EPTOn November 12 2009 12:51 koreasilver wrote:
lol according to that Russian, Canada gets stuck with all the shitty states.
lol according to that Russian, Canada gets stuck with all the shitty states.
fuck you bitch. Michigan > canada
Secession in the United States - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
fuck you bitch. Michigan > canada | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
<3 | ||
|
arb
Noobville17922 Posts
| ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
What the fuck... Just... What the fuck. Too much vodka i guess. | ||
|
InToTheWannaB
United States4770 Posts
The video does bring up one thing that the history of other empires shows is true. When a nation stops expanding its territory and try's to hold its boarders. That's the day that empire starts to decline. The USA not going to be adding any states in my life time. So that's kind of a scary thought, but also we live in a new age where nations like the USA and other major powers really stop themselves for expanding. That's something we never seen before in world history. Normally the only thing that would stop a nation from expanding is running into another military force. The guy from the video also forgets to talk about one thing that's really important when talking about the USA. The USA is really a experimental nation. Allot of the reasons that divide other nations like, language, race, ethnicity, and culture. They don't have as much of a dividing effect on Americans because its a big mixing pot. Americans have lived for 200 years with the idea that differences in ideas and culture are part of what makes this nation great. That's pretty unique to us. | ||
|
d3_crescentia
United States4054 Posts
So, no. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On November 12 2009 12:55 Mykill wrote: Canada always get shit states  who the fuck wants north dakota... Hey now, don't trash talk N. Dakota. With all the hunters from that state getting them will probably double Canada's military capabilites. | ||
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
On November 12 2009 13:05 arb wrote: Damn i bet if this happened Abe licoln would come out of his grave and slap some bitches for fucking his shit up yeah, i bet. "roflsup niggas?" "Is that Abraham Linco--" *CLICK* *BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!* | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
The most important part of the presentation was the discussion of gods, of the disparity between promises and reality, of the loss of legitimacy in the eyes of a politic. Under such situations, a nation state can disappear in a blink of an eye. It is more important to consider the legitimacy question rather than the idea of expansion and contraction. The limit to the expansion is usually due to a bureaucratic limitations of an empire - rather that it is organizationally impossible to continue expansion and maintain unity. Take for example the Mongolian empire which in essence divided upon the death of Ghenghis into various Khans of his relatives. | ||
|
InToTheWannaB
United States4770 Posts
On November 12 2009 13:40 TanGeng wrote: Yeah the video does make allot of good points, but there can also be a change in goverment while the nation remains intact. The idea of disparity can bring about change, but I doubt it would lead to any break up of the union. @InToTheWannaB The most important part of the presentation was the discussion of gods, of the disparity between promises and reality, of the loss of legitimacy in the eyes of a politic. Under such situations, a nation state can disappear in a blink of an eye. It is more important to consider the legitimacy question rather than the idea of expansion and contraction. The limit to the expansion is usually due to a bureaucratic limitations of an empire - rather that it is organizationally impossible to continue expansion and maintain unity. Take for example the Mongolian empire which in essence divided upon the death of Ghenghis into various Khans of his relatives. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
If seceding had been seriously brought up years ago by intelligent people and it wasnt an obvious scam/scare tactic then maybe the argument would hold some weight. Seceding from States has been talked about before but seceding from the entire US is a recent covert or overt(depending on who you are) right wing fringe idea. | ||
|
Gnabgib
United States381 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:31 TanGeng wrote: Here's my opinion for anyone that would like to know. + Show Spoiler + I think there will be some form of secession when the federal debt becomes unmanageable, and default or severe inflation risk will probably cause the richer parts of the country to secede from the union. I tend to welcome this prospect provided that it's done in peace without civil war and without a giant wall fencing people in(Germany). The wide political differences between various states and politics could become a subject of intellectual curiosity rather than rabid political opposite. Not having to fight over the spoils of politics may have that positive effect. . Give me a example of a "rich state" and i'll give you a ton of reasons why it is too dependent on the rest of the states for it to secede. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 12 2009 14:08 Gnabgib wrote: Give me a example of a "rich state" and i'll give you a ton of reasons why it is too dependent on the rest of the states for it to secede. On trade yes. But open trade doesn't mean that they have to be party to the federal government. I would venture to think that if New England were to secede in total, New York would have a treaty up for free movement of people across its borders in days. | ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
On November 12 2009 12:30 tree.hugger wrote: Some would take the resupplying of Fort Sumter as Union aggression on the South(twas in Charleston county right?), giving a sort of casus belli to both sides (sounds like someone was getting ready for war~!!). No, it's true, I may have been wrong to characterize secession as treason. The session of the Confederacy wasn't the main act of treason, the firing upon territory held by the Union Army was. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 12 2009 14:15 ShroomyD wrote: Some would take the resupplying of Fort Sumter as Union aggression on the South(twas in Charleston county right?), giving a sort of casus belli to both sides (sounds like someone was getting ready for way~!!). resupplying does not equal firing. and i don't think the soldiers there chose to secede. | ||
|
Macavenger
United States1132 Posts
Guy who wrote this needs to be studying American politics more, as some of his predictions are totally whack. Wash/Ore/Cali would be like "gtfo racist jerks" to Utah and Idaho if this split occurred; they'd go with the north central area probably. NM would probably go with the pacific block; Hawii would stick there rather than going to Japan. Alaska would be on its own; undoubtedly Russia would have a heavy economic influence but they wouldn't own it short of invasion/occupation. The area east of the Rockies would probably split into 4 or 5 chunks, not 3. And actually this is assuming splits occurred strictly along state lines, which is kind of unlikely. I know some people in southern Oregon + extreme northern Cali would already like to split off and form a new state together, etc. Also, China would end up with influence over all the resulting countries, as they'd wave all their IOUs at everyone and be like "yo, someone's going to make good on all these." Note: In case it isn't clear, there are some exaggerations above for comedic effect. No, I don't think everyone in Idaho and Utah is racist, etc. | ||
|
theron[wdt]
United States395 Posts
| ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
On November 12 2009 14:18 jalstar wrote: resupplying does not equal firing. and i don't think the soldiers there chose to secede. well it seemed like the people of south carolina did :S the thing with democracy is that you can vote with your feet~! no need to start a war over your stubbornness``1~!~!~!`1~!!~1111!!! | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On November 12 2009 14:32 theron[wdt] wrote: i dont think itll happen. It's not going to happen. Ever. This is just an absurd idea. Right now all the states are depending on the national government. You really think that any state can survive with out money? Almost every state is in bankruptcy. The idea in general shouldn't even be thought of either way. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:36 statix wrote: Isn't the only state that can legally secede Texas? I think the others seceding would be an act of war. Texas actually negotiated the right to break into 4 smaller states, not the explicit right to secede. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AO116_RUSPRO_NS_20081228191715.gif)
