If secession were to come up for a vote in your state...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Mexico or the Pacific. Either way you guys are gone.

I have a friend that is a geological engineer, and studies the faults and other underground structures in SoCal all the time for one of the gas companies down there. She thinks a good chunk of southern California, including most of Los Angeles and surrounding communities, will eventually rotate counter-clockwise and drift off to the northwest. At a few millimeters a year, that may take a while, but it is happening. Every 75 to 150 years, or so, we get a real good slip along that part of the San Andreas, so it moves meters all at once, instead of gradually. I believe 1857 was a last major quake in SoCal, about a 7.9, near Fort Tejon, and aftershocks were felt up until 1860. LA is overdue for the big one.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

What makes the United States of America great is that this is the greatest nation on Earth. When the USSR was still reality, it was taken seriously, very seriously, by even the greatest nation on Earth. Now look at what's left of it. Some splinter countries that nobody gives a #### about. If the USA were to break up, it would be the end of it. For that very reason, it is never going to happen. Discussing this is like trying to figure out where to get a spare tire for an extraterrestrial space ship that landed on the lawn of the White House with a flat.

[Calypso 464]

Is there a poll that asks which states I want to secede? I'm not living in NJ and I want it to go on its own.

[sly_wolf 199]

I've always considered myself a Texan first. Her interests come first and foremost.

Same attitude as some socialist French quebecers.

[Niels Bohr 72]

This poll would've been better if it was a yes or no (two options). I don't have to count every time I read this thread.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Niels Bohr

[james&olya 1,121]

I've always considered myself a Texan first. Her interests come first and foremost.

Who defines 'her' interests?

[james&olya 1,121]

Actually, it's only the revisionists who deny the facts surrounding the events that led up to the Civil War. It is clear, historically, that the issue of slavery was at the center of the conflict. Initially, the southern states complained that the free states were disregarding slave owners rightful ownership of property by refusing to return slaves who had escaped. They wanted the Federal Gov't. to step in and enforce their Right of Property. The southern states only decided to secede when they felt the free states were not following along the same rules.

....

"The Civil War was not fundamentally about "states rights". Asserting a state's right to secede doesn't speak to why the state wants to secede. When the northern states were threatened by the War of 1812, they considered secession. When South Carolina was threatened by a tariff, they attempted to nullify the law. When a state's self interests come into play, they'll take advantage of whatever political mechanism they can imagine to assert that self interest, up to and including nullification, secession, and war.

The real story is not in the political mechanics but the underlying interest in preserving slavery that forced the South to become so hell bent on their "states rights". If Northern states had seceded over the War of 1812, we wouldn't assert the fundamental cause was a debate over state's rights. Rather we'd say it was their opposition to the War of 1812. The same applies for the South's secession as well. Their interest in preserving slavery drove them to use untested constitutional mechanism and eventually go to war.

And when you consider the South's conundrum it becomes clearer.

White southerners lived in constant, real fear of slavery/black insurrection. They had experienced violence from slaves during Turner's Rebellion. They looked south to the Haitian Revolution and similar rebellions in the sugar colonies and saw little comfort in how those societies were transformed. Maintaining the institutions associated with slavery was a matter of life/death for white southerners. Laws were passed to further and further restrict the activities of slaves and freed blacks and codify racial distinctions. Even if the injustice of the system might be acknowledged by some southerners, the fear that slaves or freed blacks might (perhaps justifiably) seek vengeance was deep."

http://history.stack...de-from-the-u-s

Not much has changed in the south. The interests and 'rights' of corporations and the very wealthy over-rule any rights a poor or working person, especially one of color, might have! Since Nixon's 'southern strategy' the GOP has become their home and it appears they have completely taken over there!

[Danno 1,228]

Not much has changed in the south. The interests and 'rights' of corporations and the very wealthy over-rule any rights a poor or working person, especially one of color, might have! Since Nixon's 'southern strategy' the GOP has become their home and it appears they have completely taken over there!

More of the Southern Strategy misinterpretations?

Other than Obama, who was another -off the charts Lefty in our life time?

[james&olya 1,121]

More of the Southern Strategy misinterpretations?

Other than Obama, who was another -off the charts Lefty in our life time?

Dannologic again!

[Danno 1,228]

Dannologic again!

IS that the Southern strategy or not?

You can laugh your absurdity away my friend.

[james&olya 1,121]

IS that the Southern strategy or not?

You can laugh your absurdity away my friend.

You seriously don't know about Nixon's 'southern strategy'? I know that many on the right operate in a fact-poor environment but I didn't realize you were also this un-informed! It does explain a lot though!

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

IS that the Southern strategy or not?

You can laugh your absurdity away my friend.

Sigh, here you go Danno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[Danno 1,228]

You seriously don't know about Nixon's 'southern strategy'? I know that many on the right operate in a fact-poor environment but I didn't realize you were also this un-informed! It does explain a lot though!

Why didn't it even work for Nixon's V.P.?

[Danno 1,228]

Sigh, here you go Danno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Here you go what... I can post the "Romney strategy" too, what exactly does that mean?

In fact, here I have one for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogie_man

[Danno 1,228]

Not much has changed in the south. The interests and 'rights' of corporations and the very wealthy over-rule any rights a poor or working person, especially one of color, might have! Since Nixon's 'southern strategy' the GOP has become their home and it appears they have completely taken over there!

Your words my friend..... I know it hurts when you hear somerthing over and over and ... well, assume it to be gospel truth but the facts are.....

The very next president -Carter... swept the south.

Deal.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Danno