NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I think it´s probably about time that the so-called "blue states" secede from the Union. I think the value of freeing ourselves from the religious fanaticism and social backwardness of the red states (especially the South) would exceed any losses. We can also revert to a military which is actually used for the purpose of self-defense. It just seems to me that it no longer pays to be in a state of union with these red states. Look at our president; it´s actually proving dangerous to have them around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png

*laughs as he knows DC is a Southern City*

Sure, go ahead, succeed. Good luck with that military though.

Well, I think it´s probably about time that the so-called "blue states" secede from the Union. I think the value of freeing ourselves from the religious fanaticism and social backwardness of the red states (especially the South) would exceed any losses. We can also revert to a military which is actually used for the purpose of self-defense. It just seems to me that it no longer pays to be in a state of union with these red states. Look at our president; it´s actually proving dangerous to have them around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png

The Red State-Blue State divide is utter bunk. We have much more in common then we have seperating us. I don't secession would solve anything, not to mention that the federal government has explicitly supported the position that no state has a right to secede.

No, blue state citizen.

The Red State-Blue State divide is utter bunk. We have much more in common then we have seperating us. I don't secession would solve anything, not to mention that the federal government has explicitly supported the position that no state has a right to secede.

Hey, careful now. If the cable news networks want to divide the country in half for the purpose of creating eye-catching infographics, we should all accept those divisions as immovable political boundaries that capture the nation's cultural sensibilities perfectly.

Are you speaking hypothetically? If so, we'd need leadership, and probably prepare for foreign intervention in the chaos that is too insue. Would we want too tear apart families, and destroy america, because the liberals are tired of moral value and social bluntness? Yes I live in a blue (I spose you could call it a deep purple) state, and I am a conservative libertarian. Your claim of christian fanaticism has yet too be backed up, along with the fact you want too split a union, because you dont get Larry the Cable Guy (nether do I)

Im sure you'd feel right at home, somewhere like China. Social repression n the form of compulsary atheism will apease you, as well as the fact that you'll be much too busy putting together Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles dolls too have time too see blue collar tv.

http://bethyoung.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/purple_america_2004.gif

The divide is not between red state and blue state, but between city and country.

*laughs as he knows DC is a Southern City*

Yeah... a Southern city that votes 82% Democratic.

It'll go with the blue states.

If it will keep most of the fundamentalists in the other country, sure.

And the US is too large as it is anyway.

Yeah... a Southern city that votes 82% Democratic.

It'll go with the blue states.

I'm pretty sure that was the point.

I'm pretty sure that was the point.

Ah - referencing the first poster's disparaging of the South?

Well, DC doesn't really count anyway. It might be geographically southern, but in every other sense it's not.

Ah - referencing the first poster's disparaging of the South?

Well, DC doesn't really count anyway. It might be geographically southern, but in every other sense it's not.
Thats what I think...Wilgrove may have been going for something else...*shrug*

What I wouldn't give to plow that damned city over and make a decent one...

What I wouldn't give to plow that damned city over and make a decent one...

What do you have against DC?

Sure, go ahead, succeed

Is there a dialect were secede and succeed are pronounced the same? I've always wondered why this particular misspelling is so common.

And the US is too large as it is anyway.

Agreed. In the past we didn't suffer the problems a large country has because of federalism, but we've become much more centralized in the last 150 years or so.

I'll answer as soon as you tell me whether a state that has voted with the majority in every presidential election but one for over a hundred years is "red" or "blue."

What do you have against DC?

I hate it. It has some beautiful photo ops, but nothing great beyond that. It is designed to be confusing, has huge social issues due to not being in a state, most areas are trash, and generally, just a very ugly city.

I'll answer as soon as you tell me whether a state that has voted with the majority in every presidential election but one for over a hundred years is "red" or "blue."

"I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I rec'nize Missouri!"

..it is Missouri, right? :p

"I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I rec'nize Missouri!"

..it is Missouri, right? :p

'Tis indeed. :)

Well, I think it´s probably about time that the so-called "blue states" secede from the Union. I think the value of freeing ourselves from the religious fanaticism and social backwardness of the red states (especially the South) would exceed any losses. We can also revert to a military which is actually used for the purpose of self-defense. It just seems to me that it no longer pays to be in a state of union with these red states. Look at our president; it´s actually proving dangerous to have them around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png

Bweeheehee. The economy of the United States is so interconnected any attempt at secession at this point by any party would result in chaos and probable economic collapse for the seceding party. Have fun with that.

http://bethyoung.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/purple_america_2004.gif

The divide is not between red state and blue state, but between city and country.

blast! that was the point i was going to make!

Thread over -_-

Bweeheehee. The economy of the United States is so interconnected any attempt at secession at this point by any party would result in chaos and probable economic collapse for the seceding party.

Implement free trade, then. And keep the legalities similar.

I'll answer as soon as you tell me whether a state that has voted with the majority in every presidential election but one for over a hundred years is "red" or "blue."

Depends on how it voted in 2000 and 2004.

Depends on how it voted in 2000 and 2004.

...but not how it voted in 2006? ;)

...but not how it voted in 2006? ;)

Depends, I suppose.

Those are harder to judge, because individual Senators and Representatives can be substantially more liberal or conservative than the party line, and what happens if the state is split?

http://bethyoung.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/purple_america_2004.gif

The divide is not between red state and blue state, but between city and country.There's an awful lot of red on that map.

Well, I think it´s probably about time that the so-called "blue states" secede from the Union. I think the value of freeing ourselves from the religious fanaticism and social backwardness of the red states (especially the South) would exceed any losses. We can also revert to a military which is actually used for the purpose of self-defense. It just seems to me that it no longer pays to be in a state of union with these red states. Look at our president; it´s actually proving dangerous to have them around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png
There's only one small problem:
No blue or red states. They're mainly purple.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/static/jim/maplinear.jpg

EDIT: Seems I was too slow. And I can't vote on the poll either... :(

There's an awful lot of red on that map.
Yes, but the red areas are large, rural, sparsely populated counties for the most part, while the blue areas are densely populated cities. In fact, if you go by numbers alone, I'm fairly sure that liberal city-dwellers outnumber conservative country folk. All that political power is isolated, however, since it's all concentrated in relatively few urbanized districts, leaving the balance of power roughly equal.

Man, if more than 40% of the voting population actually voted, the outcome of elections would be so much different.

Damn you America, damn you.

Implement free trade, then. And keep the legalities similar.

It has nothing to do with that so much as where goods and services are produced. Besides, if you're going to impliment free trade and do all that stuff, what's the point of seceding in the first place? I thought the whole idea behind this ridiculous notion was that you had nothing to do with those from whom you seceded.

We shouldnt seceed just because George Bush won, or the other guys are religious. I live in California, but hate secessionists, all they do is complain about the religious south and the current Republican administration. They also act like the US government is doing to them what Britain did to the American Colonies, it is hardly similar.

But just out of curiosity(spell?), if the blue states seceeded, what the hell would they be called? Or would all the states just become independent or something?

There's an awful lot of red on that map.

Of course, empty land doesn't vote. Here's a map that uses the same blue-red color scale as that one, but adjusts county size by population relative to the rest of the US.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinear.png

Suddenly, it is quite purple.

Man, if more than 40% of the voting population actually voted, the outcome of elections would be so much different.

Damn you America, damn you.

we all vote here an we still end up with dum people in power

we all vote here an we still end up with dum people in powerI thought you once said you lived in Egypt, but your location says Australia... ?

I thought you once said you lived in Egypt, but your location says Australia... ?

you thinking of some other person
i never been out of Australia,i did have some friend's who live in other Nation's, but don't talk to them now

the last i did talk to hung himself

OK, whatever you say bud, but I know for fact it was you. I have a link to the thread where you said it, on my computer somewhere. *searches*

Am i the only one that things its a little messed up that only 2 partys are every an option with a population of 300 million?

Mebey more folks would vote if more then 2 partys got on the ballot.

OK, whatever you say bud, but I know for fact it was you. I have a link to the thread where you said it, on my computer somewhere. *searches*

if you find it show me

we all vote here an we still end up with dum people in power

Howard isn't dumb, if that's who you mean.

This is my theory. In a democracy where voteing is not compulsory, those who are most apathetic are the moderates, and the more passionate people are the extreames of the political spectrum. In the US, the apathetic people (moderates) don't vote, leaving the electorate to consist mainly of more politically extreame individuals. Government reflects this, and so you get fundamentalists in power.

In Australia, the moderates have to vote, and the government reflects this. Look at our two major political parties: they are both moderate. Hell, in our conservative party, Tony Abbot made a stand against abortion, and in doing so ended his rise through the ranks.

Bogus laws make it hard for a 3rd party in the US to get on the ballot.

third parties are hampered by restrictive ballot access laws that force them to spend the bulk of their resources just to get on the ballot. Such obstacles include the requirement in several states that third party candidates obtain thousands of signatures of registered voters in order to get their candidates listed on the ballot. If they manage to get on the ballot, third party candidates are often not allowed.

Howard isn't dumb, if that's who you mean.

This is my theory. In a democracy where voteing is not compulsory, those who are most apathetic are the moderates, and the more passionate people are the extreames of the political spectrum. In the US, the apathetic people (moderates) don't vote, leaving the electorate to consist mainly of more politically extreame individuals. Government reflects this, and so you get fundamentalists in power.

In Australia, the moderates have to vote, and the government reflects this. Look at our two major political parties: they are both moderate. Hell, in our conservative party, Tony Abbot made a stand against abortion, and in doing so ended his rise through the ranks.

no the other's and goes for the my state government stubing us in the back with day light saving's

no the other's and goes for the my state government stubing us in the back with day light saving's

Which state government, and what is wrong with daylight saving?

Which state government, and what is wrong with daylight saving?

the big next to you goes by WA

the big next to you goes by WA

Ah, well I understand that. You guys get a pretty rough deal with the time zones, but at least the rest of us get to sleep in when the WACA test match is on.

Ah, well I understand that. You guys get a pretty rough deal with the time zones, but at least the rest of us get to sleep in when the WACA test match is on.

all of the state vote no to it three time's as i recall
then we get stub in the back with it

i bet after the three year test they forget to say it's over

we are still behind all of you with or with it

Well, I think it´s probably about time that the so-called "blue states" secede from the Union. I think the value of freeing ourselves from the religious fanaticism and social backwardness of the red states (especially the South) would exceed any losses. We can also revert to a military which is actually used for the purpose of self-defense. It just seems to me that it no longer pays to be in a state of union with these red states. Look at our president; it´s actually proving dangerous to have them around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png

Hah, the irony. When the South fought for states' rights, the North wouldn't let them go -- now you want to take your bat and ball and go home for the same reasons?

When the South fought for states' rights

That is, never.

That is, never.

Read a history book sometime. You may find it enlightening.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

Read a history book sometime. You may find it enlightening.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

The link does not change my position. I do not know why you seem to think it should; it doesn't even really challenge it.

In return for your advice, I have some of my own - try to use better analogies.

Well, I think it´s probably about time that the so-called "blue states" secede from the Union. I think the value of freeing ourselves from the religious fanaticism and social backwardness of the red states (especially the South) would exceed any losses. We can also revert to a military which is actually used for the purpose of self-defense. It just seems to me that it no longer pays to be in a state of union with these red states. Look at our president; it´s actually proving dangerous to have them around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png

Oh this is funny. If I had a dime for every numnut who comes up with a thread like this, I'd be a millionaire.

Well, I think it´s probably about time that the so-called "blue states" secede from the Union. I think the value of freeing ourselves from the religious fanaticism and social backwardness of the red states (especially the South) would exceed any losses. We can also revert to a military which is actually used for the purpose of self-defense. It just seems to me that it no longer pays to be in a state of union with these red states. Look at our president; it´s actually proving dangerous to have them around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png

As a blue state resident, I have to say...

That's total crap. Not everybody from the south is like that. There are a few great people, like Pancake and my science teacher. I dislike Bush as much as you do, but every has to stay together, yeah.

Secession is legal only outside the United States of America. In the US, if you want to secede you are a traitor and rebel to the country.

See Civil War.

Secession is legal only outside the United States of America. In the US, if you want to secede you are a traitor and rebel to the country.

See Civil War.

Well if South Carolina had not fired on Fort Sumter.....

You know, that WOULD be nice, but there are many limitations to that option.


There are some "purple" states now, like (I believe) Virginia.

The blue states aren't all on one side of the country. It would be a little weird to have our new nation still scattered all around the old one.

Crossing state lines would get really annoying.


Good try, though.

This is my theory. In a democracy where voteing is not compulsory, those who are most apathetic are the moderates, and the more passionate people are the extreames of the political spectrum. In the US, the apathetic people (moderates) don't vote, leaving the electorate to consist mainly of more politically extreame individuals. Government reflects this, and so you get fundamentalists in power.

In Australia, the moderates have to vote, and the government reflects this. Look at our two major political parties: they are both moderate. Hell, in our conservative party, Tony Abbot made a stand against abortion, and in doing so ended his rise through the ranks.

This is exactly why compulsory voting makes sense. I would much rather live in a country like that.

My opinion of the Union is that it was created for a certain set of purposes, laid out in the preamble to the Constitution. If the Union no longer works towards these purposes it's outlived it's usefulness and then the states should come up with alternate arrangements, be it a new federation (or federations) or independence for those who don't want any such thing. Either way, the Union is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

However, I'm of the opinion that the Union still fulfills these purposes, despite certain temporary setbacks such as the Bush presidency. I'm not 100% sure what would have to occur for the Union to be no longer useful, but I think it's one of those "you'll know it when you see it" things.

Man, if more than 40% of the voting population actually voted, the outcome of elections would be so much different.

Damn you America, damn you.

ehh, not really. With the exception of electoral flukes like an election turning on a few hundred people in Miami Dade, a 40% sample is certainly significant enough to get a fairly representative sample data from the larger population.

In other words, the people who don't vote come from every political spectrum, and if they DID vote the results would likely not vary much. I read somewhere that we could get as low as about 10-15% turnout without altering the results significantly from the outcome we would have if everyone voted.

Well if South Carolina had not fired on Fort Sumter.....

Biggest. Mistake. Ever. If they hadn't attacked Sumter the public opinion in the North was in favor of letting them go.

I hate it. It has some beautiful photo ops, but nothing great beyond that. It is designed to be confusing, has huge social issues due to not being in a state, most areas are trash, and generally, just a very ugly city.

I agree with you on that, I can't stand DC. But that's just an answer to "why wouldn't you want to live in DC?" I prefer Baltimore.

Biggest. Mistake. Ever. If they hadn't attacked Sumter the public opinion in the North was in favor of letting them go.

I can agree with that.

Of course, empty land doesn't vote. Here's a map that uses the same blue-red color scale as that one, but adjusts county size by population relative to the rest of the US.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinear.png

Suddenly, it is quite purple.

It's...so beautiful. So very beautiful. *sob*

*starts singing America the beautiful*

*forgets the words and resumes wanting to move to Canada*

It is about time you young upstart of a nation had another civil war. Can't really call yourselves an established country until you've had at least 2 or 3 of them over the centuries.

It is about time you young upstart of a nation had another civil war. Can't really call yourselves an established country until you've had at least 2 or 3 of them over the centuries.

One can say we did have more than one civil war :D

Of course, empty land doesn't vote. Here's a map that uses the same blue-red color scale as that one, but adjusts county size by population relative to the rest of the US.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinear.png

Suddenly, it is quite purple.

and it's a more blue shaded purple than the red shaded purple (we really need maps that show that distinction better - our eyes typically have trouble with purple shades)

what's really interesting is the way the red areas shrink down into tiny channels between the various urban centers of the nation, which are largely blueish, and even the more red ones are significantly more purple than the narrow channel of red outside. i have a working theory on that, that has to do with 1) the facts of urbanism itself and 2) the utter population crash many of those bright red counties have experienced over the past few decades. a lot of them have been losing 10%+ of their population every few years, so you've got abandoned towns and shattered ways of life. when your culture is collapsing around you and your children all seem to run off as fast as they can, apocalyptic fundamentalism just might seem like the way to go.

One can say we did have more than one civil war :D

Who can forget the titanic conflict known as the Toledo War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_War)?

Or even the Red River Bridge War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Bridge_War)?

Who can forget the titanic conflict known as the Toledo War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_War)?

Or even the Red River Bridge War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Bridge_War)?

Let us not forget the Whiskey Rebellion :D

And the US is too large as it is anyway.

at least to be reasonably governed from a central location. it probably makes some amount of sense to have a somewhat unified, or at least coordinated, military (with canada and mexico too, really).

ehh, not really. With the exception of electoral flukes like an election turning on a few hundred people in Miami Dade, a 40% sample is certainly significant enough to get a fairly representative sample data from the larger population.

In other words, the people who don't vote come from every political spectrum, and if they DID vote the results would likely not vary much. I read somewhere that we could get as low as about 10-15% turnout without altering the results significantly from the outcome we would have if everyone voted.Alright, but I disagree.

Of course, empty land doesn't vote. Here's a map that uses the same blue-red color scale as that one, but adjusts county size by population relative to the rest of the US.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinear.png

Suddenly, it is quite purple.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this map makes it look like a blue America is being strangled and constricted by a giant red weed. If you get my drift.

I don't particularly think that the US should Balkanise, but the doctrine that "no state has the right to seceed" is bullshit, because it is contrary to the right to self-determination.

Of course, empty land doesn't vote. Here's a map that uses the same blue-red color scale as that one, but adjusts county size by population relative to the rest of the US.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinear.png

Suddenly, it is quite purple.
OMG another acid flashback!!!

I don't particularly think that the US should Balkanise, but the doctrine that "no state has the right to seceed" is bullshit, because it is contrary to the right to self-determination.


OMG another acid flashback!!!

1861-1865 ring a bell? The south seceded from the Union. Guess what? They lost the ensuing civil war and are still part of the Union.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this map makes it look like a blue America is being strangled and constricted by a giant red weed. If you get my drift.

eh, the weed is shrinking

1861-1865 ring a bell? The south seceded from the Union. Guess what? They lost the ensuing civil war and are still part of the Union.

what about it?

leaving the union is still a fundamental right

1861-1865 ring a bell? The south seceded from the Union. Guess what? They lost the ensuing civil war and are still part of the Union.
Might doesn't make right. Every state has a moral, even if not legal, right to secede.

what about it?

leaving the union is still a fundamental right

Is it? Is it really? Where is it written that it is?

Might doesn't make right. Every state has a moral, even if not legal, right to secede.

Prove it.

Is it? Is it really? Where is it written that it is?

why would it need to be written somewhere? all people at all times have a fundamental right to self determination.

Prove it.
The right to self-determination is a globally recognised right enjoyed by all peoples. In 1916 my country declared independence based on it; we had to fight for it, but we were right.

More recently, East Timor's bid for independence was supported by the international community for this reason. (including the USA)

why would it need to be written somewhere? all people at all times have a fundamental right to self determination.

Except for the fact that we already settled the issue of secession during the early 1860s.

The right to self-determination is a globally recognised right enjoyed by all peoples. In 1916 my country declared independence based on it; we had to fight for it, but we were right.

More recently, East Timor's bid for independence was supported by the international community for this reason. (including the USA)

I'm not talking about East Timor, I'm talking about the United States. We already had a case of secession and they lost. In other words, the US settled the issue of secession.

You got a problem with the South? Cuz me and my rifle here says if you do, that's a problem, and we've got us an idea to fix it.

Except for the fact that we already settled the issue of secession during the early 1860s.

this is silly. settled? what, you think usia is going to be a single country until the sun explodes?

even if it were the case that secession was absolutely forbidden by the us constitution, it would still be a fundamental right retained by the people to use at any time.

You got a problem with the South? Cuz me and my rifle here says if you do, that's a problem, and we've got us an idea to fix it.

LOL!!!

this is silly. settled? what, you think usia is going to be a single country until the sun explodes?

even if it were the case that secession was absolutely forbidden by the us constitution, it would still be a fundamental right retained by the people to use at any time.

Again, the issue has long since been settled. And yes, we will remain a single country for a very long time. We have been a single country for over 200 years.

LOL!!!

Ain't nothing wrong with being a hick and coming from the capital of the Confederacy, thank you.

Ain't nothing wrong with being a hick and coming from the capital of the Confederacy, thank you.

I have no problem with southerners for I am not stereotype people.

Again, the issue has long since been settled.

indeed it has. self-determination is the absolute fundamental right upon which all systems purporting to be based on the will and consent of the people rest. the only way that you could hold that self-determination is not a right is if you reject the idea of legitimate governance requiring the consent of the governed. there is no other way.

Again, the issue has long since been settled. And yes, we will remain a single country for a very long time. We have been a single country for over 200 years.

How long were the various native nations each a single country before they were taken over?

I have no problem with southerners for I am not stereotype people.

I'm not all that Southern... Once you hit Richmond, people stop drivin' pick-ups and start drivin' nasty SUV's. Though I come from a town where the population isn't more than 300. Very poverty ridden.

And I felt no stereotyping. For the benefit of others.

Stupid Idea, Stupid Poll.

Stupid Idea, Stupid Poll.

How is it stupid? A little extremist, yes, but nonetheless a way to show disagreement with some -thing or -one.

How long were the various native nations each a single country before they were taken over?

You mean the Originial 13 colonies?

You mean the Originial 13 colonies?

Technically they were united under England's government.

I'm not talking about East Timor, I'm talking about the United States. We already had a case of secession and they lost. In other words, the US settled the issue of secession.

This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like saying that if a civil war were fought in some country and freedom of speech were taken away the people of that country could never again demand freedom of speech, because it had been settled in some past war. As was said before, might most certainly does not make right.

This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like saying that if a civil war were fought in some country and freedom of speech were taken away the people of that country could never again demand freedom of speech, because it had been settled in some past war. As was said before, might most certainly does not make right.

But the thing is, freedom of speech has not been taken away here. Neither has freedom of assembly. The only reason most of it was taken away in the Civil War was because we were in a war. It is a known fact that freedoms are restricted in war time.

But the thing is, freedom of speech has not been taken away here. Neither has freedom of assembly. The only reason most of it was taken away in the Civil War was because we were in a war. It is a known fact that freedoms are restricted in war time.

Otherwise there'd be complete chaos in the governments.

But the thing is, freedom of speech has not been taken away here. Neither has freedom of assembly. The only reason most of it was taken away in the Civil War was because we were in a war. It is a known fact that freedoms are restricted in war time.

you can't possibly really be this confused

But the thing is, freedom of speech has not been taken away here. Neither has freedom of assembly. The only reason most of it was taken away in the Civil War was because we were in a war. It is a known fact that freedoms are restricted in war time.

You're completely misunderstanding what I wrote. What you seem to be saying is that the people of the US lost the right to self determination because some of them lost a war against the rest of them. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

You're completely misunderstanding what I wrote. What you seem to be saying is that the people of the US lost the right to self determination because some of them lost a war against the rest of them. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Has anyone else try to secede?

Has anyone else try to secede?

Does that matter?

self determination is a basic human right, a country can strut around and claim "Yeah we fought that war 150yrs ago and settled it" but the reality today is different... It's no longer necessary to resort to force to gain independence as I've posted elsewhere denial of taxes and civil disobedience is enough to bring most governments to their knees.....We have a region in our country(Canada) where many want independence. At first there were those who claimed this would mean force if need be to keep this region within the confederation, but common sense has prevailed. If a clear majority of the region wishes to leave they will be allowed to, no one is going to die for petty nationalism.

self determination is a basic human right, a country can strut around and claim "Yeah we fought that war 150yrs ago and settled it" but the reality today is different... It's no longer necessary to resort to force to gain independence as I've posted elsewhere denial of taxes and civil disobedience is enough to bring most governments to their knees.....We have a region in our country(Canada) where many want independence. At first there were those who claimed this would mean force if need be to keep this region within the confederation, but common sense has prevailed. If a clear majority of the region wishes to leave they will be allowed to, no one is going to die for petty nationalism.

And yet your own Supreme Court ruled that they do not have authority to actually split.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19980821/ai_n10452655

In other words, they need the feds permission to do so and thus negotiations.

We have a region in our country(Canada) where many want independence. At first there were those who claimed this would mean force if need be to keep this region within the confederation, but common sense has prevailed. If a clear majority of the region wishes to leave they will be allowed to, no one is going to die for petty nationalism.

it would just be weird for anyone to actually advocate, for example, bombing montreal because they didn't want to be canadian anymore.

http://bethyoung.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/purple_america_2004.gif

The divide is not between red state and blue state, but between city and country.

As creepy as what you said is, you are totally correct.

And yet your own Supreme Court ruled that they do not have authority to actually split.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19980821/ai_n10452655

In other words, they need the feds permission to do so and thus negotiations.

only a formality, they cannot leave unilaterally so it gives the federal government control of the separation process,but it will not stand in the their way, if they win a clear vote to leave they will be permitted to do so....

the only requirements are a clear question on the referendum, such as "do you wish to secede form Canada, yes or no",nothing ambigous.
.....

a clear majority win 50% plus 1 isn't good enough, 55% will probably do it......

in the following negotiation on separation(who gets what)all provinces are include in the talks as are the native peoples of Quebec(if Canada is divisible so is Quebec). The native populations who are the majority in the northern portions will likely vote to separate from Quebec and stay within Canada a considerable loss of natural resources.

only a formality, they cannot leave unilaterally so it gives the federal government control of the separation process,but it will not stand in the their way, if they win a clear vote to leave they will be permitted to do so....

Still need to negotiate which you stated underneath here.

in the following negotiation on separation(who gets what)all provinces are include in the talks as are the native peoples of Quebec(if Canada is divisible so is Quebec). The native populations who are the majority in the northern portions will likely vote to separate from Quebec and stay within Canada a considerable loss of natural resources.

Who knows. I doubt it will be quick and easy however. Who knows. I bet some blood will also be spilled too.

it would just be weird for anyone to actually advocate, for example, bombing montreal because they didn't want to be canadian anymore.

weird indeed, I recall a few of some years ago, old school nationalists.....I think they've all died off by now, any still alive are probably rolling around in veterans homes....

....something to consider, what if Montreal votes to stay in Canada while the remainder of Francophone Quebec votes to leave? Does Montreal stay in the federation? Could the remainder of Quebec survive without Montreal, the economic engine of the province?

Still need to negotiate which you stated underneath here.



Who knows. I doubt it will be quick and easy however. Who knows. I bet some blood will also be spilled too.

no blood will be split, we went through that 40 yrs ago, with terror bombings, kidnappings and murders, neither Canadians or Quebecois have any appetite for violence over a political dispute....negotiations are mandatory, who gets what assets, who gets custody of the children, division of debts, it's no different than a divorce.....if the Czechs can separate from Slovakia and Montenegro can divorce Serbia without violence, Canada will not have any problem doing so as well....

I'm not talking about East Timor, I'm talking about the United States. We already had a case of secession and they lost. In other words, the US settled the issue of secession.
The right to self-determination applies to everywhere in the world. The US is not, in any way, exceptional.

We have a region in our country(Canada) where many want independence.
You liar, you told me you lived in Northern Europe.

And yet your own Supreme Court ruled that they do not have authority to actually split.

In other words, they need the feds permission to do so and thus negotiations.
You're still hung up on this American exceptionalism, aren't you? Self-determination is a universal right.

Just because Rome violently suppressed slave rebellions, does not mean that slavery issue was "settled" and that slaves had "no right to freedom".

You're still hung up on this American exceptionalism, aren't you? Self-determination is a universal right.

I am? I quoted what the Canadian Supreme Court stated.

You liar, you told me you lived in Northern Europe.



dual citizenship.......I can move back and forth as I please....

indeed it has. self-determination is the absolute fundamental right upon which all systems purporting to be based on the will and consent of the people rest. the only way that you could hold that self-determination is not a right is if you reject the idea of legitimate governance requiring the consent of the governed. there is no other way.

bump

I am? I quoted what the Canadian Supreme Court stated.
Alright, my bad. Anyway, it doesn't matter what some country's court says... the right to self-determination is as much of a right as the right to life, to free speech, etc.

*laughs as he knows DC is a Southern City*

Sure, go ahead, succeed. Good luck with that military though.


he said as he stood right next to a southern liberal who was a military veteran with a great deal of combat experience and who could easily be tapped to train LOTS of liberal young women to pull trigger.


Well, I'd teach them to pull trigger AS WELL.:D

I thought we finalized the secession argument when my forefathers tore their battleflags up and trudged home back in 1865.

Have I missed something?

Have I missed something?

yes. logic.

I thought we finalized the secession argument when my forefathers tore their battleflags up and trudged home back in 1865.

Read the last couple of pages. This was Allageny's argument too.

Not that I think the US South should have seceded back in the 1860s, that would have opened America once again to the ambitions of a Europe that was still in imperialist mode.

We shouldnt seceed just because George Bush won, or the other guys are religious. I live in California, but hate secessionists, all they do is complain about the religious south and the current Republican administration. They also act like the US government is doing to them what Britain did to the American Colonies, it is hardly similar.

But just out of curiosity(spell?), if the blue states seceeded, what the hell would they be called? Or would all the states just become independent or something?

Texas can still legally secede. No wars, nothing. Agreed upon when we were annexed. I say "we," but I've only lived here for several years.

As far as what they would be called...hmm...

Oh yeah, there's a word for it: QUARANTINE.

oooh. The old "getting my ass kicked on the playground doesn't mean you are right argument, eh?


The point of self determination is that ONLY UNDER TYRNANY does one begin to think of exercising the right. We are not under a tyrany (at least we excaped the Bush dictatorship due to his being an idiot) Therefore no secession thanks. I like my vote.

oooh. The old "getting my ass kicked on the playground doesn't mean you are right argument, eh?


The point of self determination is that ONLY UNDER TYRNANY does one begin to think of exercising the right. We are not under a tyrany (at least we excaped the Bush dictatorship due to his being an idiot) Therefore no secession thanks. I like my vote.

How would you qualify it a "dictatorship?"

The point of self determination is that ONLY UNDER TYRNANY does one begin to think of exercising the right.

on what grounds do you only have the right to self-determination when you are being oppressed? wouldn't not having the right to self-determination itself count as oppression? or are governments legitimate without the consent of the governed except when they are 'tyrannical'?

it never became one. Only because he wasn't good enough to be a decent president, much less to steal the country and become a dictator ;)

on what grounds do you only have the right to self-determination when you are being oppressed? wouldn't not having the right to self-determination itself count as oppression? or are governments legitimate without the consent of the governed except when they are 'tyrannical'?



sorry. I wasn't thinking of self determination but rather the right to seceed, or revolt.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence[1], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I am not sure that losing one of these rights counts. Maybe you have to los ethem all. <aybe you ove to olose only one, which is the most important. I just know that we have them THerefopre I will not support secession.

Texas can still legally secede. No wars, nothing. Agreed upon when we were annexed.

Actually, the treaty says nothing like that.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/texan05.htm

I think all of the states can secede, not just Texas. Texas has the same legal status as all of the other states, other than preapproval from Congress if they want to split into as many as 5 states.

sorry. I wasn't thinking of self determination but rather the right to seceed, or revolt.

they are one and the same

only in your mind. :D

Self determination means the right to decide what happens to you.

the right to rebel means you have a right to rebel, although it can be used as a result of losing the right of self determination. It could also be used because you ar a rebel with out a clue. Or because you like wearing a big letter A in a cricle, or because yo feel like being part of the Republic of Minnessota, ya see?

Self determination means the right to decide what happens to you.

which entails the right to collectively withdraw from a political entity, aka secede

which entails the right to collectively withdraw from a political entity, aka secede
well sure :D
but as I said earlier, I think it sort of demands some other things happen first. Not that you simply want to be a part of the People's Republic of Santa Barbera. Not that I think taht is a bad idea.
*wonders if the chicks wikk still dig UCSB*

That map is old and can be deceptive if you don't look at it in context. That's probably the presidential map you have. You also need the Senate and House and Governors race maps to get a better picture. There really is no such thing as red state or a blue state. Each state has people with varying opinions.

Looks at these maps from the 2006 elections and compare them with what you posted for 2004.

US Senate:

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2006.html#senate
notice how some states seem to have flip flopped?
US House:
http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2006.html#house
notice how some red states went blue?

Governors Map:
http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2006.html#governors
notice how some blue states went to the red side on this particular office.

It's all about perspective and the right to have views different from your neighbor's and the right to express those views.