knightni Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/seciss...-190210006.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 07:31 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/seciss...-190210006.html Similar petitions were filed following the 2004 and 2008 elections. But in 2012, it is news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 My answer would be, farewell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 07:33 PM) But in 2012, it is news. To be fair, they might written the exact same article in 2004 and 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 07:33 PM) But in 2012, it is news. I just heard that it's up to 33 states. Were the numbers in those years similar? Either way, I'm sure this is simply going to degrade into a red vs. blue argument that leads to childish crap from both sides. I think it's retarded no matter which side you're on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 08:24 PM) I just heard that it's up to 33 states. Were the numbers in those years similar? Either way, I'm sure this is simply going to degrade into a red vs. blue argument that leads to childish crap from both sides. I think it's retarded no matter which side you're on. This. But regardless of who's president, whenever this comes up I wish the President would go "Ok. Do it." Then the states would realized that they're f***ed on their own as they most likely be landlocked or have to use USA airspace or water routes. But that wouldn't be the best for the country...so let's leave it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The biggest issue would be the military as Im pretty sure the side that is staying wouldnt want to give up their toys. Its not 1860 where you can just give humans guns and call it an army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I almost wrote a long post on this. Instead I'll just go with... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 08:45 PM) The biggest issue would be the military as Im pretty sure the side that is staying wouldnt want to give up their toys. Its not 1860 where you can just give humans guns and call it an army. Before a country secedes, the US military removes all flying aircraft from the state. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 07:33 PM) But in 2012, it is news. http://www.local12.com/news/state/story/Ke...zSA.cspx?rss=31 A political science professor at the University of Louisville said petitions like these are not uncommon. Similar petitions were filed after the 2000 election and again after the 2008 election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The difference is that these petitions are online and very easy to see for any lazy reporter with Google. In previous years, reporters would have had actually had to do work to uncover these petitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The difference is that these petitions are online and very easy to see for any lazy reporter with Google. In previous years, reporters would have had actually had to do work to uncover these petitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 While I doubt it would be good if it happened (and let's be real, there's zero chance of that. The POTUS would have to go around and personally rape every wife in the land to stir up that much hate at this point), there couldn't be better states to lose, right? Texas would hurt the most, they actually contribute value to the country, even if none of it is cultural Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 14, 2012 -> 11:00 AM) While I doubt it would be good if it happened (and let's be real, there's zero chance of that. The POTUS would have to go around and personally rape every wife in the land to stir up that much hate at this point), there couldn't be better states to lose, right? Texas would hurt the most, they actually contribute value to the country, even if none of it is cultural You lose your #1 and #2 oil producers in Texas and North Dakota. That's a pretty big hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPN366 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 SMH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 14, 2012 -> 11:35 AM) You lose your #1 and #2 oil producers in Texas and North Dakota. That's a pretty big hit. it is. But you also lose most of the top 10 taker states in terms of federal aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 14, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) it is. But you also lose most of the top 10 taker states in terms of federal aid. Absolutely. I don't think anything will come of it anyways. I think, regardless of Democrats, Republican, or potential 3rd party winners in future Presidential elections, that people signing petitions for secession will become perpetual and nothing will ever come of it (at least in our lifetime). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 14, 2012 -> 11:51 AM) Absolutely. I don't think anything will come of it anyways. I think, regardless of Democrats, Republican, or potential 3rd party winners in future Presidential elections, that people signing petitions for secession will become perpetual and nothing will ever come of it (at least in our lifetime). It already has become perpetual. This happened after 2000, 2004, and 2008... at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Yeah, this is just a fun hypothetical exercise. There's no way they'll get enough support to even begin a legislative move on this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2835142.shtml?cat=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 More interesting points are Puerto Rico voting to become a state and parts of Arizona wishing to break away and become their own state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 17, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) More interesting points are Puerto Rico voting to become a state and parts of Arizona wishing to break away and become their own state. Puerto Rico didn't "Vote to become a state", FWIW: they were given 2 choices, statehood or a move away from the U.S. The Status Quo was not an option on the ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) Puerto Rico didn't "Vote to become a state", FWIW: they were given 2 choices, statehood or a move away from the U.S. The Status Quo was not an option on the ballot. It was non-binding, anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 24, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) It was non-binding, anyway Yeah, but had that option been on the ballot and statehood had won, it would have been much more interesting. You can't suggest that the non-binding vote was indicating a desire to change the current relationship when the status quo wasn't a given choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2012 -> 12:00 PM) Yeah, but had that option been on the ballot and statehood had won, it would have been much more interesting. You can't suggest that the non-binding vote was indicating a desire to change the current relationship when the status quo wasn't a given choice. They voted for an anti-statehood governor, so the status quo is probably what they are interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts