Originally posted by VillagerLet me remind you who initiated this thread and who is being arsy.
I hadn't yet attempted to find a transcript of the programme, and considering that you're avoiding addressing the topic and being arsy at the same time, i don't think I'll bother.
"All this supreme court business has got me thinking. Why don't you chaps just devolve into separate nations, east and west, north and south, however you want to do it. You can have the atheistic baby-killers in one half and the inbreeding Crusaders in the other. Everyone will be happy (maybe you could even have a war over it, just to make the whole thing fully American).
What do you say, a spot of cathartic national self-determination? It'll keep you from invading any more third world countries for a while, if nothing else."
Now I call that being arsy. In fact, it has all the indications of being written by a real arsehole.
Originally posted by VillagerI'd call it another hate filled, anti-American, spiteful, immature, simplistic rant. Just because you type ? at the end of statements that you feel compelled to make doesn't make them questions worth answering. You already have your own answers to the questions. Just have guts enough to express them as statements.
I'd call it a sarcastically phrased, serious question. I did initiate it, and you've yet to respond - the issue of the gimp on telly is entirely tangential.
Originally posted by DelmerNot everybody who declines to eat at McDonalds, wear Nike and has a cynical attiude towards the US is 'hate filled', much as it might make the dogma easier to swallow. My post might have bordered on spiteful, but that wasn't the intent. I'll break it down: the premise is a serious topic seldom breached: that the US might be better off as two or more nations. The description of atheistic baby-killers and inbreeding Crusaders is just a summary of the caricature each receives on the other side, not a personal opinion. As for the warlike comments... just poking fun.
I'd call it another hate filled, anti-American, spiteful, immature, simplistic rant. Just because you type ? at the end of statements that you feel compelled to make doesn't make them questions worth answering. You already have your own answers to the questions. Just have guts enough to express them as statements.
Interesting, I hadn't considered the idea of states being ejected. If a state/s made a serious effort to withdraw from the Union, what argument would be used to stop it? Would the federal government resort to force to maintain the full union, or simply accept it? How different would things be vis-a-vis the CW?
Originally posted by sasquatch672And so SQ from Philadelphia joins the Villager fom rural England in trashing whole states with pithy cliches.
Well, disregarding the insult, I'm inclined to take your side. Here's my issue: all of these "values" states - especially the South, part of which is still fighting the Civil War, are "recipient states", meaning they take in more federal tax dollars than they pay out. Of course, it's a zero-sum game, so in order for there to be recipient state ...[text shortened]... olve, we would set to kicking the holy living sh!t out of each other quite expeditiously indeed.
Originally posted by VillagerI think you're a liar. Your intent was to say exactly what you said to show us how superior you think you are to the people in the USA. (Just poking fun, of course. Not a personal opinion, Villager.)
Not everybody who declines to eat at McDonalds, wear Nike and has a cynical attiude towards the US is 'hate filled', much as it might make the dogma easier to swallow. My post might have bordered on spiteful, but that wasn't the intent. I'll break it down: the premise is a serious topic seldom breached: that the US might be better off as two or more na ...[text shortened]... es on the other side, not a personal opinion. As for the warlike comments... just poking fun.
Originally posted by sasquatch672i only found two links, they have values for 1986, 1996, and 2003, all three of sets of values show Pennsylania as a net consumer of federal tax dollars, and Texas as a net donor (except for 1986, when Pennsylvania was a net donor, but was still donating less than Texas was) ....
Well, disregarding the insult, I'm inclined to take your side. Here's my issue: all of these "values" states - especially the South, part of which is still fighting the Civil War, are "recipient states", meaning they take in more federal tax dollars than they pay out. Of course, it's a zero-sum game, so in order for there to be recipient state ...[text shortened]... olve, we would set to kicking the holy living sh!t out of each other quite expeditiously indeed.
so, sasquatch, Texas wants its money back from you .... money orders preferred ...
the figures are, Federal Expenditures per Dollar of Taxes:
1986 1996 2003
0.96 1.02 1.08 Pennsylvania
0.84 0.98 0.98 Texas
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=873
Originally posted by Villageri doubt they let anyone withdraw, we already had a civil war over that, the issue's been decided ...
Interesting, I hadn't considered the idea of states being ejected. If a state/s made a serious effort to withdraw from the Union, what argument would be used to stop it? Would the federal government resort to force to maintain the full union, or simply accept it? How different would things be vis-a-vis the CW?
1 edit
Originally posted by VillagerIt's like the mob(organized crime) , once you're in , your in . There's no getting out . Plus your family and it's generations to come are in as well .
Interesting, I hadn't considered the idea of states being ejected. If a state/s made a serious effort to withdraw from the Union, what argument would be used to stop it? Would the federal government resort to force to maintain the full un ...[text shortened]... simply accept it? How different would things be vis-a-vis the CW?
PS - Del , stop getting so upset . You've yelled so loud your racoon's head is falling off .
Originally posted by Moldy Crow(Just poking fun, of course. Not a personal opinion.) The raccoons are just fine. There's a mother and six young ones on the deck right now eating dog food and waiting for their cookies.
It's like the mob(organized crime) , once you're in , your in . There's no getting out . Plus your family and it's generations to come are in as well .
PS - Del , stop getting so upset . You've yelled so loud your racoon's head is falling off .
Originally posted by DelmerWell the one on your avatar is definitely lose . It needs duct tape or a nail or something .
(Just poking fun, of course. Not a personal opinion.) The raccoons are just fine. There's a mother and six young ones on the deck right now eating dog food and waiting for their cookies.
Originally posted by Moldy CrowLOL! No doubt several posters have tried to behead it. I was going to donate some money to an anti-war group but I think I'll buy my avatar raccoon a diamond studded collar instead. Raccoons like sparkly things, you know.
Well the one on your avatar is definitely lose . It needs duct tape or a nail or something .
Originally posted by darvlaysome of it is too decentralized now .... what do we need with umpteen sets of state/county laws? ... keep the military decentralized to avoid coups, and look at what makes sense to centralize .... move those parts to kansas ...
Your sarcasm aside, I think a more decentralised government would be a good thing for the United States. Canada as well.