... there are many teachers who can't write a cohesive sentence and cannot tell a double negative from a double entendre. ...

Well, if she's a good looking teacher, and is wanting a double-negative, how could I fail not to give her one?

there are NOT a lot of teachers who can't not use the double negative!

^This is  why I love this place    ;D

It isn't the 1st generations that are arrogant.  It is the ones who drive around telling the ones who have only been here for a generation or two to "go back where they came from", who are the arrogant ones.


Sorry, my point wasn't clear.  I meant that the ones who have been here for a generation or two figure that since so many people are still trying to move to America 'it must be a great place'.  Many "real" Americans come across as arrogant.

I had a teacher who used to say, "An intelligent person doesn't know all the answers; an intelligent person knows where to find the answers."



That's a great quote!

I think a lot has to do with arrogance and also partly on parenting. I know my school system could've been better, but it was my mom and dad who kept me fascinated with rather boring stuff that my school taught, but didn't quite dig deep down enough. I think also, with the advent of community colleges, there should be no excuse for people in the states to not at least aim for an AA degree - which would give them a broad amount of college theory courses and in which it would broaden their horizons. Americans have something at their feet, but won't take the bite. I'm not saying to try and squeeze it all in 2 years, because I understand how difficult that is for those of us who work and have families, but let's just say it's never too late.  :)


When I lived in the States, I argued frequently that the US system of education should be overhauled and completely reorganised. One of my main points was that a college education (NOT university, but 2-year college) should be all but mandatory. The book-smart kids would take the academic route, and the not-so-book-smart ones would choose a trade field. After completion, those academic stream kids that wanted to would go on to low-cost university education which would only last two years-ish. This would make higher education more affordable, because you cut the time for a degree in half by making the first 2 years essentially free and mandatory. The trade-stream kids would go on to apprenticeships in their chosen fields.

Of course, this is a big step, and could not work without some reorganisation of K-12. I think all primary schools would ideally be small and based on neighbourhoods. At grade 6, students would then go into secondary at bigger schools, in which there would be different streams as well. This way we could separate the really smart ones, from the average ones, from the 'dumber' ones, from the trouble-makers. Once separated, each stream can pursue an education tailored to their needs. The problem children would be 'whipped into shape' for a year or two before joining one of the other three streams. Any student would be able to change streams at the beginning of a new year up to a certain point, as long as they worked hard enough to show their professors they were capable of the higher challenge.

Nearing the end of secondary education, students would have to face a round of standardised, national leaving exams. These would be similar to the British A-levels, the Irish Leaving Certificate, the French Baccalauréat, the German Arbitur etc... These would give students an idea of their strengths and weaknesses, which could be worked on during the two-years of college studies. After college, there would be some other tests to see if and where a student would be admitted to university.

Oh yeah. And no private education before college and university either. No spoiled rich kids. And everyone wears uniforms, no high-school fashionistas.

This is roughly what I'm thinking when I think US education reform. I'm no expert, but I know the US schools system sucks compared to others. The Canadian system isn't so much better, because for whatever reason, most provinces decided to more or less follow the US-organisation example (they should have adopted a British-style system). The exception would be the province of Québec, which came up with a unique system tailored to what previous provincial governments decided would be Quebec's needs as the sole majority-Francophone jurisdiction in North America. This system too has its problems, but it still is better than the US one.

This feels kind of odd, but I'm going to stand up for (at least some) Americans: the majority of the ones I've met have been pretty well steeped in other cultures.. but then, in a way they ought to be, given that they're the ones who've actually made it out of the country.  There are obviously some exceptions (when I was a teenager, I did an exchange with a Tunisian boy: when we took him to Windsor Castle, there was an American woman who, after the nth plane from Heathrow had flown overhead said "What a stupid place to build a castle, right under the flight path" - I honestly believe she wasn't joking, either), but there are a lot of well-educated, broad-minded Americans.  Unfortunately not enough of them to elect a well-educated, broad-minded president... ;)

ISTM that you get a more cosmopolitan than average type on these messageboards, too.


Right, I've found the same thing.

It does make me mad when film crews go to the deepest darkest depths of Mississippi to find a 'segment of the American public' to ask some questions to. It's 50 different countries here and the citizens of Illinois are very different to the citizens of Mississippi. Of course there's going to be a lot of ignorance and apparent stupidity in the poorest of states. I use Mississippi as an example because I believe it ranks 50th in the nation in terms of the amount of money spent on primary education, other states dwelling down at the bottom include Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia. Do we see a pattern emerging here?

Give me a camera crew and a ticket to Heathrow and I can find ignorance that parallels that found in Mississippi, Louisiana and so on. I'd just go to Brighton, talk to some of the chavvy sorts on the seafront, sniffing glue, or up to Nottingham, have a chat with some of the gormless sorts that give it the Shottingham nickname. You can find stupidity anywhere if you look for it.

It is not just the rest of the world that many Americans don't know about-they don't even know about their own country. We travel a lot and when we tell people we are from Vermont, I can't tell you how many times we heard, "What state is that in?" One guy (in Indiana) even asked us if that was close to Virginia. We go to Puerto Rico a lot, too. Many people are not aware that PR is part of the U.S. I can't remember who it was but years ago on this board, there was an argument going on (what else is new?  ;D ;D), I can't remember about what. Someone said that Carlos' opinion didn't matter because he wasn't an American. I set this person straight telling him that Carlos was born in NJ. Also, even if he had been born in PR, like his mother was, he would STILL be an American.


Cat

It is not just the rest of the world that many Americans don't know about-they don't even know about their own country. We travel a lot and when we tell people we are from Vermont, I can't tell you how many times we heard, "What state is that in?" One guy (in Indiana) even asked us if that was close to Virginia. We go to Puerto Rico a lot, too. Many people are not aware that PR is part of the U.S. I can't remember who it was but years ago on this board, there was an argument going on (what else is new?  ;D ;D), I can't remember about what. Someone said that Carlos' opinion didn't matter because he wasn't an American. I set this person straight telling him that Carlos was born in NJ. Also, even if he had been born in PR, like his mother was, he would STILL be an American.


Cat



wow...that just boggles my mind that a US citizen wouldn't even be aware that Vermont is a state...that's so sad. :-\\

Arrogance and ignorance, Americans simply don't care about anything outside their own little box usually.

wow...that just boggles my mind that a US citizen wouldn't even be aware that Vermont is a state...that's so sad. :-\\

I thought it was one of the ingredients of a martini...

It's easier to blame an English major for his unemployment than it is to blame an electrician for his unemployment.  If the state tells a youth of 14 he is going to trade school, then he's going to expect something when he's 17...a job in his trade!  That's not going to work if the state insists on committing economic suicide the way America is.  Best keep 'em twiddling their thumbs until they're 18 and then oblige the to university on sixty thousand borrowed dollars to study art history!
:P

So I guess I agree with you more than I thought!


Good points, and I totally agree.  If we're going to continue having public education systems, they should be heavily focused on things like high-skill trades that are less vulnerable to outsourcing.  This would require a massive amount of restructuring our education systems though, and with the ridiculous amounts we dump on the military and Social Security, this isn't likely to happen....

It is not just the rest of the world that many Americans don't know about-they don't even know about their own country. We travel a lot and when we tell people we are from Vermont, I can't tell you how many times we heard, "What state is that in?" One guy (in Indiana) even asked us if that was close to Virginia. We go to Puerto Rico a lot, too. Many people are not aware that PR is part of the U.S. I can't remember who it was but years ago on this board, there was an argument going on (what else is new?  ;D ;D), I can't remember about what. Someone said that Carlos' opinion didn't matter because he wasn't an American. I set this person straight telling him that Carlos was born in NJ. Also, even if he had been born in PR, like his mother was, he would STILL be an American.

Cat


Puerto Ricans are in a weird position.  They don't have the same electoral rights as the rest of us, unless they establish residency in one of the 50 states.  Then again, they receive benefits from our government while paying very few taxes.

Also, a lot of Puerto Ricans that still live in Puerto Rico do NOT consider themselves American.  They want independence from America, and they consider themselves Puerto Rican only.  So basically, it really depends on who you ask as to whether or not they like to be known as Americans.

Right, I've found the same thing.

It does make me mad when film crews go to the deepest darkest depths of Mississippi to find a 'segment of the American public' to ask some questions to. It's 50 different countries here and the citizens of Illinois are very different to the citizens of Mississippi. Of course there's going to be a lot of ignorance and apparent stupidity in the poorest of states. I use Mississippi as an example because I believe it ranks 50th in the nation in terms of the amount of money spent on primary education, other states dwelling down at the bottom include Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia. Do we see a pattern emerging here?

Give me a camera crew and a ticket to Heathrow and I can find ignorance that parallels that found in Mississippi, Louisiana and so on. I'd just go to Brighton, talk to some of the chavvy sorts on the seafront, sniffing glue, or up to Nottingham, have a chat with some of the gormless sorts that give it the Shottingham nickname. You can find stupidity anywhere if you look for it.


Good points.  The Deep South is the ass end of America, but then again, you'll find similar levels of ignorance in the Mountain states and rural areas of the Midwest as well.  More than anything, there is a massive cultural divide between urban areas and rural areas that is more blatantly defined than any geographical divisions.  By the same token, you'll find a lot of ignorant idiots and "thugs" in inner cities too.  Baltimore and Detroit are especially plagued by street trash.

I thought it was one of the ingredients of a martini...



;D ;D ;D



Puerto Ricans are in a weird position.  They don't have the same electoral rights as the rest of us, unless they establish residency in one of the 50 states.  Then again, they receive benefits from our government while paying very few taxes.

Also, a lot of Puerto Ricans that still live in Puerto Rico do NOT consider themselves American.  They want independence from America, and they consider themselves Puerto Rican only.  So basically, it really depends on who you ask as to whether or not they like to be known as Americans.



I would say that it is 1/3 Puerto Ricans who want independence, 1/3 want statheood, and 1/3 want the status quo. Most of Carlos' family (cousins) want statheood-only one of his cousins want independence (the black sheep of the family  :D ;D ;D). I heard one of his cousins say that if PR became independent, she was moving back to the states.


Cat

I hope they go independent.  They have so much poverty that it's a bit of a drain on our system.  If they became a state, we'd have so many issues arising from it -- not to mention the language issue.

I hope they go independent.  They have so much poverty that it's a bit of a drain on our system.  If they became a state, we'd have so many issues arising from it -- not to mention the language issue.


Yes, but if it was a state then there'd be far more that the Government could do in regard to stopping said poverty. The citizens of Puerto Rico would pay more in Taxes but at the same time would get more back in terms of federal funding.

Yes, but if it was a state then there'd be far more that the Government could do in regard to stopping said poverty. The citizens of Puerto Rico would pay more in Taxes but at the same time would get more back in terms of federal funding.


I think you'll find that Puerto Rico is poor enough that the net financial effect would be a loss.  Even if we assume that we can enact the same corporate taxes on businesses in Puerto Rico that we enact in every other state and do the same for personal taxes on their citizens, there is so much poverty in Puerto Rico that it would be like adding another Mississippi to our union - except this one would have an extra million people.  This is NOT a good thing in terms of economics.

I think you'll find that Puerto Rico is poor enough that the net financial effect would be a loss.  Even if we assume that we can enact the same corporate taxes on businesses in Puerto Rico that we enact in every other state and do the same for personal taxes on their citizens, there is so much poverty in Puerto Rico that it would be like adding another Mississippi to our union - except this one would have an extra million people.  This is NOT a good thing in terms of economics.


How about we grant Puerto Rico statheood and expel a few states we don't like.  We'll all vote on it.  I'm sure a bunch of you folks out there would vote out my Massachusetts.  So be it.
:-\\

I can be a bit of a grammar nut, not that mine is perfect, far from it, but I have noticed that there are many teachers who can't write a cohesive sentence and cannot tell a double negative from a double entendre.  All too often the person at the head of the class is there for the paycheck and is in the position because of who they, or one of their parents worked for in the last election.


Unfortunately teachers are do not make what they should in this country... I guess you get what you pay for

wait. they have cars in germany?

Yep. And if you own a car there, you can get your License. (I have a cousin in Germany, so I'm one of the lucky ones that isn't ignorant of other cultures.) As a matter of fact, a girl from China who resides in America is really interested that I know a lot about Chinese Culture. :)

I think you'll find that Puerto Rico is poor enough that the net financial effect would be a loss.  Even if we assume that we can enact the same corporate taxes on businesses in Puerto Rico that we enact in every other state and do the same for personal taxes on their citizens, there is so much poverty in Puerto Rico that it would be like adding another Mississippi to our union - except this one would have an extra million people.  This is NOT a good thing in terms of economics.



Puerto Rico is basically the bastard child of the U.S. When it benefits the U.S. then the U.S. will help her out. But if it benefits the Puerto Ricans, the U.S. could care less. IMO if PR became a state, they would have voting rights in Washington so they can benefit from many of the things other states do, which would help with some of its poverty issues. It is the common belief in Puerto Rico that after Fidel bites the dust, the U.S. is going to try to turn Cuba into the new Puerto Rico and and Puerto Rico will become even more abandoned then it already is. As for PR becoming independent, it really doesn't have the resources to stand on its own.



How about we grant Puerto Rico statheood and expel a few states we don't like.  We'll all vote on it.  I'm sure a bunch of you folks out there would vote out my Massachusetts.  So be it.
:-\\



What about that "Liberal" state of Vermont-you know that "tax-hiking, government expanding, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, New York Times reading, body-piercing, Hollywood loving, left-wing freak show"  ::)


Cat

geez, i didn't know Puerto Rico was apart of North America  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/01/azcrying.gif. i thought it was part of South America.

i have so much to learn, and i'm in my last year of high school........it's like i've learned nothing from my history/geography classes....

geez, i didn't know Puerto Rico was apart of North America  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/01/azcrying.gif. i thought it was part of South America.

i have so much to learn, and i'm in my last year of high school........it's like i've learned nothing from my history/geography classes....


good thing you have the people here to give you your true education...

i for one am not ignorant of other cultures-> i just dont like other cultures lolol... but then again, i was homeschooled... public education is pathetic because there is no accountability for anyone, financially, academically, anything...

Some are,some aren't. Just like with every other nationality,don't beat yourself too much...you'd be surprised with how ignorant most people all over the world are about anything they see as different from what they are or know.

I think you'll find that Puerto Rico is poor enough that the net financial effect would be a loss.  Even if we assume that we can enact the same corporate taxes on businesses in Puerto Rico that we enact in every other state and do the same for personal taxes on their citizens, there is so much poverty in Puerto Rico that it would be like adding another Mississippi to our union - except this one would have an extra million people.  This is NOT a good thing in terms of economics.


I'm not so sure the effects would be as bad as adding another Mississippi to the Union. You have to take in to account the improvements in infrastructure and organization that would occur if Puerto Rico were added to the Union.

Some are,some aren't. Just like with every other nationality,don't beat yourself too much...you'd be surprised with how ignorant most people all over the world are about anything they see as different from what they are or know.


We have a winner.  IMHO.

Lumping all Americans as arrogant and/or ignorant is like lumping all teachers as underpaid or all students as underachieving. 

Besides, other cultures can be intensely boring.  Seriously.

How about we grant Puerto Rico statheood and expel a few states we don't like.  We'll all vote on it.  I'm sure a bunch of you folks out there would vote out my Massachusetts.  So be it.
:-\\


I wouldn't.  Massachusetts is one of the most prosperous states.  The main reason why I don't want Puerto Rico as a state is that it would easily be the poorest one.  We have enough poor people as it is.

Puerto Rico is basically the bastard child of the U.S. When it benefits the U.S. then the U.S. will help her out. But if it benefits the Puerto Ricans, the U.S. could care less. IMO if PR became a state, they would have voting rights in Washington so they can benefit from many of the things other states do, which would help with some of its poverty issues. It is the common belief in Puerto Rico that after Fidel bites the dust, the U.S. is going to try to turn Cuba into the new Puerto Rico and and Puerto Rico will become even more abandoned then it already is. As for PR becoming independent, it really doesn't have the resources to stand on its own.

Agreed, but isn't that the way it should be?  I mean, if I were president of any country, I wouldn't add a really poor territory into my official provinces or states, unless there were tons of natural resources that made up for it.  We have to be practical about these things, even if it may be callous.



What about that "Liberal" state of Vermont-you know that "tax-hiking, government expanding, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, New York Times reading, body-piercing, Hollywood loving, left-wing freak show"  ::)


Cat


If I'm not mistaken, Vermont wants independence.  I'd happily grant it to them, although if I could afford it, I'd also move there.  From what I understand, it's very liberal, but also very expensive.

I'm not so sure the effects would be as bad as adding another Mississippi to the Union. You have to take in to account the improvements in infrastructure and organization that would occur if Puerto Rico were added to the Union.


Perhaps, but what makes up a lot of my view on Puerto Rico are statistics on Puerto Ricans that move here.  There is a much higher percentage of Puerto Ricans on welfare than most other ethnicities.  To me, I see that as a drain.  It's nothing against them personally, but I just don't want a bunch of poor people flooding into America.  We get enough of that from Mexico.

Perhaps, but what makes up a lot of my view on Puerto Rico are statistics on Puerto Ricans that move here.  There is a much higher percentage of Puerto Ricans on welfare than most other ethnicities.  To me, I see that as a drain.  It's nothing against them personally, but I just don't want a bunch of poor people flooding into America.  We get enough of that from Mexico.


You crack me up :P

You make me wanna sing!
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need

Agreed, but isn't that the way it should be?  I mean, if I were president of any country, I wouldn't add a really poor territory into my official provinces or states, unless there were tons of natural resources that made up for it.  We have to be practical about these things, even if it may be callous.



If I'm not mistaken, Vermont wants independence.  I'd happily grant it to them, although if I could afford it, I'd also move there.  From what I understand, it's very liberal, but also very expensive.



There a few in Vermont who wants independence but it is not what the majority wants. The cost of living here is fairly low-compared to other parts of the country. BUT wages are also low and there are many arguments about taxes being too high.


Perhaps, but what makes up a lot of my view on Puerto Rico are statistics on Puerto Ricans that move here.  There is a much higher percentage of Puerto Ricans on welfare than most other ethnicities.  To me, I see that as a drain.  It's nothing against them personally, but I just don't want a bunch of poor people flooding into America.  We get enough of that from Mexico.



You don't understand that Puerto Rican ARE U.S. citizens-made so by an act of Congress in 1917-the Jones Act (just in time for them to serve in WWI  ::) ).


Cat

You crack me up :P

You make me wanna sing!
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need





I realize what I said wasn't politically correct, but it is true.  In order to maintain a high standard of living, you have to be selective of who you let into your country.  Scandinavian countries understand this perfectly, as do New Zealand and Australia.

There a few in Vermont who wants independence but it is not what the majority wants. The cost of living here is fairly low-compared to other parts of the country. BUT wages are also low and there are many arguments about taxes being too high.

Well, I can assure you that the cost of living in Vermont is much higher than it is here in North Carolina.


You don't understand that Puerto Rican ARE U.S. citizens-made so by an act of Congress in 1917-the Jones Act (just in time for them to serve in WWI  ::) ).


Cat


Good point, but that can easily be revoked by giving them their independence, which is why I'm pushing for it.

I wouldn't.  Massachusetts is one of the most prosperous states.  The main reason why I don't want Puerto Rico as a state is that it would easily be the poorest one.  We have enough poor people as it is.

I just said "Massachusetts" because I realized I'd offend certain people from certain regions if I suggested certain states.  My thinking was about the Billy-Bob Bubbah rednecks who say, "The South is gonna rise again!"  I'd like to let the old Confederacy try it again for 25 years and just see how far they get. 

The fact is, the so-called "blue" states subsidize the so-called "red" states to a large degree. 

The only reason I do not favor statheood for Puerto Rico is because our country is on the way down.  Our economy-- terms of real people, real industry, real money---is shrinking, not expanding.  In 1910 or even 1950, we might have been able to absorb Puerto Rico.  No longer.  Our infrastructure is coming apart at the seams as it is.

Citizens of Puerto Rico are entitled to some social welfare benefits while they reside there, but less than state citizens, and the social welfare state for the states is a joke.  There's not much of a social safety net in the U.S., which indeed makes for a more nervous nation. 

I just said "Massachusetts" because I realized I'd offend certain people from certain regions if I suggested certain states.  My thinking was about the Billy-Bob Bubbah rednecks who say, "The South is gonna rise again!"  I'd like to let the old Confederacy try it again for 25 years and just see how far they get. 

The fact is, the so-called "blue" states subsidize the so-called "red" states to a large degree. 

I totally agree, which is why I'm mostly Libertarian.  I prefer that the federal government is minimized, so that the "welfare queens" like Mississippi and Louisiana can decay enough that the rest of the country may actually side with the idea of letting them go.  I know that if the gap becomes big enough between the more productive states and the less productive ones, a much stronger economic argument can be made for involuntary secession.

In other words, why should states like Massachusetts have to subsidize states like Mississippi?  In my opinion, they shouldn't.  Every state should be responsible for itself and no one else.

But it's not just blue states that are productive.  Texas is very productive, and even certain states in the South contribute a lot economically, like my state of NC and Florida.  Other red states like Arizona and Colorado contribute a lot as well.

My argument is that we should let all the poorest states fend for themselves, because why should my tax money go to states I have no connection to?  I'd rather pay more in taxes to my own state government than have to subsidize the poor of Louisiana, for example.

The only reason I do not favor statheood for Puerto Rico is because our country is on the way down.  Our economy-- terms of real people, real industry, real money---is shrinking, not expanding.  In 1910 or even 1950, we might have been able to absorb Puerto Rico.  No longer.  Our infrastructure is coming apart at the seams as it is.

Citizens of Puerto Rico are entitled to some social welfare benefits while they reside there, but less than state citizens, and the social welfare state for the states is a joke.  There's not much of a social safety net in the U.S., which indeed makes for a more nervous nation. 


In a way, yes.  In other ways, no.

It's not that our country is falling apart everywhere, it's just that certain areas are falling apart.  Cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and Oakland are all economically decaying, while other cities like Phoenix, San Jose, Las Vegas, Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami are all growing rapidly.

I think America could handle adding Puerto Rico, but it would provide us very few benefits by doing so.

I totally agree, which is why I'm mostly Libertarian.  I prefer that the federal government is minimized, so that the "welfare queens" like Mississippi and Louisiana can decay enough that the rest of the country may actually side with the idea of letting them go.  I know that if the gap becomes big enough between the more productive states and the less productive ones, a much stronger economic argument can be made for involuntary secession.

In other words, why should states like Massachusetts have to subsidize states like Mississippi?  In my opinion, they shouldn't.  Every state should be responsible for itself and no one else.

But it's not just blue states that are productive.  Texas is very productive, and even certain states in the South contribute a lot economically, like my state of NC and Florida.  Other red states like Arizona and Colorado contribute a lot as well.

My argument is that we should let all the poorest states fend for themselves, because why should my tax money go to states I have no connection to?  I'd rather pay more in taxes to my own state government than have to subsidize the poor of Louisiana, for example.



  Oh wow...

  I've never heard it explained in this way before.  Let me think on this one for awhile...

  Oh wow...

  I've never heard it explained in this way before.  Let me think on this one for awhile...


Ditto.

It's a ruthless.. but logical argument.

Living on the border of one of the bluest states, Illinois.. and one of the reddest states, Missouri.. I can see a lot of the differences. In Illinois, our roads are excellent, all our children have health insurance and as a state we have the 17th largest economy in the world, ahead of countries like Norway, Switzerland, South Africa and Belgium.. then I look at Missouri and see an education system in tatters, roads and public transport shot to hell and one of the lowest rates of health insurance coverage in the country. It does make me wonder why I should have to subsidize this.

Ditto.

It's a ruthless.. but logical argument.

Living on the border of one of the bluest states, Illinois.. and one of the reddest states, Missouri.. I can see a lot of the differences. In Illinois, our roads are excellent, all our children have health insurance and as a state we have the 17th largest economy in the world, ahead of countries like Norway, Switzerland, South Africa and Belgium.. then I look at Missouri and see an education system in tatters, roads and public transport shot to hell and one of the lowest rates of health insurance coverage in the country. It does make me wonder why I should have to subsidize this.


My theory is that there is also a more positive possibility involved in this as well.

It's not the most likely scenario, but once these states start realizing that the others aren't propping them up anymore, they might start emulating the successful states in policies.  My feelings on this are very Darwinist.  The smart and the strong survive in terms of policy.  Those who make bad policy choices should have to suffer the consequences of a failing economy.

Basically, I prefer to live in a world where wisdom decides your fate far more than anything else -- including compassion.

My theory is that there is also a more positive possibility involved in this as well.

It's not the most likely scenario, but once these states start realizing that the others aren't propping them up anymore, they might start emulating the successful states in policies.  My feelings on this are very Darwinist.  The smart and the strong survive in terms of policy.  Those who make bad policy choices should have to suffer the consequences of a failing economy.

Basically, I prefer to live in a world where wisdom decides your fate far more than anything else -- including compassion.


Which does make sense, don't get me wrong, going on the assumption that those that fail would want to emulate those that succeed it's an excellent idea. The problem is, that when you look at the poorest states, they are generally the bible thumping states, I wouldn't put it past the majority of their citizens to believe "God will save us!" and starve to death.  ;D

Which does make sense, don't get me wrong, going on the assumption that those that fail would want to emulate those that succeed it's an excellent idea. The problem is, that when you look at the poorest states, they are generally the bible thumping states, I wouldn't put it past the majority of their citizens to believe "God will save us!" and starve to death.  ;D


*puts on flame suit*  You say that like it's a bad thing...

Ditto.

It's a ruthless.. but logical argument.

Living on the border of one of the bluest states, Illinois.. and one of the reddest states, Missouri.. I can see a lot of the differences. In Illinois, our roads are excellent, all our children have health insurance and as a state we have the 17th largest economy in the world, ahead of countries like Norway, Switzerland, South Africa and Belgium.. then I look at Missouri and see an education system in tatters, roads and public transport shot to hell and one of the lowest rates of health insurance coverage in the country. It does make me wonder why I should have to subsidize this.


   
   Oh crap, now you're making me doubt my principles.  Make the war cry, "The South will rise again," come true?  Some experiments don't need to be repeated.  Maybe it would be okay if they take Texas with them again.  Making it the third time Texas secedes from its parent country...

   Seriously, it does make sense.  "Involuntary secession" threw me for a loop.  I wonder if this notion has passed the scuttlebutt stage...

   I'll think on it some more...

*puts on flame suit*  You say that like it's a bad thing...


Putting my serious hat on, I will say that under no circumstances should we allow citizens of our country to starve to death...

... but....

to steal a quote from cool hand luke..

"Some men, you just can't reach."

My theory is that there is also a more positive possibility involved in this as well.

It's not the most likely scenario, but once these states start realizing that the others aren't propping them up anymore, they might start emulating the successful states in policies.  My feelings on this are very Darwinist.  The smart and the strong survive in terms of policy.  Those who make bad policy choices should have to suffer the consequences of a failing economy.

Basically, I prefer to live in a world where wisdom decides your fate far more than anything else -- including compassion.


  So you would welcome the blue states cutting off funding to the red?  I'd kind of like it myself, to tell the truth, but I've got sort of a sadistic streak when it comes to geopolitics.  The ironic justice of watching all those red-state economies just collapsing in on themselves as the political bodies which define them shrivel and evaporate is very appealing.  I’ve always been a bit of a fiscal conservative anyhow, and cutting off the welfare queens in the middle of the nation is something that’d put a big grin on my face go ;) ...

   So you would welcome the blue states cutting off funding to the red?  I'd kind of like it myself, to tell the truth, but I've got sort of a sadistic streak when it comes to geopolitics.  The ironic justice of watching all those red-state economies just collapsing in on themselves as the political bodies which define them shrivel and evaporate is very appealing.  I’ve always been a bit of a fiscal conservative anyhow, and cutting off the welfare queens in the middle of the nation is something that’d put a big grin on my face go ;) ...




The easiest way for me to sum it up is that the fiscal conservatives know what they are doing, while the fiscal liberals and social conservatives don't.  For the most part, the social liberals are on par with the fiscal conservatives.

It's not an actual red state/blue state divide but rather a business-oriented one.  Some states enact very successful business friendly policies like California and Texas.  Others aren't very good at it, like the Deep South.  Alabama is starting to improve economically, but nearby Louisiana and Mississippi make up much of the dead weight in our economy.

The way I see it, the growth in this country is proof of what policies work and which ones don't.  Certain states in the South like NC, Florida, and Georgia are leading the pack in terms of growth, while others are falling behind.  The same goes for the West.  Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado are growing like crazy, while New Mexico stagnates.

In the meantime, states like New York, Michigan, and Rhode Island are losing people because of the high cost of living in those areas due to high taxes.  What makes up for their losses in population are their already existing economic capabilities.  My theory is that these states have already reached their optimum production levels, so with continual population growth, it is only natural for people to settle in less expensive areas as jobs move to these regions due to lower taxes.

In the very distant future, we may even see a time when places like Louisiana are booming, but it probably won't happen until things get so crowded everywhere else.

I totally agree, which is why I'm mostly Libertarian.  I prefer that the federal government is minimized, so that the "welfare queens" like Mississippi and Louisiana can decay enough that the rest of the country may actually side with the idea of letting them go.  I know that if the gap becomes big enough between the more productive states and the less productive ones, a much stronger economic argument can be made for involuntary secession.

In other words, why should states like Massachusetts have to subsidize states like Mississippi?  In my opinion, they shouldn't.  Every state should be responsible for itself and no one else.

But it's not just blue states that are productive.  Texas is very productive, and even certain states in the South contribute a lot economically, like my state of NC and Florida.  Other red states like Arizona and Colorado contribute a lot as well.

My argument is that we should let all the poorest states fend for themselves, because why should my tax money go to states I have no connection to?  I'd rather pay more in taxes to my own state government than have to subsidize the poor of Louisiana, for example.
I'm not griping about wealthier states subsidizing poorer ones.  I'm just saying these good old boys listening to Limbaugh and Coulter and thinking they're the pioneering sodbusters of the Heartland ought to do a reality check and stop acting like a 13-year-old giving his mom and dad the finger! We are the United States.  We should stay united.  We cannot afford to let places like Mississippi and North Dakota rot away.  We all do better when we all do better.  I would like to see the poor states be able to raise their standards of living and contribute more to the overall economy.  If anything, they need more federal investment, not less.


It's not that our country is falling apart everywhere, it's just that certain areas are falling apart.  Cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and Oakland are all economically decaying, while other cities like Phoenix, San Jose, Las Vegas, Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami are all growing rapidly.



You mention rapid growth in the Southwest.  I've got a problem with this.  Well, it's not exactly my problem, it's theirs.  Notice something about places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and L.A.?  It's a desert!  There's no frikkin' water there.   It all has to be imported.  Sure they diverted the Colorado River but in time, they're gonna run dry.  Too little water, too many people.  It's going to happen.  Even if it happens in 100 years when we, our children, and even our grandchildren are dead, it's still gonna happen.  100 years is a blip in human history.  All over the world you find ruins of civilizations now gone because there was no water left. 
::)

When it comes to other cultures, past or present, IMHO, it deals with some form of xenophobia, most likely.

Americans, as a country, like to feel as if they are the trend-setters.
When other cultures come into play, they are hesitant because it introduces concepts that they did not originally think of.

America also likes to claim it is the "melting pot" of the world.
They want to study things, and try to integrate them into American culture, without using what is termed as "vulgar" or "barbaric".

Never mind that they have their own methods of barbarism!

I totally agree, which is why I'm mostly Libertarian.  I prefer that the federal government is minimized, so that the "welfare queens" like Mississippi and Louisiana can decay enough that the rest of the country may actually side with the idea of letting them go.  I know that if the gap becomes big enough between the more productive states and the less productive ones, a much stronger economic argument can be made for involuntary secession.

In other words, why should states like Massachusetts have to subsidize states like Mississippi?  In my opinion, they shouldn't.  Every state should be responsible for itself and no one else.

...

My argument is that we should let all the poorest states fend for themselves, because why should my tax money go to states I have no connection to?  I'd rather pay more in taxes to my own state government than have to subsidize the poor of Louisiana, for example.


Well, I mean Jesus. You might as well have 50 separate countries. Wealth-sharing is what federal states are about. 50 years ago, Arizona was a wasteland, and they were the ones getting welfare. I wouldn't care much if a state seceded willingly with a 2/3 or even 3/4 majority. I don't have any sentimental attachment to the US Government, so if some states want to secede, I suppose that's their business. But there's no such thing as involuntary secession. The US has a Constitution, and like it or not, there is no provision in there for state expulsion last I checked.

I mistrust secessionist movements anywhere these days, even if they seem legit. Because truly, what do I know about the situation in Catalonia, the Basque country, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Taiwan, Tibet etc... Not much, because I don't live there. And finally, I can quickly draw parallels between these movements and the Quebec separatist movement right here in my own back yard. How can I so vehemently oppose Quebec secession all while supporting Catalan independence or something like that? Can't. It's none of my business.

I'm not griping about wealthier states subsidizing poorer ones.  I'm just saying these good old boys listening to Limbaugh and Coulter and thinking they're the pioneering sodbusters of the Heartland ought to do a reality check and stop acting like a 13-year-old giving his mom and dad the finger! We are the United States.  We should stay united.  We cannot afford to let places like Mississippi and North Dakota rot away.  We all do better when we all do better.   I would like to see the poor states be able to raise their standards of living and contribute more to the overall economy.  If anything, they need more federal investment, not less.

I disagree.  See, I think people do best in smaller countries with smaller governments.  Most people would agree with you though.  I just don't place any personal loyalty in the concept of the states being united.  I think our united stance was initially an arbitrary choice that resulted from the lack of feasibility in running each state as a separate country back in the late 1700s.  Nowadays, borders are much more permeable due to transportation and technology.  As the EU shows us, multiple nations can effectively coordinate economic policy without being totally subject to one all-encompassing government.  I like the diversity of policy allowed by keeping each European nation autonomous, and by the same token, I think certain sections of the country should split up and become separate countries.

We're getting to the point that D.C. is about as out of touch with the rest of the nation that Rome was in reference to outlying territories in their empire.  There's a good reason why D.C. and Utah have little in common with each other culturally.  Why should they remain subject to the same federal government?

You mention rapid growth in the Southwest.  I've got a problem with this.  Well, it's not exactly my problem, it's theirs.  Notice something about places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and L.A.?  It's a desert!  There's no frikkin' water there.   It all has to be imported.  Sure they diverted the Colorado River but in time, they're gonna run dry.  Too little water, too many people.  It's going to happen.  Even if it happens in 100 years when we, our children, and even our grandchildren are dead, it's still gonna happen.  100 years is a blip in human history.  All over the world you find ruins of civilizations now gone because there was no water left. 
::)


Good point, but we're making a lot of progress with desalination methods.

Well, I mean Jesus. You might as well have 50 separate countries. Wealth-sharing is what federal states are about. 50 years ago, Arizona was a wasteland, and they were the ones getting welfare. I wouldn't care much if a state seceded willingly with a 2/3 or even 3/4 majority. I don't have any sentimental attachment to the US Government, so if some states want to secede, I suppose that's their business. But there's no such thing as involuntary secession. The US has a Constitution, and like it or not, there is no provision in there for state expulsion last I checked.

There's no section of the Constitution preventing expulsion either.  If there isn't a specific law against something, that often means it can be done if the right law is written to support it.

I mistrust secessionist movements anywhere these days, even if they seem legit. Because truly, what do I know about the situation in Catalonia, the Basque country, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Taiwan, Tibet etc... Not much, because I don't live there. And finally, I can quickly draw parallels between these movements and the Quebec separatist movement right here in my own back yard. How can I so vehemently oppose Quebec secession all while supporting Catalan independence or something like that? Can't. It's none of my business.


I know what you mean, but I have to add that I support the Albertan secessionist movement.  They are essentially propping up the easternmost provinces like New Brunswick.  Why should they?

I disagree.  See, I think people do best in smaller countries with smaller governments. 

Heck, I think the human race screwed itself over when it evolved from hunter-gatherer tribes to this civilization thing, but that's anthropology not politics!

Most people would agree with you though.  I just don't place any personal loyalty in the concept of the states being united.  I think our united stance was initially an arbitrary choice that resulted from the lack of feasibility in running each state as a separate country back in the late 1700s.  Nowadays, borders are much more permeable due to transportation and technology.  As the EU shows us, multiple nations can effectively coordinate economic policy without being totally subject to one all-encompassing government.  I like the diversity of policy allowed by keeping each European nation autonomous, and by the same token, I think certain sections of the country should split up and become separate countries.
That's a libertarian point of view I don't agree with.  Inherent in "united" states is loyalty to one another as citizens for we, the people, are the fabric of the state.  I do agree that the United States is in serious trouble with its democracy.  How many states of our population and terratorial size have been "democracies"?  American is too big and has been so terribly mismanaged over the past generation that we are in crisis.  However, there is no geopolitically manageable way for the U.S. to split up into separate nations.  What states would want to go with what nations?  I can see California, Oregon, and Washington forming a functional nation, but what about Arizona and Nevada?  If I lived in either of those states, I'd much rather join California than a poor-ass mountain state nation.  Texas would want return to the glory days of the Republic of Tejas and wouldn't want carry the Deep South and Oklahoma.  There's enough poverty in Texas as it is.  Vermont used to be part of New York state.  I see the New England states joining New York, and Pennsylvania and New Jersey, sharing in the colonial heritage.  There you would have a gigantic bloc of wealth and power and if, say, Ohio and Maryland were excluded, they'd live in intimidating circumstances.  Perhaps New Brunswick would want to piggyback onto Maine because they're getting the shaft from Ottowa, but the Maritimes are the poorest region of Canada.  Culturally, they've got much in common with Maine, but the economic burden would not be feasible.  It's all kind of mind boggling to think about. 

We're getting to the point that D.C. is about as out of touch with the rest of the nation that Rome was in reference to outlying territories in their empire.  There's a good reason why D.C. and Utah have little in common with each other culturally.  Why should they remain subject to the same federal government?
Per the above, this is a good point.    We are still technically a republic whereas Rome was the capital city of an empire, but the vast territory and different cultures draw some similarites. 


Good point, but we're making a lot of progress with desalination methods.

You'd better!

I know what you mean, but I have to add that I support the Albertan secessionist movement.  They are essentially propping up the easternmost provinces like New Brunswick.  Why should they?


Ridiculous! My point exactly. What do you know about Alberta anyway, or the Canadian federal system? I know they don't teach that in schools down there. They aren't propping up sh*t!

The Alberta secessionist movement barely even exists first of all, and if they weren't rolling in oil at the moment, it wouldn't exist at all. The whopping majority of Albertans are loyal Canadians. Alberta is conservative, not libertarian.

Look back a few decades ago and you'd have seen a very different Alberta... one that was certainly getting more money from the federal government than it was paying in. It's only a matter of time before it happens again. Now they're paying some of that money back. And The Eastern Provinces, by which I presume you mean NB, PEI, NS, and Newfoundland/Labrador, were once an economic hotspot for many reasons and are now experiencing difficulties, but it's not like they are wastelands. Canada is a federation based on equalisation, collecting federal income taxes, and redistributing those resources according to need back to the provincial governments. The Eastern Provinces aren't what you would call wealthy, but they aren't dirt poor either.

Alberta, which is a fine province and I have nothing but love for it, isn't the only province which has been consistently getting back less than they pay in. 41 cents of every federal dollar comes from Ontario, for example, and Ontarians tend to be among the most patriotic Canadians.

Canadian provinces don't mind helping each other. Canada is, above all, a country. There are tiffs between provinces and regions, that's common. But the only secessionist movement in this era to have ever even come close to swaying the majority of a province's population is that of Quebec. I personally think that we need to go ahead and include the word 'indivisible' somewhere in the Constitution, but that would be a feat indeed. It would take at most a miracle, and at the very least some amazingly clever politics. If Harper could accomplish that, I would happily kiss that man's ass. But not bloody likely to happen.

A country in which the East and West hate one another! West British Canada and East French Canada, two different views entirely. How do you suppose the the country is "indivisible"? BTW My first husband was from a prominent Canadian family.

A country in which the East and West hate one another! West British Canada and East French Canada, two different views entirely. How do you suppose the the country is "indivisible"? BTW My first husband was from a prominent Canadian family.


I didn't say it was indivisible, I said we should make it so, but that it would be next to impossible. But I tell you one thing, there have been a lot of attempts to break us up, but all have failed. 

Your first husband being from a 'prominent' Canadian family (whatever that means), it surprises me that you didn't know that the linguistic divide is not an East-West issue. French Canadians live in every province and territory, and so do English Canadians. But French Canada only encompasses the Province of Quebec, portions of Eastern Ontario, and Western New Brunswick. Everything east of a certain portion of NB is English. Which makes about 3 and 1/2 provinces not included in your idea of the East-West divide.

The English and French don't hate each other, I mean there are some who do, but they're a minority in both groups. We're better off at the moment than say, the Belgians with the Walloons and the Flemish. Since the failure of Quebec's 2nd referendum on separation (which I admit, was close but no cigar), most of that old chicanery has subsided and even Quebec separatists have begun to realise that it's not going to happen.

The Alberta secessionist movement?

No surprise.  Texas has a long-running secessionist movement, but nobody with the correct number of chromosomes pays it any mind.
:D


  Last I heard there was a Vermont secessionist movement, wonder what happened to that? 

The only one that looked like it might succeed was Quebec, and they can thank their lucky stars it didn't!

That's a libertarian point of view I don't agree with.  Inherent in "united" states is loyalty to one another as citizens for we, the people, are the fabric of the state.  I do agree that the United States is in serious trouble with its democracy.  How many states of our population and terratorial size have been "democracies"?  American is too big and has been so terribly mismanaged over the past generation that we are in crisis.  However, there is no geopolitically manageable way for the U.S. to split up into separate nations.  What states would want to go with what nations?  I can see California, Oregon, and Washington forming a functional nation, but what about Arizona and Nevada?  If I lived in either of those states, I'd much rather join California than a poor-ass mountain state nation.  Texas would want return to the glory days of the Republic of Tejas and wouldn't want carry the Deep South and Oklahoma.  There's enough poverty in Texas as it is.  Vermont used to be part of New York state.  I see the New England states joining New York, and Pennsylvania and New Jersey, sharing in the colonial heritage.  There you would have a gigantic bloc of wealth and power and if, say, Ohio and Maryland were excluded, they'd live in intimidating circumstances. 

One of the biggest problems with any modern idea of succession is that there are really no regions that are truely self-sufficient anymore.

For a perfect example, California could never really succede.  The majority of both their Water and Power come from other states.  And I doubt that Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, or the other areas they get these resources from would be as willing to be so kind if they were sold to an independent nation.

One of the things the Civil War did was to transform how people thought about our nation.  Prior to that, citizens tended to think of their home state first, and the nation as an entity second.  After that (and with the mass exodus to the West Coast that followed), ties to the home state faded, and people began to associate much more with the nation as a whole.

This is even more true now, because people move so much.  On average, 1 in 6 Americans moves to a new location every year.  Over an average life time, Americans move 11.6 times (half of those to a new state).  So ties to state mean much less then they did a century ago.

Myself, I have moved countless times in just the last 5 years.  From California to Alabama, then to New Mexico and now Texas.  And that does not even count the other states I have lived in over the years (Idaho, Oregon, Alaska, North Carolina, Connecticut).  Home for me has always been wherever I happen to be living at the time.  And I have no allegiance to any state, but to the nation itself.

The U.S Constitution does not allow for succession from the U.S. That is exactly what the civil war was over. Not the slave issue as is taught in school. The South states wanted to succeed from the Union, had they won then that would have given them the right. But the North won, therefore it is not permissible.

One of the biggest problems with any modern idea of succession is that there are really no regions that are truely self-sufficient anymore.

For a perfect example, California could never really succede.  The majority of both their Water and Power come from other states.  And I doubt that Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, or the other areas they get these resources from would be as willing to be so kind if they were sold to an independent nation.

One of the things the Civil War did was to transform how people thought about our nation.  Prior to that, citizens tended to think of their home state first, and the nation as an entity second.  After that (and with the mass exodus to the West Coast that followed), ties to the home state faded, and people began to associate much more with the nation as a whole.

This is even more true now, because people move so much.  On average, 1 in 6 Americans moves to a new location every year.  Over an average life time, Americans move 11.6 times (half of those to a new state).  So ties to state mean much less then they did a century ago.

Myself, I have moved countless times in just the last 5 years.  From California to Alabama, then to New Mexico and now Texas.  And that does not even count the other states I have lived in over the years (Idaho, Oregon, Alaska, North Carolina, Connecticut).  Home for me has always been wherever I happen to be living at the time.  And I have no allegiance to any state, but to the nation itself.

Absolutely.  Interdependency and mobility are a big part of the picture.  We're also no longer an agrarian society.  200 years ago people in New England hunkered down for the winter and went without whatever they couldn't preserve from the harvest.  Back then it was a luxury to eat oranges in January.  Now we're expected to have fresh fruits and vegetables all winter long.  Can you imagine the tariff wars with Florida and California?  That's just one example of the problems with secession nowadays.

Note the words "secede" and "suicide" have common etymologies!
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/secede

Oops sorry, I had no clue that this was a MEN's board. You should put a disclaimer with it.

Oops sorry, I had no clue that this was a MEN's board. You should put a disclaimer with it.

Beg pard? Where's this coming from?
???

I can't help but notice that most of my posts are getting studiously ignored. Just thought it had something to do with the fact the other posters that I have seen on here are male and, well, I am not. I know some men tend to think that a woman getting involved in a political conversation is just kind of silly.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly take gender into account when I reply.  There's just not enough time to respond to every salient point.  A lot of my posts don't get replies.  Perhaps they get read, but nobody chooses to respond to me.  Who knows why?  I've started threads on topics I think deserve lengthy discussion only to have them sink into oblivion without reply one.  On the other hand, I've started threads on a goofy thought I was having at one moment and they get 100 replies. 

I wouldn't take it personally.

I can't help but notice that most of my posts are getting studiously ignored. Just thought it had something to do with the fact the other posters that I have seen on here are male and, well, I am not. I know some men tend to think that a woman getting involved in a political conversation is just kind of silly.


Trust me, there is nothing even remotely like this with me.

Because of my military commitments, I do not log on nearly as often as I used to.  And when I do find a topic that interests me, I normally read the original post, then forward to the last page.  I then look backwards, normally responding to the first post that catches my eye.

In this case, it happened to be Maxwell's.  Of course, the two of us have been both opponants and supporters in here for years.  People would probably wonder if I had "gone soft" if I did not respond to something he had written.  :D

Well my apologies for assuming that my gender had something to do with me getting ignored. I just feel I have some validity as well.

Well my apologies for assuming that my gender had something to do with me getting ignored. I just feel I have some validity as well.




There are times I have felt the same way.  Sometimes there will be long running discussions on specific points between two or three posters and they focus on their own discussions, but I find they do read the other posts involved at the same time.  I tend to write short posts, but others can go on for paragraphs.  I don't think it is a gender thing as much as how much time and content you want to put into it.  Of course these things could be cut short if they would only agree to defer to my being right in all things.

If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him is he still wrong?    

Yes    ;)

If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him is he still wrong?    

Yes    ;)

Of course he is: he's in the middle of the forest speaking, and not finishing off the DIY  ;)

  Last I heard there was a Vermont secessionist movement, wonder what happened to that? 




You mean all both people? Yeah, there were a few who really wanted this to happen but the majority considered it a joke.


Cat

You mean all both people? Yeah, there were a few who really wanted this to happen but the majority considered it a joke.


Cat


I think it got up to 13% last year. Not anywhere near a majority, but up from 8% the previous polling.

The U.S Constitution does not allow for succession from the U.S. That is exactly what the civil war was over. Not the slave issue as is taught in school. The South states wanted to succeed from the Union, had they won then that would have given them the right. But the North won, therefore it is not permissible.


Here is the point that I had stated previously. This is LAW. You can have all the movements you want, it will never come to be!

Quote from: MaxwellSmart on 04 December 2007, 13:10:04

Last I heard there was a Vermont secessionist movement, wonder what happened to that?

It is like saying that Parlament for other countries is malarkey and has no right to control anything and the individual Provence's can decide their own laws regardless of what Parlament has to say. So again as long as there is a United States Government and people, succession can never happen.

I detest opinions that have no research behind them! If you state something as fact, be willing to back it up! God Bless America!The Land Of Milk and Honey!

Here is the point that I had stated previously. This is LAW. You can have all the movements you want, it will never come to be!

Quote from: MaxwellSmart on 04 December 2007, 13:10:04

Last I heard there was a Vermont secessionist movement, wonder what happened to that?

It is like saying that Parlament for other countries is malarkey and has no right to control anything and the individual Provence's can decide their own laws regardless of what Parlament has to say. So again as long as there is a United States Government and people, succession can never happen.

I detest opinions that have no research behind them! If you state something as fact, be willing to back it up! God Bless America!The Land Of Milk and Honey!




   Any state can secede from the union.  Not certain on the specifics, each one has its own IIRC, but its a fundamental right for the states to secede if they see fit...

   I understand the reasons for not wanting a state to secede.  You want to keep the nation together.  But isn't it somewhat against our national character, our focus on freedom and all that, to not allow a state to jump ship if they want to..?

   Update:  Seems a state must have the consent of the other states (ALL the others?) to secede. 

  Texas v. White.  This case law also adresses the earlier question of involuntary expulsion from the union.  Interesting...

The Interesting Court Case of
Texas v. White

Read how secession was finally declared illegal


In a legal examination of the right of secession no case has been thrown in our faces as Texas v. White. With this case the Supreme Court of the United States declared secession was not constitutional.


Not Constitutional. Meaning it is not allowed in the constitution.

That was exactly what the civil war was fought over. The North won the war and it was declared unconstitutional to secede from the union. So if it is to happen, then we need to over throw our Government and destroy the constitution, which is our Government. There is no higher form of Government in the U.S then the United States Constitution. 

The Interesting Court Case of
Texas v. White

Read how secession was finally declared illegal


In a legal examination of the right of secession no case has been thrown in our faces as Texas v. White. With this case the Supreme Court of the United States declared secession was not constitutional.


Not Constitutional. Meaning it is not allowed in the constitution.

That was exactly what the civil war was fought over. The North won the war and it was declared unconstitutional to secede from the union. So if it is to happen, then we need to over throw our Government and destroy the constitution, which is our Government. There is no higher form of Government in the U.S then the United States Constitution. 


  Texas v. White says that unilateral secession is unconstitutional...

 

If a state really wanted to, it could probably negotiate secession these days. It would take a referendum with an overwhelming majority of people voting in favour of it, first off. Then it would be the mandate of the state's government to negotiate with the federal government the terms of secession. But all this is speculation. There is no state that wants to separate. At least, no state secessionist movement is strong enough to convince 3/4 of the state of it.

The only secessionist movement in North America with any real support is here in Quebec, and even they will probably never garner the support they would need to actually effect separation. But they have enough support to see the pro-separation party elected to lead the provincial government a handful of times, and they risk doing it again one of these days. But a political party can get elected to head the government with just over a third of the vote, but it would take more than double that percentage to vote in favour of separation before the federal Government of Canada would even begin negotiations. This is next to impossible for them to achieve.

If a state really wanted to, it could probably negotiate secession these days. It would take a referendum with an overwhelming majority of people voting in favour of it, first off. Then it would be the mandate of the state's government to negotiate with the federal government the terms of secession. But all this is speculation. There is no state that wants to separate. At least, no state secessionist movement is strong enough to convince 3/4 of the state of it.

The only secessionist movement in North America with any real support is here in Quebec, and even they will probably never garner the support they would need to actually effect separation. But they have enough support to see the pro-separation party elected to lead the provincial government a handful of times, and they risk doing it again one of these days. But a political party can get elected to head the government with just over a third of the vote, but it would take more than double that percentage to vote in favour of separation before the federal Government of Canada would even begin negotiations. This is next to impossible for them to achieve.


  Apparently the constitution closes the door on unilateral secession (Texas v. White) but leaves it cracked open by means of the ammendment process...

  Personally, I want the constitution f***ed with as little as possible...

  So yeah, it is not impossible to secede, but it would be an extremely hard fight...

   Apparently the constitution closes the door on unilateral secession (Texas v. White) but leaves it cracked open by means of the ammendment process...

   Personally, I want the constitution f***ed with as little as possible...

   So yeah, it is not impossible to secede, but it would be an extremely hard fight...


That is correct.
As well as the point that if any state was able to secede from the nation, it would not get any of the funds of the U.S.
Their programs would have to support themselves, such as schools and etc..
They would also have to form their own Federal Government, which is no easy feat. Our Government started on Christmas Day 1066. Granted it was in it's infancy at that time, the major part that separates us from the other nations was a unique idea that had never been done before. Never before had a piece of paper been the highest form of Government. That was the first and a few nations have duplicated it since.

That is correct.
As well as the point that if any state was able to secede from the nation, it would not get any of the funds of the U.S.
Their programs would have to support themselves, such as schools and etc..
They would also have to form their own Federal Government, which is no easy feat. Our Government started on Christmas Day 1066. Granted it was in it's infancy at that time, the major part that separates us from the other nations was a unique idea that had never been done before. Never before had a piece of paper been the highest form of Government. That was the first and a few nations have duplicated it since.


   What a neat post..! 

   Maybe even earlier than Hastings.  Maybe the 1215 Magna Carta...

   I was going to say a few pages back, when the involuntary secession came up, that what we saved in federal funding we'd probably break even with in foreign aid because Americans don't let people die of starvation, frostbite or appendicitis...

   So, if you're pondering secession better make sure you have all your ducks beak to tail...

  Earlier than Hastings?!  What am I talking about..?! :P

The form of Government that we have has worked for us and other nations; however, there are nations where it just won't work. Such as in Iraq, our highest form of Government, as stated, is the Constitution will not work, because to them there is no higher form then the Koran. Nothing can be higher then that and that is exactly what we are trying to do to them.

The form of Government that we have has worked for us and other nations; however, there are nations where it just won't work. Such as in Iraq, our highest form of Government, as stated, is the Constitution will not work, because to them there is no higher form then the Koran. Nothing can be higher then that and that is exactly what we are trying to do to them.


  You mean our nation building horsepucky in Iraq..?

  For all the bluster, Iraq was the most secular, pro-Western country in the Middle East.  Maybe not quite as pro-Western as Israel, but far more secular...

Ridiculous! My point exactly. What do you know about Alberta anyway, or the Canadian federal system? I know they don't teach that in schools down there. They aren't propping up sh*t!

No need to get personal.  I do my own research.  I prefer teaching myself these things to taking classes in them.  You'd be surprised what you can find on the internet, and how it helps you find primary sources that teachers often overlook.

More specifically, I know that the oil and gas boom has had a tremendous effect on the Canadian dollar's value that would be nonexistent if it weren't for Alberta's contribution to Canada's economy.  And yes, they are propping up quite a bit of your economy.  So is Saskatchewan with the uranium market.  A lot of your lumber resources are in the western provinces as well.

The Alberta secessionist movement barely even exists first of all, and if they weren't rolling in oil at the moment, it wouldn't exist at all. The whopping majority of Albertans are loyal Canadians. Alberta is conservative, not libertarian.

As the fiscal imbalance continues between provinces, you may see a gradual change of heart among Albertans.  There is a good reason Harper has often sided with the Bloc Quebecois.  He sympathizes with their cause due to the parallel he sees to Alberta's movement.

Look back a few decades ago and you'd have seen a very different Alberta... one that was certainly getting more money from the federal government than it was paying in. It's only a matter of time before it happens again. Now they're paying some of that money back. And The Eastern Provinces, by which I presume you mean NB, PEI, NS, and Newfoundland/Labrador, were once an economic hotspot for many reasons and are now experiencing difficulties, but it's not like they are wastelands. Canada is a federation based on equalisation, collecting federal income taxes, and redistributing those resources according to need back to the provincial governments. The Eastern Provinces aren't what you would call wealthy, but they aren't dirt poor either.

Agreed, but times change, and so do the rules oftentimes.

Alberta, which is a fine province and I have nothing but love for it, isn't the only province which has been consistently getting back less than they pay in. 41 cents of every federal dollar comes from Ontario, for example, and Ontarians tend to be among the most patriotic Canadians.

Canadian provinces don't mind helping each other. Canada is, above all, a country. There are tiffs between provinces and regions, that's common. But the only secessionist movement in this era to have ever even come close to swaying the majority of a province's population is that of Quebec. I personally think that we need to go ahead and include the word 'indivisible' somewhere in the Constitution, but that would be a feat indeed. It would take at most a miracle, and at the very least some amazingly clever politics. If Harper could accomplish that, I would happily kiss that man's ass. But not bloody likely to happen.


I would assume that it would be easy to be patriotic as an Ontarian.  They have the most political influence over Canadian government, with Ottawa obviously being in the province.  It's not that different from how states like Maryland, Virginia and Delaware have a lot more clout in our government in practical terms than our legislature officially acknowledges.

There is a problem of geography that both America and Canada face in a political sense.  Both of our countries are highly affected by sectionalism.  This happens to any country with a large land mass, but it is especially apparent in America.  We've tried to neutralize its effects through things like the Senate, but instead, it seems to have had the effect of downplaying urban votes and overplaying rural ones.

Either way, it is an inescapable fact of human nature that sectionalism plagues every large nation.  The more severe it gets, the worse the consequences become.  We had a Civil War because of it, and it looks like things may head in a similar direction within the next 100 years.

A much more peaceful resolution would be a voluntary move toward decentralization of authority.  This has the effect of letting highly sectional things like social policy fall to the states.  I'm a strong advocate of states' rights because I've seen what federal intervention does to hot button issues.  One of the only times I agreed with federal intervention was the ending of segregation, because there was no other feasible solution, but other than that, I think it is best to let local branches of government handle most problems.

If there are complaints of mixing church and state, why do prisons let Muslim prosoners do the prayer rug kneel to Mecca?

Some ignorant people need to know that answer?

Separation of Church and State? Where? I do not understand this question. The founding fathers of the United States did not desire there to be a separation of Church and State. The meetings of Congress start every time with a prayer. So how is that a separation of Church and State?
The Whole topic of that started in the 1960's when a atheist mother got upset because her son was given the option of standing out in the hallway while the his school class started the day with a prayer. Why has In God We Trust been written on our currency for the last 230 years if there is a separation of church and state?
We allow people to practice their religious beliefs. It does not matter which religion it is, as long as it does not harm anyone else.

If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him is he still wrong?    

Yes    ;)


No. He's hunting.  ;D

Ant

As an outsider to the whole problem with the USA's ignorance I think I have to leap to their defence. I'm British so when I turn on my TV or read magazines or play computer games I tend to be influenced by British Culture and the dominating global culture, which is mainly American. People forget how much they learn about other places from movies. This is the same everywhere. In the same way that Brits know very little about Lithuanians, Americans know very littte too, its just that the lithuanians know all about them from Movies and the media.
For Americans their TV has US programs and since that also is the global culture they don't pick up on stuff. I guess they know more about us Britons because we export loads of our programs over there.

Mind you it isn't all just accidental. I think since it was the first country to really try democracy and promote freedom it gained (and back then deserved) the opinion it was the best country in the world. Since the 19th Century Britain, Europe and the rest of the developed word caught up with their freedoms, and even surpassed them sometimes, but i think America still thinks itself the only "free" people. Probably cuz that's what Joe Sixpack's daddy told him.

The weird thing is the separation of church and state. Over there religion is not allowed in schools or government and whatnot and yet you have a society rife with fundamentalism and where Presidents can say "God told me to invade Iraq" and not get laughed at. In the UK the we have, technically, a government supported religion (Church of England), Bishops in one of our parliament houses (like senate or something), The head of state (the queen) is the head of the religion and even has as one of her titles "Defender of the Faith". We have all that and yet most people don't go to church, religion is waning, atheism is rising and cultures tends to get along, or at least keep out of each others way. Over here if anyone professes deep religious beliefs we get all uncomfortable, like with Tony Blair

Weird, huh?

Separation of Church and State? Where? I do not understand this question. The founding fathers of the United States did not desire there to be a separation of Church and State. The meetings of Congress start every time with a prayer. So how is that a separation of Church and State?
The Whole topic of that started in the 1960's when a atheist mother got upset because her son was given the option of standing out in the hallway while the his school class started the day with a prayer. Why has In God We Trust been written on our currency for the last 230 years if there is a separation of church and state?
We allow people to practice their religious beliefs. It does not matter which religion it is, as long as it does not harm anyone else.


It is wise to be careful when invoking the name of the founding fathers of the US.  They did most absolutely desire the separation of church and state, they did not begin meetings of congress with opening prayers, and "In God We Trust" is not, and never would have been, put on their currency, and everyone went to work on Christmas, it was not a holiday.  Most of these changes occured until after the Civil War.  As a matter of fact, for all the strict constructionists out there, abortion and dissemination of information of birth control was legal until after the Civil War.  There is an argument that these measures were put in place more as a way of increasing the (native) population as opposed to any moral imperative.

If there are complaints of mixing church and state, why do prisons let Muslim prosoners do the prayer rug kneel to Mecca?

Some ignorant people need to know that answer?


The separation of church and state goes to the issue of having one state sanctioned religion, and the prohibition or separate regulation of religions outside of that state sanctioned religion.  People are free to practice their religion without interference of the state.  It is ok for Muslim prisoners to have prayer rugs and kneel to Mecca just as it is for Christian prisoners to attend mass, which they do.

Sorry it is so long. But Where in the constitution is it?!
107th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2690

AMENDMENT S 2690 EAH

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 8, 2002.

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2690) entitled `An Act to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance', do pass with the following AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'.

(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'.

(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.';

(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national motto of the United States is `In God We Trust', and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States.

(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: `But untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.'.

(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city government's display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: `There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789 . . . xamples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto `In God We Trust' (36 U.S.C. 186), which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language `One Nation under God', as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children--and adults--every year . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent--not seasonal--symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.'.

(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words `under God,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future.'.

(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words `under God' was constitutional.

(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.

SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

`The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Pledge for decades.

SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 302 of title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 302. National motto

`In God we trust' is the national motto.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall make no change in section 302, title 36, United States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Motto for decades. Attest:

Clerk.