Can you numb skulls explain...

[Goober]

Originally posted by jpowers
Maybe California, Quebec and Killington, VT can form their own nation and let the rest of North America get on with its business.

Quebec and California, and this little Vermont town? Hmm . . . it is possible, but hideouly unlikely. Quebec would never agree to it. First of all, you would backrupt the nation trying to get anough money to bribe the Quebecers to stay in the union. Second, French language laws would have to be impelmeneted, and those are a royal pain in the arse. No, i think this is rather like Oil in Water, just don't join, no matter how hard you try . . .

I know you are kidding, and frankly, to see Quebec and all its associated problems leave might be a good thing.

 

[Shadylookin]

Originally posted by IglooDude


Tax dollars for drilling? The oil companies will shell out for it just fine on their own, but in any case there's something in Alaska called the Permanent Fund Dividend that works as a sort of reverse tax. With the oil they still have up on the North Slope, they can handle the occasional earthquake a lot better than the statewide Disasterland Disney exhibit does just south of Oregon.

And yeah, I was crazy enough to live in Alaska for four years.

i imagine we won't allow drilling so we can save it for emergencies. The US has a good ammount of oil. And as for alaska being able to succed as it's own nation... well lets just say i'm very skeptical

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

California is utterly dependent o other states for water, power, and other basics, and much of it subsidized federally. If it actually secceeded, it would be economicly ruined.

 

[Duddha]

California is utterly dependent o other states for water, power, and other basics, and much of it subsidized federally. If it actually secceeded, it would be economicly ruined.

And America is utterly dependent on California for Pacific trade, entertainment, high input agricultural crops, a 75 billion syphon of California tax payer dollars out of California, weapons and defense industry, and much mush more.

Why do people always assume trade would spot between Cali and America after secession? Has globalization done nothing?

 

[Shadylookin]

Originally posted by Duddha


And America is utterly dependent on California for Pacific trade, entertainment, high input agricultural crops, a 75 billion syphon of California tax payer dollars out of California, weapons and defense industry, and much mush more.

Why do people always assume trade would spot between Cali and America after secession? Has globalization done nothing?

if california succeded we wouldn't be getting money from california would we. so it makes good sense to regain our income. If california decided to leave the union i'm sure other countries would alter their ships course north to trade with the US. And yes if california left we would be screwed economically with along with california.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

Originally posted by Shadylookin
succesion is a stuipd idea for any state. There is no reason too, other than to fulfil the dreams of psycho liberals. Then there is the fact that no state is prepared to assume the duties of an independant nation. let us not forget the invasion that would happen soon after.

as for the issue at hand I have to agree 55% is way too low. sure it the majority, but you have 45% unhappy with the whole thing. mabey they should learn to compromise.



just like all californians

Invasion? there are alot of marine bases in california already, no need to invade when you're already there.

why would california want to leave? what benifits would be involved?

 

[Speedo]

Why do people always assume trade would spot between Cali and America after secession? Has globalization done nothing?

If you think that California is going to secede without a war, you're just foolish.

Again with the war and might makes right dribble.

Welcome to the real world kiddo.

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
California is utterly dependent o other states for water, power, and other basics, and much of it subsidized federally. If it actually secceeded, it would be economicly ruined.

you're assuming that the US would embargo us. and we can make our own water. the water where i live comes from snow melt up in the mountains. we also have plenty of rivers. but the power thing you're right about. maybe we could buy power from Mexico. and if the US embargoed us, their economy would be ruined as well.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

No way in hell California is resource-independent. We'd all die of thirst in a week. All of SouthCal gets water from Nevada and Colorado.

Of COURSE the USA is going to embargo us - and invade us! Do you really think they're going to let the fifth largest economy in the world just walk away?

You guys have been smoking too much pot - and that's coming from a Californian. Wake up and smell the coffee, there's no reason for secession and it would be a dismal failure anyway. Case closed.

 

[Duddha]

If you think that California is going to secede without a war, you're just foolish.

*Back in British India* "If you think India is going to gain independance without a war, you're just foolish"

Welcome to the real world kiddo.

Yes, where Saddam has WMD, and where California's energy crisis wasn't a hoaks. The only reason a war would happen is because people like you would start it. Wars generally have to be accepted by people as inevitable for them to actually happen. Where does that place you on a moral scale? Ask you self that.

 

[Duddha]

No way in hell California is resource-independent. We'd all die of thirst in a week. All of SouthCal gets water from Nevada and Colorado.

No way in hell America is resource independant. No nation today is. That is not a valid agruement. And by the way, only the Imperial Valley and LA's eastern suburbs get their water from the Colorado river.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

*Back in British India* "If you think India is going to gain independance without a war, you're just foolish"

This is the most idiotic analogy I've read on this thread and that's saying something. India had a different culture, a different religion, a different language, a different ethnicity, a different stage of economic development, a different governmental tradition and was - oh yeah, I forgot - ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONTINENT. In the leadup to WWII it was nothing more than a thorn in the imperial-management department of the Brit govt. They had already decided to give India home govt, Ghandi just sped the process up.

There is NO reason for California to secede from the USA except that some wacko socialists from Berkeley don't like to live in a country with people of slightly differing opinions.

Honestly, the issue is a total nonstarter. It's not even worthy of debate.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

No way in hell America is resource independant. No nation today is.

America has peaceful relations with most of the developed world.

Not only would California immediately be in a state of war with the USA and thus lose its trade, any nation that chose to trade with the nascent nation of California would immediately get embargoed by the USA [for aiding and abetting an enemy]. Any nation care to take that risk? Didn't think so.

It's really painful having to spell out reality for you...

 

[Speedo]

*Back in British India* "If you think India is going to gain independance without a war, you're just foolish"

Well, Pontiuth pretty much covered that one.

The only reason a war would happen is because people like you would start it. Wars generally have to be accepted by people as inevitable for them to actually happen. Where does that place you on a moral scale? Ask you self that.

According the the United States Supreme Court, no state has the right to leave the union. According to them, that puts you in the wrong, and in the position of starting the war.

Apparently CA secessionists are on about the same level as the "the south will rise again" rednecks.

 

[Duddha]

Throughout all the debates about California secession on the boards only one signal argument against California secession has ever come up I, nor anyother, have not been able to counter in a way that was satifactory for the opponancy. That agrument is the prospect of America invading California and keeping it by force and violence. However, I believe the reason this one point cannot be resolved has less to do with the valitaty of the proponacy's response and more to do with the perspective of the opponancy. The fact that the opponancy cannot yield, to the notion that affairs amongs peoples and nation ought to be carried out by law rather than power, validates the cause of California secession. It demonstates the differences that justify secession. Attempting to scare with the spector of violence means nothing, self determination is a right.

 

[Duddha]

According the the United States Supreme Court, no state has the right to leave the union. According to them, that puts you in the wrong, and in the position of starting the war.

I've been over this before, it is called international law that trumps the supreme court decision.

This is the most idiotic analogy I've read on this thread and that's saying something. India had a different culture, a different religion, a different language, a different ethnicity, a different stage of economic development, a different governmental tradition and was - oh yeah, I forgot - ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONTINENT. In the leadup to WWII it was nothing more than a thorn in the imperial-management department of the Brit govt. They had already decided to give India home govt, Ghandi just sped the process up.

The analogy was not went to demonstrate that California today is like that of the British Raj in India. I mearly ment to demonstrate that there is a precedent for nations seperating without war.

On the issue of culture. California culturally distinct from the rest of America, as, if not more, than Canada is from America. Should America invade Canada to annex it into the Union because they are culturally similiar? That is what your logic implies.

Not only would California immediately be in a state of war with the USA and thus lose its trade, any nation that chose to trade with the nascent nation of California would immediately get embargoed by the USA [for aiding and abetting an enemy]. Any nation care to take that risk? Didn't think so.

Not that it would come to this, but if you ask any foriegner which he liked better, California or the rest of America, he would pick California. Your argument is repulsive, you sound like a Indonesian general talking about East Timor.

 

[Speedo]

So, basically you're down to repeating the same rhetoric that we heard 143 years ago?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Apparently CA secessionists are on about the same level as the "the south will rise again" rednecks.

Yet another use for Pontiuth Proverb #5437: "Never let your political inclination get in the way of recognizing an idiot." These wackos are scattered all over the political spectrum.

Not to be a spelling Nazi, but it's "opposition", not "opponancy".

However, I believe the reason this one point cannot be resolved has less to do with the valitaty of the proponacy's response and more to do with the perspective of the opponancy. The fact that the opponancy cannot yield, to the notion that affairs amongs peoples and nation ought to be carried out by law rather than power, validates the cause of California secession. It demonstates the differences that justify secession. Attempting to scare with the spector of violence means nothing, self determination is a right.

This is ridiculous. The USA would be "wrong" to try to keep California in the Union by force?

Yet of course, I'm sure you admire the Southern Confederacy's attempt at freedom from the Union? Or do I smell a double standard?

 

[Duddha]

So, basically you're down to repeating the same rhetoric that we heard 143 years ago?

Even Kipling, the author of you sig, was for self determination in theory.

 

[Speedo]

I've been over this before, it is called international law that trumps the supreme court decision.

Uh huh. This international law is enforced by who, again? Delude yourself all you want, but no outside country/international body is going to mingle in US internal affairs any time soon.

Not that it would come to this, but if you ask any foriegner which he liked better, California or the rest of America, he would pick California.

Even if your sweeping, unfounded generalization were true, "liking better" does not equate to "willing to go against the US on their behalf."