NationStates Jolt Archive

Why California Must Secede at Once
by William L. Anderson

My patience has run out. Although I have a living relative in California, it does not matter. All I want is for California to leave this union of states and go its separate way. In fact, the former Republic of California can also take Washington State and Oregon with it and start a new country on this continent’s West Coast. Maybe they can call this new nation Bolshavia.

The latest power crisis in which Californians are demanding that electricity producers outside the state work for free (a nice term for this is forced labor) to provide them with low-priced electrical power has put me over the edge. Until now, I could tolerate California, since it generally sends Washington, DC, more taxes than it receives in benefits (California: The State for Suckers!) and produced John Wooden’s great UCLA basketball teams.

However, now that California is showing its true colors, I admit that my eyes are opened at last. Whatever gains I might have from California’s excess of tax revenues has been swallowed up in the Free Lunch Philosophy that has emanated from that state for many years. California has been Ground Zero for many of the diseases that have plagued our body politic, and it is time that Californians and their "Left Coast" fellows bear the full cost of their Jane Fonda Socialism.

One may be surprised that I demand that another state secede from the United States. After all, I reside in South Carolina, which seceded in 1860 only to have Abraham Lincoln and his federal troops bring the folks here back into the union. This was not a peaceful reunion, as the federals burned down about half the towns in the state before the war ended. As much as other Americans may have hated South Carolinians, they did not insist that this place actually become a new country. (In fact, the saying in this state at the time was that "South Carolina is too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum.")

California, on the other hand, is an insane asylum and the rest of us are insane if we continue to allow that state to impose its evil will upon us. Believe it or not, the rest of us will be better off if the "Left Coast" forms its Bolshavia immediately. Let me explain by answering objections to the Golden State’s departure.

"If California leaves the union, then it takes all of its high technology firms with it." This objection is based upon the assumption that there are no gains from trade. Just because I want California out of our political union does not mean I want to boycott products from that state. Furthermore, I would want no trade barriers to block imports from or exports to California. Granted, Californians are stupid enough to set up trade barriers on their own, but the barriers would harm California more than this country. After all, even though Guatemala is a banana republic does not mean we don’t buy its bananas.

"We will lose all that federal tax revenue from Californians." Good, I say. The less money in the coffers of our central government will always be a victory for freedom and goodness. Fewer tax dollars means fewer bombs dropped on Iraq and less regulation.

"We will lose the use of port facilities on the West Coast." First, the US East Coast has more and better ports than the Left Coast. Second, even Californians and their Northwest brethren might even find that free trade works. Motivated people can find optimum trade relations if they wish, so the loss of port facilities does not have to matter a whit.

"We will lose the benefits of the excellent universities and schools in those states." Nonsense, I say. The University of California at Berkeley (or "Berserkely," as some locals lovingly call it) has always been at the forefront of trashing all things good and decent, while Stanford University hates Western civilization. Anyway, if smart, useful people who have attended California’s universities can find a way to work in the United States, then there will be gains from trade and the problem will be solved.

"We will lose some of our greatest political leadership." Oh, please! Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Diane Feinstein, and Willie Brown are not political leaders. They are thieves, crooks, and charlatans. Any state that elects those folks to office deserves whatever punishment it receives.

"There could be a refugee problem, as productive, decent, and thinking people are forced out of the Marxist California state." This is a problem? Please remember that Fidel Castro ran out the cream of the crop in Cuba in 1960, thus sending us entrepreneurs and others who were productive. It was only later that Castro was left only with criminals who also found they could have better pickings in the USA. Certainly the mass exodus of productive Californians would be a boon to this country. Not only that, but those who would choose to leave the Socialist Golden State Republic would also be those who most despise the interventionist state.

Whatever the problems caused by the departure of the Left Coast may be, they are hardly insurmountable. That is because motivated people can engage in trade. On the other hand, should the Left Coast form its own Bolshavia, we can then see another socialist laboratory in action – and we don’t have to directly bear the consequences of socialist stupidity. We can simply sit on the sidelines and watch Californians implement socialism – and the rest of us won’t have to pay them a dime.

I sort of agree with him. What do you think?

Grouchy old conservatives are such fun! :D

I stopped paying attention after 'Bolshavia'.

no doubt there many from the west coast states who would love to secede...

Sounds Good! :)

We're happy to leave when ever you're ready. At least we wouldn't have to listen to all of your whining and bitching between suckling on our teat anymore...

EDIT: Was that guy going to get around to what it was specifically that this was about, or was it run of the mill Caliphobia?

Why California should NOT secede from the Union.

The US goverment will go to war with it. States are not allowed to secede because they feel like it...the southern states tried that already.

I stopped paying attention after 'Bolshavia'.

Yep, me too!

Wonder what's got his panties in such a bunch?

The rest of the country couldn't survive without California

I'm sure California wouldnt mind though.

Sorry to display ignorance, but is secession either a modern, or a popular, issue within the USA?

Ha! That made my day. Wonder whose tax dollars he'll leach off if California leaves.

No no, according to him he wants that drop in revenue...
"We will lose all that federal tax revenue from Californians." Good, I say. The less money in the coffers of our central government will always be a victory for freedom and goodness. Fewer tax dollars means fewer bombs dropped on Iraq and less regulation.

Well, at least he wants peace...

Ha! That made my day. Wonder whose tax dollars he'll leach off if California leaves.

It's a popular solution to the problem of living in a large country where numbers of people might not agree with your political point of view. Hardly practical.

Not unlike the current debate regarding Scottish nationalism then?

Sorry to display ignorance, but is secession either a modern, or a popular, issue within the USA?

Every once in a while a small group of Californians (and, as seen, a small group of piss-ant whiners) get all riled up about use seceding, but it never gets all that far. Before WWII there was a movement to cut off the top of California and the bottom of Oregon into another state (The State of Jefferson) because they felt that their rural needs (mostly related to logging roads) where being ignored by the metropolitan portions of their respective states. But no, it's not something that is really at a forefront.

We where our own country (why it says Republic on the flag and has that star-solidarity with Texas...ah how times have changed...) for like a month.

Sorry to display ignorance, but is secession either a modern, or a popular, issue within the USA?

It's a popular solution to the problem of living in a large country where numbers of people might not agree with your political point of view. Hardly practical.

Well I gotta admit that I wonder what the bloke thinks when his taxes go up...what with California being one of the top economies in the world....

Of course this guy is a raving madman as there is no way that the Feds would allow it...

Now if I was a Californian I'd be more than happy to secede from the Onion...I mean Union...

Heh...maybe they might want to join the EU! LOL

im lost, how would you be better off if you seceded?

Why California should NOT secede from the Union.

The US goverment will go to war with it. States are not allowed to secede because they feel like it...the southern states tried that already.

I would encourage them to try it again though. They probably won't see anywhere near as much opposition from us Yankees this time around.

Well you better not piss off the South Americans because you will not have anything good to eat with California the biggest agriculture state gone. I guess America could live on mid-west corn meal as its main source of food.

i'm not american but i think california could secede and do quite well as its own country without the conservatism and religious nonsense supposedly evident in the rest of the country.

My patience has run out. Although I have a living relative in California, it does not matter. All I want is for California to leave this union of states and go its separate way. In fact, the former Republic of California can also take Washington State and Oregon with it and start a new country on this continent’s West Coast. Maybe they can call this new nation Bolshavia.

Ooh, a living relative. That obviously makes him the expert.

However, now that California is showing its true colors, I admit that my eyes are opened at last. Whatever gains I might have from California’s excess of tax revenues has been swallowed up in the Free Lunch Philosophy that has emanated from that state for many years. California has been Ground Zero for many of the diseases that have plagued our body politic, and it is time that Californians and their "Left Coast" fellows bear the full cost of their Jane Fonda Socialism.

Shame on them for not being as right wing as South Carolina hillbillies. I mean, they have the audacity to not even worship the confederate flag! Everyone knows that true Americans proudly wave the flag of one of its greatest ENEMIES.

One may be surprised that I demand that another state secede from the United States. After all, I reside in South Carolina, which seceded in 1860 only to have Abraham Lincoln and his federal troops bring the folks here back into the union. This was not a peaceful reunion, as the federals burned down about half the towns in the state before the war ended. As much as other Americans may have hated South Carolinians, they did not insist that this place actually become a new country. (In fact, the saying in this state at the time was that "South Carolina is too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum.")

Those damn yankees. Maybe this is what he is so bitter about? His ancestors loosing the civil war?

California, on the other hand, is an insane asylum and the rest of us are insane if we continue to allow that state to impose its evil will upon us. Believe it or not, the rest of us will be better off if the "Left Coast" forms its Bolshavia immediately. Let me explain by answering objections to the Golden State’s departure.

Yeah, down with the satan worshiping communists (who happen to also be insane, all according to the author.)

"If California leaves the union, then it takes all of its high technology firms with it." This objection is based upon the assumption that there are no gains from trade. Just because I want California out of our political union does not mean I want to boycott products from that state. Furthermore, I would want no trade barriers to block imports from or exports to California. Granted, Californians are stupid enough to set up trade barriers on their own, but the barriers would harm California more than this country. After all, even though Guatemala is a banana republic does not mean we don’t buy its bananas.

Because trade with another country is totally better than domestic revinue. I think America has been itching for a long time to have more countries share a land border with it. I mean, we need more threats close to home.

"We will lose all that federal tax revenue from Californians." Good, I say. The less money in the coffers of our central government will always be a victory for freedom and goodness. Fewer tax dollars means fewer bombs dropped on Iraq and less regulation.

Better yet, why dont we just abolish all of goverement and decend into anarchy? If the goveremnt doesnt exist then they can never stop you from lynching minorities.

"We will lose the use of port facilities on the West Coast." First, the US East Coast has more and better ports than the Left Coast...The loss of port facilities does not have to matter a whit.

Because we have to way many ports anyway. While we are at it, lets shut down every powerplant but the single best we have. Less infustructure is alwyas better.

"We will lose the benefits of the excellent universities and schools in those states." Nonsense, I say. The University of California at Berkeley (or "Berserkely," as some locals lovingly call it) has always been at the forefront of trashing all things good and decent, while Stanford University hates Western civilization. Anyway, if smart, useful people who have attended California’s universities can find a way to work in the United States, then there will be gains from trade and the problem will be solved.

I totally agree, they spend way to much time teaching science and not enough theology. We have way to many engineers and not enough priests.

"We will lose some of our greatest political leadership." Oh, please! Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Diane Feinstein, and Willie Brown are not political leaders. They are thieves, crooks, and charlatans. Any state that elects those folks to office deserves whatever punishment it receives.

Imagine a place who elects thieves and crooks. It would be like living in the United States, only here in the US.

"There could be a refugee problem, as productive, decent, and thinking people are forced out of the Marxist California state." This is a problem? Please remember that Fidel Castro ran out the cream of the crop in Cuba in 1960, thus sending us entrepreneurs and others who were productive. It was only later that Castro was left only with criminals who also found they could have better pickings in the USA. Certainly the mass exodus of productive Californians would be a boon to this country. Not only that, but those who would choose to leave the Socialist Golden State Republic would also be those who most despise the interventionist state.

What on earth would you gain by a mass exodus of productive Californians when they already live in the US.

Whatever the problems caused by the departure of the Left Coast may be, they are hardly insurmountable. That is because motivated people can engage in trade. On the other hand, should the Left Coast form its own Bolshavia, we can then see another socialist laboratory in action – and we don’t have to directly bear the consequences of socialist stupidity. We can simply sit on the sidelines and watch Californians implement socialism – and the rest of us won’t have to pay them a dime.


Again with the communist insults. I dont think he is familiar with his own government. Does he think he is living in a pure capitalist system?

You know what this guy reminds me of...Bradd Pitt in 12 Monkeys, only with totally opposite political views.

My patience has run out. Although I have a living relative in California, it does not matter. All I want is for California to leave this union of states and go its separate way. In fact, the former Republic of California can also take Washington State and Oregon with it and start a new country on this continent’s West Coast. Maybe they can call this new nation Bolshavia.

Screw that. Washingtonians won't be caught dead with Californians. ;)

And southern Oregon already tried to secede, IIRC.

Screw that. Washingtonians won't be caught dead with Californians. ;)

And southern Oregon already tried to secede, IIRC.

What if all of the "Left Coast" joined Canada together? Washington is pretty much Canada anyway.

Really? I hadn't heard that. When?

Here (http://www.jeffersonstate.com/jeffersonstory.html) is some info.

Edit: I was mistaken, it's the unrecognized 51st state. :P

Screw that. Washingtonians won't be caught dead with Californians. ;)

And southern Oregon already tried to secede, IIRC.

Really? I hadn't heard that. When?

Screw that. Washingtonians won't be caught dead with Californians. ;)

And southern Oregon already tried to secede, IIRC.I bet they would choose California over Texas and the other southern states that had power of the government until recently.

i'm not american but i think california could secede and do quite well as its own country without the conservatism and religious nonsense supposedly evident in the rest of the country.

I tried to avoid saying that, but the truth is unavoidable at times....

I tried to avoid saying that, but the truth is unavoidable at times....

just be blunt ;)

It certainly wouldn't be economically beneficial. Look at what happened when Northern Ireland stopped being part of the Republic of Ireland. They would also stop getting federal subsidies.

Why California Must Secede at Once
by William L. Anderson

My patience has run out. Although I have a living relative in California, it does not matter. All I want is for California to leave this union of states and go its separate way. In fact, the former Republic of California can also take Washington State and Oregon with it and start a new country on this continent’s West Coast. Maybe they can call this new nation Bolshavia.

The latest power crisis in which Californians are demanding that electricity producers outside the state work for free (a nice term for this is forced labor) to provide them with low-priced electrical power has put me over the edge. Until now, I could tolerate California, since it generally sends Washington, DC, more taxes than it receives in benefits (California: The State for Suckers!) and produced John Wooden’s great UCLA basketball teams.

However, now that California is showing its true colors, I admit that my eyes are opened at last. Whatever gains I might have from California’s excess of tax revenues has been swallowed up in the Free Lunch Philosophy that has emanated from that state for many years. California has been Ground Zero for many of the diseases that have plagued our body politic, and it is time that Californians and their "Left Coast" fellows bear the full cost of their Jane Fonda Socialism.

One may be surprised that I demand that another state secede from the United States. After all, I reside in South Carolina, which seceded in 1860 only to have Abraham Lincoln and his federal troops bring the folks here back into the union. This was not a peaceful reunion, as the federals burned down about half the towns in the state before the war ended. As much as other Americans may have hated South Carolinians, they did not insist that this place actually become a new country. (In fact, the saying in this state at the time was that "South Carolina is too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum.")

California, on the other hand, is an insane asylum and the rest of us are insane if we continue to allow that state to impose its evil will upon us. Believe it or not, the rest of us will be better off if the "Left Coast" forms its Bolshavia immediately. Let me explain by answering objections to the Golden State’s departure.

"If California leaves the union, then it takes all of its high technology firms with it." This objection is based upon the assumption that there are no gains from trade. Just because I want California out of our political union does not mean I want to boycott products from that state. Furthermore, I would want no trade barriers to block imports from or exports to California. Granted, Californians are stupid enough to set up trade barriers on their own, but the barriers would harm California more than this country. After all, even though Guatemala is a banana republic does not mean we don’t buy its bananas.

"We will lose all that federal tax revenue from Californians." Good, I say. The less money in the coffers of our central government will always be a victory for freedom and goodness. Fewer tax dollars means fewer bombs dropped on Iraq and less regulation.

"We will lose the use of port facilities on the West Coast." First, the US East Coast has more and better ports than the Left Coast. Second, even Californians and their Northwest brethren might even find that free trade works. Motivated people can find optimum trade relations if they wish, so the loss of port facilities does not have to matter a whit.

"We will lose the benefits of the excellent universities and schools in those states." Nonsense, I say. The University of California at Berkeley (or "Berserkely," as some locals lovingly call it) has always been at the forefront of trashing all things good and decent, while Stanford University hates Western civilization. Anyway, if smart, useful people who have attended California’s universities can find a way to work in the United States, then there will be gains from trade and the problem will be solved.

"We will lose some of our greatest political leadership." Oh, please! Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Diane Feinstein, and Willie Brown are not political leaders. They are thieves, crooks, and charlatans. Any state that elects those folks to office deserves whatever punishment it receives.

"There could be a refugee problem, as productive, decent, and thinking people are forced out of the Marxist California state." This is a problem? Please remember that Fidel Castro ran out the cream of the crop in Cuba in 1960, thus sending us entrepreneurs and others who were productive. It was only later that Castro was left only with criminals who also found they could have better pickings in the USA. Certainly the mass exodus of productive Californians would be a boon to this country. Not only that, but those who would choose to leave the Socialist Golden State Republic would also be those who most despise the interventionist state.

Whatever the problems caused by the departure of the Left Coast may be, they are hardly insurmountable. That is because motivated people can engage in trade. On the other hand, should the Left Coast form its own Bolshavia, we can then see another socialist laboratory in action – and we don’t have to directly bear the consequences of socialist stupidity. We can simply sit on the sidelines and watch Californians implement socialism – and the rest of us won’t have to pay them a dime.

I sort of agree with him. What do you think?

BULLSHIT!

Here (http://www.jeffersonstate.com/jeffersonstory.html) is some info.

Edit: I was mistaken, it's the unrecognized 51st state. :P

No one ever listens to me, I mentioned that posts ago...

Also I don't see why you think that California is remotely socialist.

Well, first, let's look at what this would mean for the U.S. from an economic standpoint. As we all know, California alone ranks as the fifth most powerful nation economically speaking in the world, if states were counted in such a list. California is one of only two states where oranges can be grown successfully, an important citrus product. In fact, California makes up a lot of our fruit agriculture--no pun intended. California also provides some fantastic universities, some of the best in the country. California holds our computer industry and technology research centres. California also holds the vast majority of our western coast, along with most of the naval bases on that coast. California, in essence, is extremely important.

So let's take it away!

What that means for the U.S. is an immediate loss of a huge amount of territory, most of the western coast, and everything else described in the paragraph above. Now, this guy may think that is a good thing, that we could get away with it by just trading, but as we all know, tradiing does not necessarily mean we actually still control those resources. Indeed, it would be a major loss, especially if we were to give up Washington and Oregon as well, two more important agricultural and technological states. We give those up, we completely lose our western coast and suddenly we have a new border along states like Nevada, Idaho, and Arizona, one that would put us at a huge disadvantage militarily speaking, as the United States has routinely relied upon its coasts to help prevent invasions of its territory.

In short, it would be a really bad idea. Not to mention California is about as communistic as Singapore.

As a Californian, I agree. We don't need America! God, just look at the problems they gets us in. We don't even get a fair share of federal taxes. And who the heck elected Bush? It wasn't my state, that's for sure. We don't depend on America, America depends on us, the Midwest most certainly. No, I think we've had quite enough of America, thank you. We've got everything we need right here. Oh, don't worry, we'll continue trade with the US. All our produce has to go somewhere. But could we take Oregan and Washington with us? I must admit, we've gotten rather fond of them over the years.

Forget California, it's Vermont (http://www.vermontrepublic.org/)you want out. Or just the Blue States (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=5652).

It is interesting though, how one could reconfigure the United States to make it more politically...harmonious.

It certainly wouldn't be economically beneficial. Look at what happened when Northern Ireland stopped being part of the Republic of Ireland. They would also stop getting federal subsidies.
1. Northern Ireland never ever was a part of the Republic of Ireland. 2. California quite likely subsidises the federal government, considering its wealth. I'll try and find a link shortly.

Edit: Bingo! (http://www.bcnys.org/whatsnew/2001/1211balance.htm), plus this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California#California_as_an_independent_nation) is interesting.

Forget California, it's Vermont (http://www.vermontrepublic.org/)you want out. Or just the Blue States (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=5652).

It is interesting though, how one could reconfigure the United States to make it more politically...harmonious.


1. Northern Ireland never ever was a part of the Republic of Ireland. 2. California quite likely subsidises the federal government, considering its wealth. I'll try and find a link shortly.

Edit: Bingo! (http://www.bcnys.org/whatsnew/2001/1211balance.htm), plus this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California#California_as_an_independent_nation) is interesting.

Why would you want harmonious politics? How boring would that be.

Exactly, the red states and the blue states should split and become two separate countries. Hooray Balkanization!

As a Californian, I agree. We don't need America! God, just look at the problems they gets us in. We don't even get a fair share of federal taxes. And who the heck elected Bush? It wasn't my state, that's for sure. We don't depend on America, America depends on us, the Midwest most certainly. No, I think we've had quite enough of America, thank you. We've got everything we need right here. Oh, don't worry, we'll continue trade with the US. All our produce has to go somewhere. But could we take Organ and Washington with us? I must admit, we've gotten rather fond of them over the years.

Then you're leaving behind the Northeastern US. Why would we want to stay with even fewer liberal votes in the house and senate and electoral college? If California goes the Northeast would have a big incentive to leave as well.

Hey look!

Another shit for brains conservative ramble about them gawdam libruls in california!

Whiney pissantism from the the american right? oh me oh my, who'd have guessed :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Snip-snip of the OP
I may get a tad irritated with the west coast every once in a while, what with the nanny statism and all that, but if memory serves the last time anyone tried to break away from the Union it resulted in the bloodiest war this nation has ever participated in. If it was illegal then and nothing has changed wouldn't it be illegal now?

Hey look!

Another shit for brains conservative ramble about them gawdam libruls in california!

Whiney pissantism from the the american right? oh me oh my, who'd have guessed :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Shocking, isn't it?

Best part is, whiney conservatives have been doing this since, oh, let's see, around 424 BCE. Anyone read the Old Oligarch's Athenian Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Oligarch#Pseudo-Xenophon)?

Shocking, isn't it?

Best part is, whiney conservatives have been doing this since, oh, let's see, around 424 BCE. Anyone read the Old Oligarch's Athenian Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Oligarch#Pseudo-Xenophon)?

I have, and commendable though your education is, I'm not sure you're citing it correctly.

Why California Must Secede at Once

Being forced out is not secession.

by William L. Anderson

Hmmm... Looked the author up.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson-arch.html

He has some rather odd belifes, particularly his facination with the Duke rape case.

My patience has run out. Although I have a living relative in California, it does not matter. All I want is for California to leave this union of states and go its separate way. In fact, the former Republic of California can also take Washington State and Oregon with it and start a new country on this continent’s West Coast. Maybe they can call this new nation Bolshavia.

:rolleyes: LA and SF are not the totality of California.

The latest power crisis in which Californians are demanding that electricity producers outside the state work for free (a nice term for this is forced labor) to provide them with low-priced electrical power has put me over the edge. Until now, I could tolerate California, since it generally sends Washington, DC, more taxes than it receives in benefits (California: The State for Suckers!) and produced John Wooden’s great UCLA basketball teams.

That comment about taxes is going to come back and bite him on the bottom in a minute... A few times.

However, now that California is showing its true colors, I admit that my eyes are opened at last. Whatever gains I might have from California’s excess of tax revenues has been swallowed up in the Free Lunch Philosophy that has emanated from that state for many years. California has been Ground Zero for many of the diseases that have plagued our body politic, and it is time that Californians and their "Left Coast" fellows bear the full cost of their Jane Fonda Socialism.

Again, LA and SF are not the totality of California.

One may be surprised that I demand that another state secede from the United States. After all, I reside in South Carolina, which seceded in 1860 only to have Abraham Lincoln and his federal troops bring the folks here back into the union. This was not a peaceful reunion, as the federals burned down about half the towns in the state before the war ended. As much as other Americans may have hated South Carolinians, they did not insist that this place actually become a new country. (In fact, the saying in this state at the time was that "South Carolina is too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum.")

This is a good contrast. SC seceded. He wants to force California out.

California, on the other hand, is an insane asylum and the rest of us are insane if we continue to allow that state to impose its evil will upon us. Believe it or not, the rest of us will be better off if the "Left Coast" forms its Bolshavia immediately. Let me explain by answering objections to the Golden State’s departure.

More "left coast" silliness. Outside of LA and SF, California is quite conservative. And what happened to the the East coast liberal establishment?

"If California leaves the union, then it takes all of its high technology firms with it." This objection is based upon the assumption that there are no gains from trade. Just because I want California out of our political union does not mean I want to boycott products from that state. Furthermore, I would want no trade barriers to block imports from or exports to California. Granted, Californians are stupid enough to set up trade barriers on their own, but the barriers would harm California more than this country. After all, even though Guatemala is a banana republic does not mean we don’t buy its bananas.

First off, there are lots of tech companies outside of California. Secondly, calls for tariffs and other trade barriers are more likely to come from other partys of the US - like the midwest and east coast.

"We will lose all that federal tax revenue from Californians." Good, I say. The less money in the coffers of our central government will always be a victory for freedom and goodness. Fewer tax dollars means fewer bombs dropped on Iraq and less regulation.

Those tax dollars were the reason he claimed to tolerate California...

"We will lose the use of port facilities on the West Coast." First, the US East Coast has more and better ports than the Left Coast. Second, even Californians and their Northwest brethren might even find that free trade works. Motivated people can find optimum trade relations if they wish, so the loss of port facilities does not have to matter a whit.

Too bad about the important US trading partners in the Pacific.

"We will lose the benefits of the excellent universities and schools in those states." Nonsense, I say. The University of California at Berkeley (or "Berserkely," as some locals lovingly call it) has always been at the forefront of trashing all things good and decent, while Stanford University hates Western civilization. Anyway, if smart, useful people who have attended California’s universities can find a way to work in the United States, then there will be gains from trade and the problem will be solved.

The People's Republic of Berkley? Yeah that's the ticket. (BTW, the student activist movement got it's start back east and in the midwest. The SDS, for example, was started an Ann Arbor. Basing ones arguments on an ignorance of
current events does not lend credence.)

"We will lose some of our greatest political leadership." Oh, please! Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Diane Feinstein, and Willie Brown are not political leaders. They are thieves, crooks, and charlatans. Any state that elects those folks to office deserves whatever punishment it receives.

Theives? Again, the tax comment comes back to bite you. Theives take money, not give it to the rest of the country.

And what of the rightwing politicians from California? Would he also count Nixon and Regan as thieves, crooks, and charlatans?

"There could be a refugee problem, as productive, decent, and thinking people are forced out of the Marxist California state." This is a problem? Please remember that Fidel Castro ran out the cream of the crop in Cuba in 1960, thus sending us entrepreneurs and others who were productive. It was only later that Castro was left only with criminals who also found they could have better pickings in the USA. Certainly the mass exodus of productive Californians would be a boon to this country. Not only that, but those who would choose to leave the Socialist Golden State Republic would also be those who most despise the interventionist state.

Funny he doesn't mention the gangsters, crooks, and mental patients Castro also dumped on our doorstep...

Whatever the problems caused by the departure of the Left Coast may be, they are hardly insurmountable. That is because motivated people can engage in trade. On the other hand, should the Left Coast form its own Bolshavia, we can then see another socialist laboratory in action – and we don’t have to directly bear the consequences of socialist stupidity. We can simply sit on the sidelines and watch Californians implement socialism – and the rest of us won’t have to pay them a dime.

What was that about California giving more money than they get?

I sort of agree with him. What do you think?

I think he's one of thoese loony libertarians* who give us reasonable libertarians* a bad name. I also think that if you agree with him, you're a bit loony as well.

(*Europeans and others who follow the convention that libertarian = left libertarian may wish to substitute either US libertarian or liberal for the term libertarian so as to avoid confusion. ;))

I have, and commendable though your education is, I'm not sure you're citing it correctly.

I cite it only as a conservative whine about a government he didn't like. It's quite true there's no "why Marathon should secede from Attica" rant in it.

I cite it only as a conservative whine about a government he didn't like. It's quite true there's no "why Marathon should secede from Attica" rant in it.

I meant that the Old Oligarch writes some thing along the lines of, and this incredibly praiseed, "I don't like it, but it works for them". I'm sure modern conservatives would not make such an admission.;)

Eh. I've been to Southern Cali several times in my short life. I don't care what happens to it. It's a fucked up place, populated largely by senile hippies.

And what of the rightwing politicians from California? Would he also count Nixon and Regan as thieves, crooks, and charlatans?
*Giggles*

I meant that the Old Oligarch writes some thing along the lines of, and this incredibly praiseed, "I don't like it, but it works for them". I'm sure modern conservatives would not make such an admission.;)

Good point. He'd be called an OINO ... Oligarch In Name Only. ;)

So many times it takes someone from Europe, Asia, or Africa to shed light on the obvious we gloss over here in the U?.S.

we have such a young country, that we still dont know what to do with it...scares me.

Thank you Pure Metal,
-"the Rafe System"

i'm not american but i think california could secede and do quite well as its own country without the conservatism and religious nonsense supposedly evident in the rest of the country.

<snip>
I sort of agree with him. What do you think?

i think he might be a moron.

*Giggles*

;)

Seriously, I think he was a pretty good president. Too bad he got caught doing what most pols do.

What if all of the "Left Coast" joined Canada together? Washington is pretty much Canada anyway.

I'm not sure if I should be offended or if I should just roll my eyes... :rolleyes:

*Giggles*

Oh, come off it. Nixon was a fantastic President. He was just too paranoid for his own good and let the situation get away from him. Had that not happened, I suspect we'd be considering Nixon as one of the good ones, in terms of Presidents.

Then you're leaving behind the Northeastern US. Why would we want to stay with even fewer liberal votes in the house and senate and electoral college? If California goes the Northeast would have a big incentive to leave as well.

Er... We've been secretly trying to detatch California from it's bordering states to send it sailing blissfully off into the ocean.

Oregon is by far not normal or rational (look at our ballot measures for god's sake) don't get me wrong. But we keep things interesting in congress. We gave you the "Klingons in the Whitehouse speech" after all.

Oh, come off it. Nixon was a fantastic President. He was just too paranoid for his own good and let the situation get away from him. Had that not happened, I suspect we'd be considering Nixon as one of the good ones, in terms of Presidents.

But he was and it did, so he goes onto the rubbish heap of history, right along with LBJ. I've always thought Johnson was a great president, but he got mired in that damned war, and blew his chance at greatness.

Why California Must Secede at Once
by William L. Anderson
I sort of agree with him. What do you think?

I think I'll put William L Anderson on my iggy list.

The secession of California would bankrupt the rest of the union. Both in fiscal terms and skills terms, because I suspect most of the skill pool would rather live in the small, wealthy democratic nation of California, than the meager theocracy that'd be left.

We're happy to leave when ever you're ready. At least we wouldn't have to listen to all of your whining and bitching between suckling on our teat anymore...

EDIT: Was that guy going to get around to what it was specifically that this was about, or was it run of the mill Caliphobia?

Don't leave us here alone!:(

hey...dumbass...

ITS CALLED STATES CANT SECEDE....a little thing called the constitution forbids it.

I think William L. Anderson is a fat slug who should get out from behind his blogsphere and do some real work, like giving me a sloppy blowjob.


My patience has run out.

Woe to America. Quick, this is a fucking emergency, his infinite patience is running out.

In fact, the former Republic of California can also take Washington State and Oregon with it and start a new country on this continent’s West Coast. Maybe they can call this new nation Bolshavia.

LOL cuz we're all commies. What a fucking hack. Stop living in the McCarthy Era already. We invented, and reinvented, capitalism.

The latest power crisis in which Californians are demanding that electricity producers outside the state work for free (a nice term for this is forced labor) to provide them with low-priced electrical power has put me over the edge. Until now, I could tolerate California, since it generally sends Washington, DC, more taxes than it receives in benefits (California: The State for Suckers!) and produced John Wooden’s great UCLA basketball teams.

Oh ho, so as long as California - alone amongst 50 states - contributes to the US economy and federal government more than it receives, you're OK. The minute we become more like YOUR podunk state, your "patience runs out" and you're "over the edge." Hypocrisy.

Free Lunch Philosophy

Failure to apply. Please retry with 21st century relevance.

full cost of their Jane Fonda Socialism.

Failure to apply. Please retry with 21st century relevance.

After all, I reside in South Carolina

Why does that not surprise me? Let's see, South Carolina is 47th out of 50 states in terms of GDP per capita. Where is California? 13th? Oh, and our gross domestic product is more than any other state and makes up about 17% of the USA's GDP. Our agriculture sector is about twice as large as that of any other state, though our aerospace, computer technology and entertainment industry sectors are much larger.

I conclude: William L. Anderson is suffering from capitalist penis envy. He knows California's "socialists" (LOL) make more money than him and his state ever will, that we make America great, and his only reaction is to grunt and shout and scratch his sagging balls.

California, on the other hand, is an insane asylum and the rest of us are insane if we continue to allow that state to impose its evil will upon us.

LOL

Paranoia.


"If California leaves the union, then it takes all of its high technology firms with it." This objection is based upon the assumption that there are no gains from trade. Just because I want California out of our political union does not mean I want to boycott products from that state. Furthermore, I would want no trade barriers to block imports from or exports to California. Granted, Californians are stupid enough to set up trade barriers on their own, but the barriers would harm California more than this country.

Says you. You want an America that is almost 1/5th poorer, 1/10th less populated, and without access to the Pacific Ocean. Maybe they don't teach economics in South Carolina.

"We will lose all that federal tax revenue from Californians." Good, I say. The less money in the coffers of our central government will always be a victory for freedom and goodness. Fewer tax dollars means fewer bombs dropped on Iraq and less regulation.

And yet you were complaining because those tax dollars are being used, or proposed to use, for California's energy so-called crisis? It's amazing. Tax dollars matter when they're an excuse to hate on California, and they don't matter for the exact same reason. Aren't we versatile.

"We will lose the use of port facilities on the West Coast." First, the US East Coast has more and better ports than the Left Coast.

They really DON'T teach economics in South Carolina!

Second, even Californians and their Northwest brethren might even find that free trade works. Motivated people can find optimum trade relations if they wish, so the loss of port facilities does not have to matter a whit.

True. Free trade works. But since we're all Bolshevik Jane Fonda Socialists, we'll just embargo your South Carolina ass and watch you slowly die of scurvy. Oh well, there's a trade-off for everything.

"We will lose the benefits of the excellent universities and schools in those states." Nonsense, I say. The University of California at Berkeley (or "Berserkely," as some locals lovingly call it) has always been at the forefront of trashing all things good and decent, while Stanford University hates Western civilization.

Really, that doesn't seem to be the consensus of the Pentagon.

should the Left Coast form its own Bolshavia, we can then see another socialist laboratory in action – and we don’t have to directly bear the consequences of socialist stupidity. We can simply sit on the sidelines and watch Californians implement socialism – and the rest of us won’t have to pay them a dime.

Right, so your argument seems centered around the fact that California is a bunch of socialist communist bolsheviks, and by going "la la la free trade" whenever someone mentions California's enormous contribution to the economy. All because what, California is for ONCE asking something from someone other than ourselves?

You want us to leave, fine. But it'll be YOUR dumb-ass state that becomes the laboratory for stupidity. Not that it isn't already.

I sort of agree with him. What do you think?

I think he's a stupid old shiteater. His arguments are based on nothing but paranoia, dumb stereotypes, and total ignorance of politics and economics.

You want us to leave the union? And take Washington and Oregon too? You know, maybe we'll take Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. And Mexico. And Hawaii. Alaska too. Maybe when our tanks are grinding your skull against the pavement you'll re-think this whole, "let's hate on California LOL!" thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumamba Buwhan View Post
What if all of the "Left Coast" joined Canada together? Washington is pretty much Canada anyway.

I'm not sure if I should be offended or if I should just roll my eyes... :rolleyes:

As a native Washingtonian, I would just like to point out that Canada has a much larger cohesiveness crisis, and it is probably more accurate to describe BC as pretty much Washington; and for that matter, the whole lot of BC, WA, NoCal, and Oregon as Cascadia. That said, I'm sure many northwesterners (Northern CA to SE Alaska) would gladly accept the assistance of southern conservatives to push a coastal secession movement through congress (BC would join in an instant). As much as they think we are wild-eyed socialists, we pretty much think of them as lunatic theocrats trying to bring about Armagedon by destabalizing the world (ok, the middle east - the rest is just a by-product) and destroying the environment.

hey...dumbass...

ITS CALLED STATES CANT SECEDE....a little thing called the constitution forbids it.

actually, the constitution doesn't say if we can or can't. That was the whole "Civil War" thing.

It certainly wouldn't be economically beneficial. Look at what happened when Northern Ireland stopped being part of the Republic of Ireland.

Erm...what world are you living in?

actually, the constitution doesn't say if we can or can't. That was the whole "Civil War" thing.

There is a supreme court case, Texas v. White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White), that concludes that states do not have the ability to secede, or that the southern states did not do so constitutionally. It was based on an interesting argument involving the Articles of Confederation, as well as the Constitution's preamble declaration of forming "a more perfect union". Also, the Article IV guarantee of a republican form of government to every state. Now, it seems that the states absolutely cannot seceede, as the court distinguished between states and their government, and the constitution specifically allows the incorporation of states, and said state government is a function of the state, not the other way around. Therefore, the state government cannot disolve a state from the union. The court did, however, include an interesting exception, namely the majority opinion stated

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

It sounds to me like a state government cannot disolve itself from the union legally unless through the consent of the states. HOWEVER, it may also be possible that a shaddow government of the territory comprising a state could, in fact, through "revolution", sieze power from the state government, with or without that government's consent, and it would still be constitutional.

actually, the constitution doesn't say if we can or can't. That was the whole "Civil War" thing.

And anyway, the author of that little article wasn't so much advocating California seceding as he was throwing them out.

Yay, another idiot who feels it would be better to just give up, get rid of them... I mean maybe if you actually, sincerely and thoughtfully worked with them. Helped them to see the "folly of their ways," the lunacy of some of their views and ideology. And maybe help yourself to see some of your own. Then maybe, just maybe we could get back to our standard state of agreeing to disagree, while working together to get done what needs to be done.


On a side note. I find it sad to see some people *cough* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12248346&postcount=40) of or for the "Blue States" making fun of this guy and others from the "Red States" when it wasn't very long ago that the "Blue" were whining about secession or even leaving the country over the unfavorable results of an election or two... :rolleyes:

*snip* On a side note. I find it sad to see some people *cough* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12248346&postcount=40) of or for the "Blue States" making fun of this guy and others from the "Red States" when it wasn't very long ago that the "Blue" were whining about secession or even leaving the country over the unfavorable results of an election or two... :rolleyes:

Oh, come on, you cannot tell me you wouldn't do a little gloating if the conservatives had maintained their majority. Not honestly, you can't. Talk about sucking all the fun out of politics.

JUst wondering What would happen if a State democratically voted for Independece and the voting was all fair and above board

Yay secession! Woohoo!

However, now that California is showing its true colors, I admit that my eyes are opened at last. Whatever gains I might have from California’s excess of tax revenues has been swallowed up in the Free Lunch Philosophy that has emanated from that state for many years.

Fucking hypocrite.

Oh, come on, you cannot tell me you wouldn't do a little gloating if the conservatives had maintained their majority. Not honestly, you can't. Talk about sucking all the fun out of politics.

Conservatives didn't lose the minority, republicans did.

Many of the new democrats were as or more conservative as the republican they replaced.

States should be allowed to secede. I would love to see an independent Republic of Minnesota.

I stopped paying attention after 'Bolshavia'.

I stopped after "My patience is wearing out". Ol' coot.

I stopped after he told Washington to GTFO.

Well fuck that.

The 13 colonies seceded (declaring independence is secession) from Great Britain for political reasons, and thus I find it ironic that the states do not have a right to secession.

There are in fact actual, good reasons that California could secede. But they are reasons that are good FOR California, not for bumfucks who just hate California based on mindless stereotypes.

I laugh when I hear Californian's talk about secession...

It would indeed be bad for the rest of the Union...but the nation would adapt, adjust, and move on.

California would probably be OK for a while, but there are a number of issues which California is simply not prepared for or not capable of dealing with on it's own, any one of which could spell disaster for an independent California.

These include...

1. Disasters in metropolitan areas (Just look at New Orleans)

2. External security issues (N. Korean missile threat, terrorism...they won't go away just because your not part of the U.S. anymore)

3. Immigration issues...hell, Mexico just might try to take back what was theirs.

4. Energy issues...anyone who thinks California will be able to handle it's own energy needs is on crack. Rolling brownouts anyone? Even if they diversify and develop alternative energy, the need for fossil fuels won't instantly dissapear, and significant government assistance would be needed to make the transistion to more sustainable energy sources. (ie: more taxes)

5. Agricultural issues...just look at the what the cold snap recently did to the Orange crop. Doesn't matter too much except for the farmers as part of the Union. Could cause a recession or depression in an independent California.

6. Infastructure issues...good luck funding your highways by yourself. And god help you when that earthquake hits.

7. International relations...are you prepared to renegotiate trade and relations with nearly every nation on earth? Are you ready to deal with the problems that will arise from being inescapably tied to the U.S., and not having the rest of the U.S. economy or the military to back you up?

8. Military - Speaking of which...the armed forces cost money...a LOT of money, and California would likely have to start nearly from scratch (NG will still be there, but most of their hardware would have to be handed over...unless you want a war with the U.S. right away)

9. Buisness - Taxes will go up in California if they achieve independence. Federal taxes will dissapear, but so will federal dollars. Despite California giving more than it gets, there are a whole slew of areas that California need not currently address that will HAVE to be addressed as an independent nation. High taxation will adversely affect many buisnesses, and capital flight has the potential to become a serious problem.

...that's just the part of the iceberg that's above water.

So go ahead and seceed....we all know you'll be back.

The Nine Nations of North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America), anyone?

Why California should NOT secede from the Union.

The US goverment will go to war with it. States are not allowed to secede because they feel like it...the southern states tried that already.

Actually, there's one state, Vermont, that has it in its constitution that secession is always an option, and by approving that constitution, the federal government has -- tacitly, if nothing else -- granted that option.

1. Disasters in metropolitan areas (Just look at New Orleans)


You know New Orleans isn't in California, right?

Like so many of the other points in this collection - internal disaster security would not be as big a deal as you make it out to be - once California stopped supporting other states.


2. External security issues (N. Korean missile threat, terrorism...they won't go away just because your not part of the U.S. anymore)


They might. California isn't screwing with Korea, the US is. If California left the union, they might find themselves in a much better position vis-a-vis Pacific Rim relationships.


3. Immigration issues...hell, Mexico just might try to take back what was theirs.


Possible. Even possible that California might immediately decide to join Mexico. After all, it's the US it would be leaving - not the world.

However, it will still likely be easier for Mexicans to keep crossing the border into the rest of the US, than to filter through the little border with California, and it has to be easier for Mexico to keep a relaxed attitude about border crossing, than to conduct a war against California.

Also - you seem to assume that California would, for some reason, choose not to form treaties with any other powers...


4. Energy issues...anyone who thinks California will be able to handle it's own energy needs is on crack. Rolling brownouts anyone? Even if they diversify and develop alternative energy, the need for fossil fuels won't instantly dissapear, and significant government assistance would be needed to make the transistion to more sustainable energy sources. (ie: more taxes)


Considering that, in recent yeas, the rest of the US has been a very negative influence on energy efficiency in California, it seems that losing the dead weight might actually help on energy issues.

Add to which, without funds constantly siphoned off to the rest of the US, Californians might be much more easily able to sustain their own Green initiatives.

Your assertion that it could only be achieved through taxation is illogical.


5. Agricultural issues...just look at the what the cold snap recently did to the Orange crop. Doesn't matter too much except for the farmers as part of the Union. Could cause a recession or depression in an independent California.


Oranges are not the only fruit.

By which, I am trying to say... if California wasn't part of the economy of the US, it is unlikely that they would specialise so heavily.


6. Infastructure issues...good luck funding your highways by yourself. And god help you when that earthquake hits.


Remember how California gives much more money to the union, than it takes back?


7. International relations...are you prepared to renegotiate trade and relations with nearly every nation on earth? Are you ready to deal with the problems that will arise from being inescapably tied to the U.S., and not having the rest of the U.S. economy or the military to back you up?


The dollar walks. California, on it's own, is something like the fifth biggest economy in the world. I suspect trade and relations might be somewhat eased by that fact.

Being realistic, the US itself would probably be more than willing to negotiate with the new Californian state.


8. Military - Speaking of which...the armed forces cost money...a LOT of money, and California would likely have to start nearly from scratch (NG will still be there, but most of their hardware would have to be handed over...unless you want a war with the U.S. right away)


I'm not sure how realistic this is. If we are talking about a real secession - we are talking about California having been recognised as a sovereign entity by other nations. If that had happened during the War of Northern Aggression, both England and France were in position to send troops to defend the Confederacy, and others would have followed.

By which I mean - the US has narrowly avoided one 'world war' fought on US soil... do you really think they want another?


9. Buisness - Taxes will go up in California if they achieve independence. Federal taxes will dissapear, but so will federal dollars. Despite California giving more than it gets, there are a whole slew of areas that California need not currently address that will HAVE to be addressed as an independent nation. High taxation will adversely affect many buisnesses, and capital flight has the potential to become a serious problem.


Not an immediate or convincing argument. As you say - California gives out more than it takes. So - not every program will be supported to current levels - but there is no immediate reason to leap to high taxation as the only answer.

Indeed - just off the top of my head - you conjure up an image where industry is leaving California as fast as it can... I can equally easily conjure up a vision where California is making it easier for industry to get in, since they will no longer be bound by the whole raft of US federal redtape and paper. Indeed - with all that border with the US, and a servicable border with Mexico, international trade in California might become it's biggest commodity.

I've got a better idea. Why don't we force the South to secceed again?

Yes, let the South go. What has Lincoln thinking? They've done nothing but drag us down. Oh, we will survive the tobacco shortage. And yes, there's got to be someone in the rest of the country more competent than Bush. :rolleyes:

I've got a better idea. Why don't we force the South to secceed again?

I'm cool with that - just give me enough warning that I can get somewhere civilised first...

Let all the states succeed. I declare that it is unnatural that states should be united to form a more perfect union. We must protect the sanctity of states!

I've got a better idea. Why don't we force the South to secceed again?

I'm cool with that - just give me enough warning that I can get somewhere civilised first...

Yes, because the South is full of nothing but ignorant rednecks... :rolleyes:

Yes, let the South go. What has Lincoln thinking? They've done nothing but drag us down. Oh, we will survive the tobacco shortage. And yes, there's got to be someone in the rest of the country more competent than Bush. :rolleyes:

Hooray. Another poster who can throw a jab at Bush in any random thread. A real winner you are. :rolleyes:

Let all the states succeed. I declare that it is unnatural that states should be united to form a more perfect union. We must protect the sanctity of states!

"Succeed" is not the same as "secede." You do realise that, right?

Oh, wait...you don't.

I seriously doubt a nation as warlike and belligerent as the americans could share borders with themselves without it turning into a bloodbath á-la yugoslavia.

Yes, because the South is full of nothing but ignorant rednecks... :rolleyes:


I didn't say that. On the other hand - the part where I live really is.

My mother-in-law is pretty typical for this area, and she comes out with gems of wisdom like "I would rather vote for Clinton than Rice, because Rice is black, and once you let 'one of them' get in, you'll never get them out".

DOn't ride my ass because you don't like what I have to say. I made no generalisations - where I live is far from civilised. Unless you are lucky enough to be a straight, white, married Baptist... in which case they might treat you okay.

Get over yourself, already.

Why just California? Why not every other state as well?

I didn't say that. On the other hand - the part where I live really is.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

My mother-in-law is pretty typical for this area, and she comes out with gems of wisdom like "I would rather vote for Clinton than Rice, because Rice is black, and once you let 'one of them' get in, you'll never get them out".

Sounds like my father, who grew up in Rhode Island. Bigotry and racism isn't the exclusive purview of the South, y'know.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle;12251598]DOn't ride my ass because you don't like what I have to say.

I'll ride your ass all I like, because what you said was ignorant.

I made no generalisations - where I live is far from civilised.

Actually, you did. And it's interesting to see that you believe yourself so far above those around you. :rolleyes:

Unless you are lucky enough to be a straight, white, married Baptist... in which case they might treat you okay.

Been treated quite fine everywhere I've been in the South, even though I only qualify on two of the four markers you set (the straight and white ones, although they have no way of knowing I'm straight just by looking at me -- and, in fact, I've been mistaken for gay a lot more than once). Seems you need to stop whining and get over yourself. Maybe they just don't like you for the person you are, and based on your posts in this thread, frankly, I don't blame them.

Get over yourself, already.

Might say the same to you. Oh, wait...I pretty much did already.

I'm cool with that - just give me enough warning that I can get somewhere civilised first...

Excellent idea. Let us know when you arrive in the civilised South from uncivilyankeestan. :D

Sounds like a personal problem to me.


Yes. I made North East Georgia into a nest of bigotry.

My bad.


Sounds like my father, who grew up in Rhode Island. Bigotry and racism isn't the exclusive purview of the South, y'know.


Once again - I never suggested that was so. On the other hand - I have found New York fairly 'civilised', and it isn't 'here' - so, if the South secedes, and I am faced with the choice of this aprt of a secessionist state, or that part of the union... I'm sticking with the union on that one.


I'll ride your ass all I like, because what you said was ignorant.


In your opinion. You extrapolated a generalisation out of what I said, and proceeded to fight me over it (and still are). To my mind, that is more 'ignorant' than anything I might have said.


Actually, you did. And it's interesting to see that you believe yourself so far above those around you. :rolleyes:


I am. I do not exclude people from being human, just because they might happen to be a 'towelhead' or 'one of them blacks' or 'part of the gay agenda' or 'godless heathens' ... or any of the other ignorant stupidities I have to bear on a daily basis.

That make sme better than them.


Been treated quite fine everywhere I've been in the South, even though I only qualify on two of the four markers you set (the straight and white ones, although they have no way of knowing I'm straight just by looking at me -- and, in fact, I've been mistaken for gay a lot more than once). Seems you need to stop whining and get over yourself. Maybe they just don't like you for the person you are, and based on your posts in this thread, frankly, I don't blame them.


I care. Seriously. You've got me weeping in my grits.


Might say the same to you. Oh, wait...I pretty much did already.

Yes, you did. Well done.

I
3. Immigration issues...hell, Mexico just might try to take back what was theirs.


They'd get their asses kicked if they tried.


5. Agricultural issues...just look at the what the cold snap recently did to the Orange crop. Doesn't matter too much except for the farmers as part of the Union. Could cause a recession or depression in an independent California.


That was about 1% of the export sector for one year. I think you're overestimating its effects.


So go ahead and seceed....we all know you'll be back.

Oh, well if you say so, it must be true.

Every once in a while a small group of Californians (and, as seen, a small group of piss-ant whiners) get all riled up about use seceding, but it never gets all that far. Before WWII there was a movement to cut off the top of California and the bottom of Oregon into another state (The State of Jefferson) because they felt that their rural needs (mostly related to logging roads) where being ignored by the metropolitan portions of their respective states. But no, it's not something that is really at a forefront.

We where our own country (why it says Republic on the flag and has that star-solidarity with Texas...ah how times have changed...) for like a month.

Hellos,
wha? i dont get your last line, where you said "we were our own country for like a month".

do you mean Cali, or Texas? AKA - who is the "we"? :confused:

-Rafe,
OOC

Hellos,
wha? i dont get your last line, where you said "we were our own country for like a month".

do you mean Cali, or Texas? AKA - who is the "we"? :confused:

-Rafe,
OOC

He meant California. Texas was a separate country for around 10 years. Also, why did you go and dig up a 5 month old thread?

http://www.applefritter.com/images/zombie_1-9316_640x480.jpg

Hey, can I stay? I live in Riverside, which like the most (landwise) of California is VERY against all that liberal nonsense (like welfare and free lunch). If you actually look at a map showing the party of the representatives of their districts in California, the only majorly blue areas are San Fransisco (duh), Los Angeles (double duh), and San Diego (similar to LA duh). Also, similar maps will show that, excepting Orange county, all of the districts immediately bordering the Pacific are Democrat-represented.


HEY! That gives me an idea! We'll just blow open the San Andreas Fault and the Blue Coast will sink into the sea! Problem solved, right?

no doubt there many from the west coast states who would love to secede...

I lived in a little place called Cannon Beach in Northwest Oregon once. About half the cars in town didnt have liscence plates, the 'town council' was known as a local hotbox (at least the local kids were getting involved in government :rolleyes: ) and THE major event of the year was Sandlecastle Day.
Ironically almost all the residents semed keen on making good use of the local postal system, roads and other handy government services.
I also recall a piece of local legislation banning franchises, arcades, and 'public soda fountains.' Best Western got in somehow though, and built the largest hotel within seventy miles smack in front of a bunch of rental houses.
That really made my day :D

Sounds good. I seceded from California and moved to Colorado. Most intelligent move I've ever made.

I went back to visit briefly. Even the two days I was there was two too many. The minute I stepped off the plane into the smelly, beige air I wanted to go back. But, no, I had to get a rental car and, once again, experience the cluster-fuck that is the California freeway system. Between the dirt, the rude people, the bad air and the chemical tasting water, California has become a joke. We won't even talk about the politics.

I've been back two weeks and my lungs have stopped punishing me. I may never go back. I hope I don't have to.

You don't have to be a conservative grouch to hate California.

Sounds good. I seceded from California and moved to Colorado. Most intelligent move I've ever made.

I went back to visit briefly. Even the two days I was there was two too many. The minute I stepped off the plane into the smelly, beige air I wanted to go back. But, no, I had to get a rental car and, once again, experience the cluster-fuck that is the California freeway system. Between the dirt, the rude people, the bad air and the chemical tasting water, California has become a joke. We won't even talk about the politics.

I've been back two weeks and my lungs have stopped punishing me. I may never go back. I hope I don't have to.

You don't have to be a conservative grouch to hate California.

That's ok. We are happy you are gone.

Smog? :D Shall we talk about Denver? Dirt? Shall we talk about Denver?

Rude people? Sorry you have them as well.

Some people need to remember that Southern California =/= California. It's just part of it, it's a big ass state. And 13% of the population, so...
Hellos,
wha? i dont get your last line, where you said "we were our own country for like a month".

do you mean Cali, or Texas? AKA - who is the "we"? :confused:

-Rafe,
OOC

California managed to be a 'country' for 30 days until moving on to territory status, which was rushed to state status when some dick at a mill found a shiny rock.

And all General posts are out of character unless you're a troll.

And how the hell did you find this thread? Jesus Christ man...get an axe.

I am perfectly for it.

The rest of the country couldn't survive without California

I'm sure California wouldnt mind though.
Indeed, and why should it?

i'm not american but i think california could secede and do quite well as its own country without the conservatism and religious nonsense supposedly evident in the rest of the country.
Hear hear!


So let's take it away!

What that means for the U.S. is an immediate loss of a huge amount of territory, most of the western coast, and everything else described in the paragraph above. Now, this guy may think that is a good thing, that we could get away with it by just trading, but as we all know, tradiing does not necessarily mean we actually still control those resources.
Well this is a great insight on the US mentality on trade. Trade does not let us control resources, therefore we must conquer anything we do not own (relax, I know you didn't say this - but it is the logical consequence.) Certainly explains US interventionism. What I cannot understand is why some people think secession = isolation. The newly seceded territory will still be open for trade, and people will still be able to visit it, work in it etc. It is in its direct economic interest NOT to shut off to the world.

Hey look!

Another shit for brains conservative ramble about them gawdam libruls in california!

Whiney pissantism from the the american right? oh me oh my, who'd have guessed :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
IOW: it's alright for liberals to complain about things, but when conservatives (or anyone else, for that matter) do it, it's whining.

I am perfectly for it.
Just cus or?
Indeed, and why should it?
Maybe because secession is pointless? No good comes from it.
IOW: it's alright for liberals to complain about things, but when conservatives (or anyone else, for that matter) do it, it's whining.
You may have a point, but conservatives are morally bankrupt. They and their arguments deserve to be dismissed.

Just cus or?
Hey, if a bunch of people in a country no longer want to belong and feel they can handle it better on their own, I am all for that.

Maybe because secession is pointless? No good comes from it.
Since when is self-determination pointless?

You may have a point, but conservatives are morally bankrupt. They and their arguments deserve to be dismissed.
I don't find US liberals to be much better.

You know when you've found a zombie thread when you read it and find a post by your old nation. And as I said before, I've no problem with secession so long as people's rights are maintained.

You know when you've found a zombie thread when you read it and find a post by your old nation. And as I said before, I've no problem with secession so long as people's rights are maintained.
Haha I only saw the dates on the posts now. I thought it was new. :p

Haha I only saw the dates on the posts now. I thought it was new. :p
I thought it was, until I read a post by "New Burmesia" - it was a definite WTF? moment.

Hey, if a bunch of people in a country no longer want to belong and feel they can handle it better on their own, I am all for that.
That's woefully short-sighted of you.
Since when is self-determination pointless?
Since the first group of yahoos who could vote got together and decided only white men should have any real rights in their little insignificant corner of redneck land..
For the most part, the people, especially the little people, are disgusting, easily led morons, at least in America. Self-determination is all well and good as a means to an end, that end being greater freedom, but it does not always work towards that end.
I don't find US liberals to be much better.
Most Americans are morally bankrupt, period.

That's woefully short-sighted of you.
I disagree.

Since the first group of yahoos who could vote got together and decided only white men should have any real rights in their little insignificant corner of redneck land..
Right, and if they secede with the purpose of abridging the rights of others (i.e. slavery), then obviously they have no basis for their secession.

For the most part, the people, especially the little people, are disgusting, easily led morons, at least in America.
My, such condescencion for the masses. :D

Right, and if they secede with the purpose of abridging the rights of others (i.e. slavery), then obviously they have no basis for their secession.

Agreed.

I disagree.
The only thing that's going to save us from the inevitable resource shortages that will be coming in the next century is the most political power possible being concentrated as centrally as possible.
Right, and if they secede with the purpose of abridging the rights of others (i.e. slavery), then obviously they have no basis for their secession.

So you do only support self-determination conditionally, then? Good. So do I.
My, such condescencion for the masses. :D
Indeed. Where it up to the masses, they'd all be dead.

I voted yes, but only because I think the dissolution of the Union is inevitable. And someone needs to go first.

The only thing that's going to save us from the inevitable resource shortages that will be coming in the next century is the most political power possible being concentrated as centrally as possible.

i.e., fascism.

No thanks.

i.e., fascism.

No thanks.
So every government with a central power structure is fascist now? I should inform the majority of Western Europe.

So every government with a central power structure is fascist now? I should inform the majority of Western Europe.

I'll quote you. Emphasis added is mine:

The only thing that's going to save us from the inevitable resource shortages that will be coming in the next century is the most political power possible being concentrated as centrally as possible.

Either you're advocating fascism, or you unintentionally worded it in such a way as to make it seem that you're endorsing fascism. In all fairness, I am assuming the latter is the case.

The only thing that's going to save us from the inevitable resource shortages that will be coming in the next century is the most political power possible being concentrated as centrally as possible.
Because centralized governments have such a good track record of being efficient?

So you do only support self-determination conditionally, then? Good. So do I.
I support it so long as it serves the purpose of self-determination. Seceding to enslave negroes, for instance, doesn't really do that.

Indeed. Where it up to the masses, they'd all be dead.
Why? I know I am part of the "mass", though I am unaware of any death wish on my part. Methinks you need to go on a Schopenhauer-free diet.

Because centralized governments have such a good track record of being efficient?
Federal ones do? It all depends on who's in charge, but the only way for the government to get done what it will need to get done is the ability to override the short-sided aims of local politicians.
Why? I know I am part of the "mass",
If you want to make that claim, go right ahead. However, you exhibit neither the obvious stupidity nor the characteristic moral failings evident in those that are in truth of "the masses". (Terminology I'm not fond of, by the by, I prefer the term "the people.")
though I am unaware of any death wish on my part.
The people don't need a death wish to die, they merely need short-sighted demagogues to lead them to self-destruction.

If the US Government would let California secede (which it will not of course), then I think it is a good idea - that would mean that the Democrats have even less of a chance of ruling the US and it will remain Republican in perpetuity.

I read this as "Wahh, I don't want so many confirmed liberal votes for the president, wahhh." Was that wrong?


But to be fair, I will see you California and raise you Texas.

Federal ones do? It all depends on who's in charge, but the only way for the government to get done what it will need to get done is the ability to override the short-sided aims of local politicians.
I'm not in the mood for a protracted debate on this, so I'll leave it for now.

The people don't need a death wish to die, they merely need short-sighted demagogues to lead them to self-destruction.
'There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted ... they are like sheep following the bellwether wherever it leads them. They would rather die than think.'

Schoppy (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1478872,00.html) and you would've been good friends. :D

Personally, I think if you treat people like sheep they will eventually grow into it and fill the part.

Did'nt things get rather sticky the last time anybody left the union?

I read this as "Wahh, I don't want so many confirmed liberal votes for the president, wahhh." Was that wrong?


But to be fair, I will see you California and raise you Texas.

Alrighty, the Republicans still benefit by a net of twenty votes anyway (55 votes in California, 34 votes in Texas)

*sighs*

What is this 'Bolshavia' crap?

Why California should NOT secede from the Union.

The US goverment will go to war with it. States are not allowed to secede because they feel like it...the southern states tried that already.

U.S army after California declares secession:

California
Here we come

California
California
Here we come
Ohhh

California
California
Here we come

But who will make movies?On the heavier side, um why?He presented no good reasons.Bolshavia???

Secession California may claim, only if Texas may do the same.

California should secede, except San Francisco. SF is cool.

And by "secede", I mean be destroyed by a giant fuckin' tidal wave, a la Ænema.

I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
And never frowns
Soon I will be president...

Carter Power will soon go away
I will be Fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will meditate in school
Your kids will meditate in school!

California Uber Alles
California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California
Uber Alles California

Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face

Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
Mellow out or you will pay!

California Uber Alles
California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California
Uber Alles California

Now it is 1984
Knock-knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool niece

Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower.

DIE on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will croak, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown
When you mess with President Brown