheap colleges.

Most importantly, however, statistics can't really define qualitative aspects of education (of course, there are indicators, but you can argue against them as being arbitrary or maybe skewed; for example, SAT, GRE, percentage of students that go on to get PhDs or MAs...). Big ten schools might be catching up to the Ivies, and elitist schools, but the elitist schools still attract the most educated, most motivated students.

Why the hell am I even arguing this? This will never happen. Ok, I'm gonna stop wasting my time.

I'm not sure who originally started this thread, but they are certainly guilty of "rather-esque" failures to fact check. I have attached a more reliable view of red/blue states for your review. The bottom line is this; if we want to subdivide the country, we should lump so-cal, NYC, and other major population centers into one socialistic, cradle to grave, welfare country. The rest of us can get on living as honest-to-God Americans (not African-Americans, Armenian-Americans, Irish-Americans or the like - just plain ole Americans!). Look forward to the mayhem this causes.

President of the Armed Republic of Jacksonian Democracy

PS - Just click on Electoral Map Analysis

http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html

Wow! Is our country really that horribly ignorant? I always thought the majority had more sense.

I'm not sure who originally started this thread, but they are certainly guilty of "rather-esque" failures to fact check. I have attached a more reliable view of red/blue states for your review. The bottom line is this; if we want to subdivide the country, we should lump so-cal, NYC, and other major population centers into one socialistic, cradle to grave, welfare country. The rest of us can get on living as honest-to-God Americans (not African-Americans, Armenian-Americans, Irish-Americans or the like - just plain ole Americans!). Look forward to the mayhem this causes.

President of the Armed Republic of Jacksonian Democracy

PS - Just click on Electoral Map Analysis

http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html

As I have already said several times, I did not give the planes states to the CSA because it would have created a large gap between the USA's western territories and eastern territories.

Also, since Maryland might be given to the CSA, I suggest that the capital be moved to one of the USA's big cities then, such as Philly, New York, or Chicago.

Heh, give Puerto Ricans independence... they don't want it. They don't have to pay federal taxes, yet they have US citizenship and full rights. Good 'ol US Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Guam, also).

BTW, If it were up to me, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana would merge into the Illinois Dominion (ruled by me, of course).

Regarding the original concept of expelling the south, I live in a small southern town where 61 percent of the kids are at or below the poverty line. After 9-11, the town went wild with empathy for New Yorkers. Kids brought their change to school to send to New York. Adults purchased new tee-shirts to send to workers. Fund raising went on everywhere. Stores all had jars for donations. People gave blood hoping to help New York.

We're not good enough for you?

My previous post on this Point (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7106263&postcount=37)

Soon enough lads, soon enough.

By the way, the red states would do just fine financially since everyone (including the blues states) would be buying their food from them. ;)

BTW, If it were up to me, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana would merge into the Illinois Dominion (ruled by me, of course).

As a Michigander, this has occured to me also. Great Lakes and deep water ports. Proven industrial output. Merge with the Free Quebec movement and truly rule! Add Minnesota and put the capitol in the Metrodome. (you know, where the Vikings used to play?) LOL

Oh, but not ruled by you, sorry General Bethlehem!

What nonsense is this? The Founding Fathers intended to form a diverse nation where people of different views would all have a say. Furthermore, as President Lincoln (a Republican, for the record) believed when he fought to restore the Union, and the Pledge of Allegiance reaffirms, we are "One Nation, Under God [Ed: I'm reciting, so nobody give me any BS about that phrase.], Indivisible..."


Originally posted by North Central America
Wow! Is our country really that horribly ignorant? I always thought the majority had more sense.

Also, I think everyone is letting their political views cloud their judgment, rather than making them more alert.

For Liberals: Forget grudges and rivalries, and focus on achieving victory.

For Conservatives: Ditto, but also watch your backs. You should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

I do think Florida could get by on its own, though. Its economy is diversified enough.

Except for their incessant need of federal disaster funds.

Pretty please?

:p

Hey, if the south goes, can we at least keep New Orleans? I mean, what do they want with it anyway? Liberals would at least appreciate the rampant hedonism. :D

Hey, if the south goes, can we at least keep New Orleans? I mean, what do they want with it anyway? Liberals would at least appreciate the rampant hedonism. :D

NOOOOO! Nawlins is ahs! We will faht fo our raht to pahtey!

NOOOOO! Nawlins is ahs! We will faht fo our raht to pahtey!
We'll let you come in and party, as long as you check your guilt and your morality at the base of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, but you guys would take all the fun out of the greatest city in the south. :D

We'll let you come in and party, as long as you check your guilt and your morality at the base of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, but you guys would take all the fun out of the greatest city in the south. :D

Bah, that shit about Southerners all being conservative and dreary is total bullshit and unnecessary stereotyping. Most of the people in the South party just like their Northern counterparts, often harder in fact. At least in my experience. Most of them already check their morals at the door to the party anyway. And we make better liquor. And food. And our women are better-looking. So there. :p

Bah, that shit about Southerners all being conservative and dreary is total bullshit and unnecessary stereotyping. Most of the people in the South party just like their Northern counterparts, often harder in fact. At least in my experience. Most of them already check their morals at the door to the party anyway. And we make better liquor. And food. And our women are better-looking. So there. :p
Hey, I grew up on the other side of that Causeway, so you don't have to tell me about the women and the food, but I'll disagree about the liquor. Nobody makes better whisky than the people from the old countries--Scotland and Ireland.

As to the conservatism, well, most of south Louisiana may not be so bad, but Alabama, Arkansas, Mississipppi, Georgia, South Carolina and north Louisiana, have perhaps a few odd pockets of liberalism (Oxford, MS and Fayetteville, AR spring to mind), but are waaaaaaaaaaay too conservative for my taste. Hell, throw in the Florida panhandle for good measure.

i say feel free to. but justt note that if you do kick us out, we're taking everything west of kansas with us.

i say feel free to. but justt note that if you do kick us out, we're taking everything west of kansas with us.Nah--northern California will join with Oregon and Washington to form their own union.

Nah--northern California will join with Oregon and Washington to form their own union.

ya, probibly. but generally speaking, colorado and vegas would be ours.

Hey, I grew up on the other side of that Causeway, so you don't have to tell me about the women and the food, but I'll disagree about the liquor. Nobody makes better whisky than the people from the old countries--Scotland and Ireland.

As to the conservatism, well, most of south Louisiana may not be so bad, but Alabama, Arkansas, Mississipppi, Georgia, South Carolina and north Louisiana, have perhaps a few odd pockets of liberalism (Oxford, MS and Fayetteville, AR spring to mind), but are waaaaaaaaaaay too conservative for my taste. Hell, throw in the Florida panhandle for good measure.

1.) Most things are too conservative for your taste, so I'll take that with a grain of salt. :)

2.) I was saying that liquor was better in the South than the North, not that it was better than anywhere in the world.

I don't know about the booze, but the food and girls are definitely better down here. (Trapped in Huntsville, AL.) Now if I can just get my girlfriend to go back to Washington D.C. or San Antonio, TX with me.

Michigan is like Illinois --- why would I expel it? Expel New York? Hmm... I would rather expel the states that apparently don't like the Union (as per 1861) then a state that stayed in it.

blue: USA
Red: CSA
green: LSA (liberal states..)
yellow: mexico

blue: USA
Red: CSA
green: LSA (liberal states..)
yellow: mexico

Texas at this point would most likely become it's own country before going to Mexico. Although, that could change in 50 years or so as the demographics shift.

blue: USA
Red: CSA
green: LSA (liberal states..)
yellow: mexico

You split Michigan in half :) Also, Illinois is a liberal state also, as is Wisconsin.

The Rebels in the south, especially the southeast, have always been against Northern, or "Yankee", ideals. They ceded from the union once, and even now, feel that that was their greatest moment -- protecting "states-rights pertaining to slave-holding".

Every election, they try to get only their views heard with the primarily southern Republican party.

Why don't we expel them? They are not wanted half the time, and they are ideologically different from the north:

This is what I propose:

http://www.kuattech.com/usa.png
Blue is the United States of America
Red is the Christian States of America

Can't agree more, the respect for the US would rise 100% if you would, specially Texas is seen as a rogue state by the free world. It would be a good thing if when the free part of the US would do withouth those who are trying their utmost best to opress all the liberties of the developed north.

But I don't understand why you added some more free states to the list of christian fanatics withouth respect for international law and human rights.
Guess the states around Texas (wich was robbed from Mexico)don't belong in a descent democracy.And why California?

You split Michigan in half :) Also, Illinois is a liberal state also, as is Wisconsin.

blame the politicians. political compromise.