umm, last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-magaz...84820.html

Quote:Here’s how it will be with Vermont: The leaders of its secessionist movement, the Second Vermont Republic, want to feed, shelter, clothe, and fuel a free republic broken from the empire. This doesn’t mean the little country will sink into Albanian isolation, its citizens ceasing to trade with China or refusing to watch the rot beamed on DirecTV satellites. It will continue to be a tourist destination, its slopes welcoming New Yorkers and Quebecois equally. But the state’s secesh want to keep their tax dollars at home and put them toward localized food economies (calling it “food sovereignty”), energy supplies based on wind and water, and credit lines out of community lenders freed from the distant tyrannical rate controls of central banks

and

http://pundits.thehill.com/2009/04/13/se...n-vermont/

and say, 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02076.html

Quote:Against this backdrop, secessionists from all over the state will gather in June to plan a grass-roots campaign to get at least 200 towns to vote by 2012 on independence. We believe that one outcome of this meeting will be dialogues among different communities of Vermonters committed to achieving local economic vitality, be they farmers, entrepreneurs, bankers, merchants, lawyers, independent media providers, construction workers, manufacturers, artists, entertainers or anyone else with a stake in Vermont’s future — anyone for whom freedom is not just a slogan.

--

The present movement for secession has been gathering steam for a decade and a half. In preparation for Vermont’s bicentennial in 1991, public debates — moderated by then-Lt. Gov. Howard Dean — were held in seven towns before crowds that averaged 230 citizens. At the end of each, Dean asked all those in favor of Vermont’s seceding from the Union to stand and be counted. In town after town, solid majorities stood. The final count: 999 (62 percent) for secession and 608 opposed.

how about 2004:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/...index.html

Quote:In the days after the election, fantasies of blue-state secession ricocheted around the Internet. Liberals indulged themselves in maps showing Canada gathering the blue states into its social democratic embrace, leaving the red states to form their own “Jesusland“….

You were saying Mach?

They were cool with it in the 1860's too.

Interesting read GG. I do remember wishing the south would just go on their own when GB was president. Maybe that russian guy was right. Maybe we will break off into seven regions.

It won't be seven. If the leftist Marxists in the country, and to some extent many on the right, would just follow the damn Constitution, there'd be no reason to secede.

The real problem w/ secession is, like a divorce, who owns what?

Federal buildings and military bases?

Do we do an accounting of all taxes paid from a state to the Feds, and compare to appraised assets? What about the region's costs to accommodate the Federal property?

I say let bygones be bygones. If a region wants to secede (and various counties have proposed this thru the years, it's not limited to states) then it should be allowed to, and keep most of the infrastructure. However, secessionists should be required to pay fair market prices for those who are leaving b/c they don't want to join. This includes property, moving exenses and an inconvenience.

thats why there would be a War Torch, and it would be ugly.

only way that would get resolved.

(04-16-2009 01:16 PM)GGniner Wrote:  umm, last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-magaz...84820.html

Quote:Here’s how it will be with Vermont: The leaders of its secessionist movement, the Second Vermont Republic, want to feed, shelter, clothe, and fuel a free republic broken from the empire. This doesn’t mean the little country will sink into Albanian isolation, its citizens ceasing to trade with China or refusing to watch the rot beamed on DirecTV satellites. It will continue to be a tourist destination, its slopes welcoming New Yorkers and Quebecois equally. But the state’s secesh want to keep their tax dollars at home and put them toward localized food economies (calling it “food sovereignty”), energy supplies based on wind and water, and credit lines out of community lenders freed from the distant tyrannical rate controls of central banks

and

http://pundits.thehill.com/2009/04/13/se...n-vermont/

and say, 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02076.html

Quote:Against this backdrop, secessionists from all over the state will gather in June to plan a grass-roots campaign to get at least 200 towns to vote by 2012 on independence. We believe that one outcome of this meeting will be dialogues among different communities of Vermonters committed to achieving local economic vitality, be they farmers, entrepreneurs, bankers, merchants, lawyers, independent media providers, construction workers, manufacturers, artists, entertainers or anyone else with a stake in Vermont’s future — anyone for whom freedom is not just a slogan.

--

The present movement for secession has been gathering steam for a decade and a half. In preparation for Vermont’s bicentennial in 1991, public debates — moderated by then-Lt. Gov. Howard Dean — were held in seven towns before crowds that averaged 230 citizens. At the end of each, Dean asked all those in favor of Vermont’s seceding from the Union to stand and be counted. In town after town, solid majorities stood. The final count: 999 (62 percent) for secession and 608 opposed.

how about 2004:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/...index.html

Quote:In the days after the election, fantasies of blue-state secession ricocheted around the Internet. Liberals indulged themselves in maps showing Canada gathering the blue states into its social democratic embrace, leaving the red states to form their own “Jesusland“….

You were saying Mach?

Hey, I have no problems with Texass seceding. As a matter of fact, the sooner the better.

I just reread the article. One thing I do thinks warrants a response. Perry is the governor of that state. You won't find an equal on the left. Why............... because we try not to elect nutbags....................

(04-16-2009 01:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I just reread the article. One thing I do thinks warrants a response. Perry is the governor of that state. You won't find an equal on the left. Why............... because we try not to elect nutbags....................

Dean.

Blagovitch.

McGreevy.

Jerry Brown.

That's just off the top of my head.

So, I'm guessing you think the founders were nutbags, Mach? Since when did wanting less government intrusion, less government control, and less government power EVER become the definition of a "nutbag"? If you ask me, the nutbags are the ones trying to drive us in a direction that's failed all over the damn world.

(04-16-2009 01:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I just reread the article. One thing I do thinks warrants a response. Perry is the governor of that state. You won't find an equal on the left. Why............... because we try not to elect nutbags....................

perhaps you missed the article where then Lt. Governor Howard Dean was holding Townhalls in Vermount to talk about possibly seceeding???



then he became the head of the DNC

Let me re-quote from the WaPo 2007 article

Quote:The present movement for secession has been gathering steam for a decade and a half. In preparation for Vermont’s bicentennial in 1991, public debates — moderated by then-Lt. Gov. Howard Dean — were held in seven towns before crowds that averaged 230 citizens. At the end of each, Dean asked all those in favor of Vermont’s seceding from the Union to stand and be counted. In town after town, solid majorities stood. The final count: 999 (62 percent) for secession and 608 opposed.

look at cb's graph and get a teent tiny bit of perspective. please............. 40% is not socialism dude...................... get a grip

if Dean held meetings about seceeding.... your right and I'm wrong. I never heard that though. I've heard the rambling of the used car salesman though.... and next Michigan............... you know...

(04-16-2009 01:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  look at cb's graph and get a teent tiny bit of perspective. please............. 40% is not socialism dude...................... get a grip

What part of "Taxing people that make over 250K won't come close to even TOUCHING the debt Obama is accruing" do you not understand? You think 40% is the top? Keep dreaming, pal.

(04-16-2009 01:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  look at cb's graph and get a teent tiny bit of perspective. please............. 40% is not socialism dude...................... get a grip

I'm not aware of any definition of socialism that is based upon a tax rate.

My other point would be that comparing today's tax rates to those at some point in history misses the major point. 1975 isn't going to take a job away from us; but another country might. And when their tax rates are lower than ours (and 29 of the 30 OECD countries are, when it comes to corporate taxes) that becomes a threat. The democrats are disingenuous for using comparisons to the past to justify their actions when they know that the world has changed. The republicans are stupid for not pointing this out. I just sit here and wonder why there is no sanity.

(04-16-2009 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I just sit here and wonder why there is no sanity.

That's what worries me the most. (Well, not you wondering, but the fact that so few in positions of power seem to behave sanely.)

Did you get that from this blog GG

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/200...-was-cool/

(04-16-2009 07:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Did you get that from this blog GG

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/200...-was-cool/

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/20...-talk.html

from there, the MSM sources linked.

Dean was an obvious example

(04-16-2009 01:51 PM)GGniner Wrote:  

(04-16-2009 01:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I just reread the article. One thing I do thinks warrants a response. Perry is the governor of that state. You won't find an equal on the left. Why............... because we try not to elect nutbags....................

perhaps you missed the article where then Lt. Governor Howard Dean was holding Townhalls in Vermount to talk about possibly seceeding???



then he became the head of the DNC

Let me re-quote from the WaPo 2007 article

Quote:The present movement for secession has been gathering steam for a decade and a half. In preparation for Vermont’s bicentennial in 1991, public debates — moderated by then-Lt. Gov. Howard Dean — were held in seven towns before crowds that averaged 230 citizens. At the end of each, Dean asked all those in favor of Vermont’s seceding from the Union to stand and be counted. In town after town, solid majorities stood. The final count: 999 (62 percent) for secession and 608 opposed.

Ok, now do you actually have a story where it says he was for it?

I love the name for the breakaway south in the article- Jesusland. It is the perfect name.

(04-17-2009 11:46 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Ok, now do you actually have a story where it says he was for it?

I imagine Dean was for secession...until it came back to bite him

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004...cede_x.htm

Apparently Dean couldn't keep his own state together (w/o force). He couldn't keep the Dems together (w/o force).

So now we wonder how much influence he had on Obama.