View Full Version : Should the United States be Dissolved?
Divinus Arma
06-13-2006, 05:57
Dissolved into seperate state/countries under a confederation with the dollar acting as currency like the euro?
Hawaii will be granted its independance and returned its sovereignty.
Alaska will be sold to Canada or Russia.
Puerto Rico and Guam will be seperated entirely and abandoned.
The British Isles will be returned to the British.
Saddam will be reinstated.
Israel will be abandoned.
Taiwan will be absorbed by China.
And each state will be entirely indepenadnt, with smaller countries being formed as they so desire.
Caifornia, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona will all be gifted to Mexico.
The senate will be dissolved. The presidencey will be dissolved. The supreme court will be dissolved.
The U.S. will become a confederacy with greater linkage than envisioned under Benjamin Franklin's Articles.
Just curious what some folks would think of this. Obviously it would mean the complete erradication of U.S. power in the world, and a vaccuum would exist to be filled immediately by China.
IrishMike
06-13-2006, 06:06
After the US national teams world cup performance, mabey we should disband them... But as for the rest, I kinda like it as it is.
If we all seperated that would make it harder to get pure Vermont maple syrup, and I so love that on my daily morning pancakes.
Papewaio
06-13-2006, 06:07
No, I want Texas to join Australia!
We need another small state!!!
They would fit in well, plenty of mineral wealth and independent thinkers...
Strike For The South
06-13-2006, 06:24
Caifornia, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona will all be gifted to Mexico.
.
https://img126.imageshack.us/img126/6213/b4vx.th.jpg (https://img126.imageshack.us/my.php?image=b4vx.jpg)
Maybe Kalifornia but not us:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
AntiochusIII
06-13-2006, 07:09
Actually, immediately after the "Dissolution of the Divine Arms" (as was called in the history books), California declared war on the rest of the Union and, by virtue of a masterful Blitzkrieg, take control of the entire continent. The new nation, the Imperial Federation of California, with its capitals San Francisco and Las Vegas, would continue on their crusade throughout the world...
...and so on and so forth.
Hence, gah.
Texas, of course, was defeated in approximately three minutes by three hundred Californian commandos who all wore the mask of Chuck Norris.
Banquo's Ghost
06-13-2006, 07:14
The British Isles will be returned to the British.
:laugh4:
discovery1
06-13-2006, 07:20
Actually, immediately after the "Dissolution of the Divine Arms" (as was called in the history books), California declared war on the rest of the Union and, by virtue of a masterful Blitzkrieg, take control of the entire continent. The new nation, the Imperial Federation of California, with its capitals San Francisco and Las Vegas, would continue on their crusade throughout the world...
...and so on and so forth.
Hence, gah.
Damn. I voted terrible catastrophy, but then i realized how awesome a such a vision would be. Got a problem with Vegas leadership? We have 200 Kilotons of love for you. Seriously we do I think. Neils AFB proable has a not at all small stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Actually it probably would be pretty bad.
Incongruous
06-13-2006, 08:18
I voted yes as it would be good to gain British indipendance again:laugh4:
We are into property buying.
We’ll take Alaska off your hands. Anything else you want to sell?
Byzantine Prince
06-13-2006, 10:03
Alaska will be sold to Canada or Russia.
Caifornia, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona will all be gifted to Mexico.
Wwo wow ow wo wo! You sell Alaska to us, but you GIVE all those huge states to Mexico. What did we do to deserve such disrespect?
For shame. :no:
The British Isles will be returned to the British.
:inquisitive:
rory_20_uk
06-13-2006, 10:13
You want an opinion and offer those to banal options? :inquisitive:
~:smoking:
scooter_the_shooter
06-13-2006, 10:30
Well I fall into the "I want cake, and I wanna' eat it too!" crowd, I'd rather still be the USA but give the states almost all the rights of countries. Why you ask? Because people in California and Texas want different things.
Note I am using generalizations, there are exceptions to every rule.
Californians are mostly anti gun, Texans are not.
Californians want gay marriage, Texans don't.
California wants to be europe pretty much, Texas does not.
So why not just let them? Instead of forcing the other side to go along with you and vice-versa?
I believe it would be good for us,
But the rest of the world? To hell with them it's our country, we'll do what we want with it.
I voted for the top option, but I am not that extreme. I just want the state rights. Not selling states and such that's evil! In my version we'd still have a federal government just with less power.
It'd just be stupid. Although the US does things wrong from time to time it's intent is usually good. I certainly don't trust China at all and would rather the world limit it's influence then let it become THE superpower.
That and why would Hawaii want to be independent? It's a tourism based economy (primarily Japan and US Mainland) and all the infrastructure on Oahu is payed for by the federal goverment (3 freeways for all the military bases).
Besides what types of goverment would be emplaced in Hawaii? Another corrupt Monarchy filled with drunkard idiots just to satisfy a few Hawaiian seperatists with no knowledge of history or economics!
Why would all that land go to Mexico? It's predominately white and I don't think all those non Hispanics want to be part of Mexico.
And why does the breakup of the USA require so many other countries to be given up on. Israel is quite able to stand on it's own feet now and Taiwan wouldn't peacefully go over to China. Also I assume that Japan would feel threatened by no US support and a growing China and abolish article 9 of their constitution. And since when are the British Isles part of the US? The US has a few bases and that's it. Just because the Brits are good allies of the US doesn't make them a puppet government.
How would the US have greater linkage as a confederacy? When the US was a confederacy each state had it's own currency and operated almost completely indepedently of the federal goverment.
How'd you think of this?
doc_bean
06-13-2006, 10:43
Why no independant Texas ? If any state could be a viable country it would be Texas. Maybe California as a distant second.
rory_20_uk
06-13-2006, 10:55
And that ability for states to have individual laws as well as overarching ones by the Federal Government is an example that the EU appears to be studiously ignoring.
For the EU to work, there is a far greater need for states to be able to have individual laws. Instead we have masses of red tape that often goes contrary to the wishes of the members.
Complete break up? Well, if states want to, fair enough. But their generally better where they are.
~:smoking:
Uesugi Kenshin
06-13-2006, 12:08
After the US national teams world cup performance, mabey we should disband them... But as for the rest, I kinda like it as it is.
If we all seperated that would make it harder to get pure Vermont maple syrup, and I so love that on my daily morning pancakes.
Vermont maple syrup is delicious, but you forgot our other secret weapon.
Ben&Jerries!!!
Vermont would definately end up conquering the world through blackmail and liberal brain-washing if this happened. It'd be great!:2thumbsup:
On a more serious note I think it'd be really really bad, the US can be pretty dumb at times, but it would be far worse if this happened.
Louis VI the Fat
06-13-2006, 13:37
No! The US should stay intact. France needs the US as the only global competitor of about the same impact and worldwide relevance as us.
rory_20_uk
06-13-2006, 13:45
As much influence as the French have today... Erm, there are loads of second rate countries. Sadly the USA isn't one of them.
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-13-2006, 14:02
I voted yes, then I began preparing my invasion plans. We don't want everything, just those thirteen colonies.
yesdachi
06-13-2006, 14:17
I said no. I hate to give up on a MTW game I have been working on for a few months I would really hate to give up on a 200 year old game. But it would be kind of interesting to see. I guess the states with the largest military presence would have the most “power” them and the ones with the nukes. Some of the new countries (old states) leaders could be total loons and have nuke power.:dizzy2:
I would rather see things go the other way and have the US take over the world (best Pinky and the Brain voice) but that is the MTW player in me.:2thumbsup:
Avicenna
06-13-2006, 15:28
You know, half of the Chinese themselves probably don't want Chinese domination, if they seriously thought about what would happen. I for one, know I don't.
By the way, I don't think that would be possible. You'd immediately have a few generals who want the US to exist fighting for power, and then the victor would proceed to make another US, perhaps under a military dictatorship. That, or I'm just going a bit crazy.
If successful, the US might just end up like Europe, full of pointless little city-states that are just a waste of time.
I was picturing something more like this ... (an oldie but a goodie)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/jesusland.jpg
Reenk Roink
06-13-2006, 20:47
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/jesusland.jpg
Why is Michigan not in Jesusland? :furious3:
By the way, this poll is an insult to Gah, where once again a selective interpretation of Gah is used to undermine it... :furious3:
Uesugi Kenshin
06-13-2006, 21:35
Hmmm, I like the idea of the United States of Canada.
Vermont better get a place of honor for the best maple syrup and ice-cream in the world! (not to mention our cheese and milk!)
Kaiser of Arabia
06-13-2006, 21:40
No. It would be harder to become dictator then.
Why is Michigan not in Jesusland? :furious3:
Weeeelll, Michigan is generally a Union-oriented blue state, but they do have the Michigan Militia (http://www.michiganmilitia.com/), which sort of puts them on the fence ...
Reenk Roink
06-13-2006, 22:08
Weeeelll, Michigan is generally a Union-oriented blue state, but they do have the Michigan Militia (http://www.michiganmilitia.com/), which sort of puts them on the fence ...
Jesus would have no need for the Michigan Militia... :no: :shame:
Truth be told, there's not much Jesus would like about the U.S. Republican agenda, certainly not as it has played out over the last six years. But that's sort of missing the point ...
Kralizec
06-13-2006, 22:35
I was picturing something more like this ... (an oldie but a goodie)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/jesusland.jpg
Aside from that being totally ridiculous and that it's not going to happen, would you mind living in the USC instead of the USA? I always thought that the blue states were more like Canadians then Jesuslanders.
Crazed Rabbit
06-14-2006, 00:22
Rather extreme.
Although the heart needs to be cut out of government, selling Alaska to Russia or Canada and giving away the southwest is drastic.
Crazed Rabbit
yesdachi
06-14-2006, 01:13
Jesus would have no need for the Michigan Militia... :no: :shame:
Heck, Michigan doesn’t even have a need for the Michigan militia.
But I respect their constitutional right to exist, I just think they are LAME!
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-14-2006, 03:50
Jon Corzine would rule New Jersey with an iron fist - subverting all business and freedom to his evil agenda of dominance and facial hair. Everything belongs to King Corzine - hail your new leader...
Until he is deposed by a conservative militia from the suburbs and rural areas!
Long live Alexander the Pretty Good!
Long live Alexander the Pretty Good!
Long live... er.
:hide:
PanzerJaeger
06-14-2006, 04:21
Why would the dissolution of the Federal Government involve giving certain states to other nations?
If that were the case, then the eastern coast should go to Britain and middle America to France. (Florida to Spain)
Caifornia, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona will all be gifted to Mexico.
:furious3: Are you CRAZY!?!?!?!! NO WAY!!! If anything Texas would become the superpower of the world, forget China or Vermont!
While I think this is a little extreme, it would be a small price to pay for essential decentralization. We need to remove government from business and private life, we need to downsize the government in general, if not get rid of it almost entirely. If this is what it would take, fine.
If we had no government we would just be a big bunch of people with no leaders and no organization. Then we would be even more useless then the Swiss!
Anway, NO NO NO Texas NOT Mexico!
Government is better then nothing.
:bow:
Thank you.
Divinus Arma
06-14-2006, 05:40
Oh ya, and South Korea would be completely abandoned, meaning of course, TWO things:
(a) North korea would take over
and even worse:
(b) Devastation Dave's noble protective serivce and willingness to die for South Koreans was essentially fruitless.
As for Alaska, you are CORRECT Byzantine Prince! After all: Who would get the money? The Presidents or prime ministers of Russia and Canada could arm wrestle for it.
And I guess Cali, Texas, et al could all fight for their independance all over again. I'm pretty sure that TExas would be independant. The rest would be Mexicanized. Liberals don't fight too hard, after all. They like trees and hybrids too much.
Tachikaze
06-14-2006, 07:00
Even though Divinus' original post is silly, I am truly for the separation of the US into smaller parts. I think I described a possible division in a detailed post months or years back. The division was based on regional character and values, which are very distinct across the country.
But, as an alternative, I like the US of Canada plan. I'm really not interested in being in the same nation as the Jesusland states. I would be much more content without them.
Give me New York; give me Massachusetts; give me the Great Lakes states, but hasta la vista, Bible Belt.
Samurai Waki
06-14-2006, 10:00
I'd actually worry less about Texas and California and more about places such as Montana. Now you may say why Montana? Well, even though California might have a large population and Texas has both a fairly large population and a lot of gun-toting free thinkers. If Montana were to be an independent nation, the food reserves for both California and Texas would dwindle (Montana produces almost 50% of all the wheat in the United States) and to back up their claim to it's vast agricultural output, they would also be considered the 2nd most powerful nuclear nation in the world, added to that, (being a Montanan I can rightfully say this) we're just crazy, I think it's all the time in the wilderness and being cut off from the rest of American high-culture. Not to mention, Montanan's by nature (and being the poorest state in the Union) have a seething hatred towards Californians who move in with all of their wealth and arrogance.
So in the event of a break-up in the Union, worry less about California and Texas, and more towards a People's Republic of Montana. Who would probably install some sort of crazed Dictator, that would make people who fear the likes of Kim-Jong Il, wet themselves. Added towards their reputation of disliking Californians, I'm sure Montana would have no problem supporting Texas with a salvo of Nuclear missiles pointed directly at my 80 sq. ft. Condo in Santa Barbara.
macsen rufus
06-14-2006, 12:41
Hmmm, dissolve the USA?
Let's see, where's that BIG vat of acid....:laugh4:
Personally I think that the US needs parties that actually represent the people's values. The whole 2 party system comprised of 2 parites that don't fit anyone is archaric and in painful need of rebooting.
I mean if there were as few a 4 parties most everyone (save the racists and commies, but they don't reperesentation :sweatdrop:). Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, and Libertarian. Now you don't have to call them like that but it wold help. The liberal and conservative parties can serve the center left and right. The socialists ad\nd libertarians canserve the far right and left.
yesdachi
06-14-2006, 14:00
If we had no government we would just be a big bunch of people with no leaders and no organization.
That’s when the corporations would take over. Microsoft would probably have a state, so would Coke, McDonalds and Kraft. ~D
After some thought, the states are too interconnected to really act without a central government providing some guidelines and organization. It’s just that the central government we have now wants to control too much and make too many different people happy at the same time.
Avicenna
06-14-2006, 14:04
Commies would just join the socialists, they most definitely wouldn't just go away like that.
Tachikaze
06-14-2006, 15:38
That’s when the corporations would take over. Microsoft would probably have a state, so would Coke, McDonalds and Kraft. ~D
This is actually true. Nation-states are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
I'd actually worry less about Texas and California and more about places such as Montana. Now you may say why Montana? Well, even though California might have a large population and Texas has both a fairly large population and a lot of gun-toting free thinkers. If Montana were to be an independent nation, the food reserves for both California and Texas would dwindle (Montana produces almost 50% of all the wheat in the United States) and to back up their claim to it's vast agricultural output, they would also be considered the 2nd most powerful nuclear nation in the world, added to that, (being a Montanan I can rightfully say this) we're just crazy, I think it's all the time in the wilderness and being cut off from the rest of American high-culture. Not to mention, Montanan's by nature (and being the poorest state in the Union) have a seething hatred towards Californians who move in with all of their wealth and arrogance.
So in the event of a break-up in the Union, worry less about California and Texas, and more towards a People's Republic of Montana. Who would probably install some sort of crazed Dictator, that would make people who fear the likes of Kim-Jong Il, wet themselves. Added towards their reputation of disliking Californians, I'm sure Montana would have no problem supporting Texas with a salvo of Nuclear missiles pointed directly at my 80 sq. ft. Condo in Santa Barbara.
Yes indeed there are some really wacko individuals in that part of the Country.
You ever wonder why when a major fire is in the Western part of the State of Montana (and Northern Idaho for that matter) are allowed to just burn out?
I happen to know from a briefing I had when we had to provide fire suppression support to the Forest Service back in 1997. Has to do with some very well armed and extremely violent acypolic (SP) survialist groups and right wing racist groups that have compounds in that area.
Divinus Arma
06-15-2006, 06:25
LEt's divide the U.S. by political affiliation. hmmm, the Dems can have:
San Fran, L.A., New York, and two or three other population centers. The rest of us "bible thumpers" (I'm not a Christian mind you) will take everything else.
This is why we have the electoral college. A popular vote would be unrepresentative, even though it is an "equal" vote. The rural states would mean nothing, and only the major cities would matter. And, funny enough, the urban population centers are where all THE POOR PEOPLE ARE. What a coincidence.
The dems see a disenfranchised crack whore. I see a disenfranchised farmer.
yut.
Kanamori
06-15-2006, 06:56
And, funny enough, the urban population centers are where all THE POOR PEOPLE ARE.
That's a funny one.:laugh4:
Ironside
06-15-2006, 10:35
This is why we have the electoral college. A popular vote would be unrepresentative, even though it is an "equal" vote. The rural states would mean nothing, and only the major cities would matter.
As an outsider, the biggest issue I got with the electoral college is that it doesn't matter if you won the state by 50,5% or 99,5% of the votes.
It does make a bit more sence if you see the US as a EU gone very far into the union process.
yesdachi
06-15-2006, 13:46
As an outsider, the biggest issue I got with the electoral college is that it doesn't matter if you won the state by 50,5% or 99,5% of the votes.
It does make a bit more sence if you see the US as a EU gone very far into the union process.
I like the electoral college system and think it allows for a more fair representation of the states. Without it, the less populated states of equal resource importance nationally would never get a say in anything and the top 5 most populated states would run the entire country.
I wouldn't mind the electoral college except for the all-or-nothing affect it has on the states. I think it would be a lot more beneficial if the House electoral vote went to the winner of of the congressional district, with both Senate votes going to the winner of the state.
As it stands now, there is no point in a GOP candidate campaigning in California/New York, or a Dem campaigning in Virginia/Texas even though some districts in those states may favor them. And after the election, the opposing states tend to get the shaft by the winner, since there is no need to please those that already vote against.
Tachikaze
06-15-2006, 18:11
As an outsider, the biggest issue I got with the electoral college is that it doesn't matter if you won the state by 50,5% or 99,5% of the votes.
It does make a bit more sence if you see the US as a EU gone very far into the union process.
In fact, it is theoretically possible that the losing candidate can receive far more popular votes than the winner. Maybe over 40% more.
How? If all the states that voted for the electoral winner chose him with only 50.5% and the loser accumulated slightly less electoral votes by winning states that favored him with 99.5% of the popular vote, you can see the huge gap possible.
Wow, this sure is a mathematical thread! Let's get back to world conquering plans! :evil:
Texas shall rule the world!!!
Malcolm Big Head
06-16-2006, 00:12
If it happens can we invade Kansas as revenge?
LEt's divide the U.S. by political affiliation. hmmm, the Dems can have:
San Fran, L.A., New York, and two or three other population centers. The rest of us "bible thumpers" (I'm not a Christian mind you) will take everything else.
This is why we have the electoral college. A popular vote would be unrepresentative, even though it is an "equal" vote. The rural states would mean nothing, and only the major cities would matter. And, funny enough, the urban population centers are where all THE POOR PEOPLE ARE. What a coincidence.
The dems see a disenfranchised crack whore. I see a disenfranchised farmer.
yut.
Actually it would ballance out more than you might believe, properly implemented. The trick is to make electoral districts without regard to county or state lines. We use it. Every 50k-100k's worth of people get an MP (using our population 33 and some change million and the 308 seats in the commons). To apply it to the US 1 congressman and 1 electoral college vote per 0.00009% of the total population of the 50 states. Like I said though it would take some serious wrangling and fussing but balanced properly urban and rural people in this kind of system would repersent the people better.
Marshal Murat
06-16-2006, 04:50
No one would take the Gulf Coast (to many Hurricanes) which we shall harness to do our willing!:2thumbsup:
Great news for Californians! Finally we can dump the pork barrelling do nothing wellfare states that leach off of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
The economy of California is a dominant force in the economy of the United States, with California paying more to the federal system than it receives in benefits.
solypsist
07-14-2006, 01:45
the most obvious downside i can see to a federal dissolution would be a lack of any real military strength.
as for states' laws, etc. we already have those and they work quite well: a driver's license in virginia is also recognized in all other states giving you the right to drive there, too (a DL is not a federally issued card, remember) without having to get a license in any state you want to drive into.
well, the other downside is that each state, in keeping its own tax base, woud result in wildly disparate economic states. the "rich" states would suffer under massive influxes of inter-state immigrants fleeing the poor states, and eventually the whole inter-state system would collapse.
whoever made this poll obviously didn't very carefully about it.
Extreme ideas for shock value: a well-thought out discussion they do not make.
well, the other downside is that each state, in keeping its own tax base, woud result in wildly disparate economic states. the "rich" states would suffer under massive influxes of inter-state immigrants fleeing the poor states, and eventually the whole inter-state system would collapse.
As long as the poor red staters migrated legally I'd be all right with that. But if they sneak over the border illegally into the blue states we should deport them immediately.
Sounds rather suspiciously like Neal Stephenson's version of things from Snow Crash.
Long Live TEXAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh4:
Samurai Waki
07-14-2006, 08:18
Texas will burn under the apocalyptic Hellfire of the Titan II Missiles Stationed on Montana's Northern Border!! ...oh and California too. ~:thumb:
Texas will burn under the apocalyptic Hellfire of the Titan II Missiles Stationed on Montana's Northern Border!! ...oh and California too. ~:thumb:
No way man, no way! Silicon Valley will build a virus that will render the missiles useless. That or offer bribes. How about Brittney Spears and Richard Simmons ? Huh ? We'll throw in a Tom Cruise DVD if you promise not to bomb the Levi factory...
Speaking as a Texan, I'd be mightily annoyed if certain places in California were attacked. I'd willingly sell Texas down the river if it meant protecting Silva's Sausage Co. and their amazing Portuguese-style hot linguica and Spanish-style chorizo. :grin:
Speaking as a Texan, I'd be mightily annoyed if certain places in California were attacked. I'd willingly sell Texas down the river if it meant protecting Silva's Sausage Co. and their amazing Portuguese-style hot linguica and Spanish-style chorizo. :grin:
Well your only an hour away from some of the best sausage in the nation - you don't need any California made sausage for that. Well other then the Chorizo - I still haven't found a really good one here in Texas yet.
Strike For The South
07-15-2006, 00:18
Well your only an hour away from some of the best sausage in the nation - you don't need any California made sausage for that. Well other then the Chorizo - I still haven't found a really good one here in Texas yet.
Well come to San Antonio Our Mexicans are the best anyway:yes:
Well come to San Antonio Our Mexicans are the best anyway:yes:
San Antonio is also about an hour from the best sausage in the state of Texas......just a little west and south. Where Austin is just a little east and North.
Come on Strike you got to get out of San Antonio and go visit the rest of the state.
Gonzales and Luling have some of the best BBQ sausage in the nation. Then there is New Branfuels and San Marcos - both with good food with some interesting flavor - a mix of Mexico and Europe.
Strike For The South
07-15-2006, 01:02
Oh Ive spent half my summer on the comal and the Guadlupee. Ive been to the Bran plenty. You cant sit here and tell me San Anton is not the best city. We have Rudys B-B-Q the "worst in the state" Then for dinner you can go down on Zazamora and gorge on authentic mexion cusine. Dallas Ft Woth Lubbock Houston El Paso have nothing on the 210:2thumbsup:
Oh Ive spent half my summer on the comal and the Guadlupee. Ive been to the Bran plenty. You cant sit here and tell me San Anton is not the best city.
Austin is about the best city in the state.
We have Rudys B-B-Q the "worst in the state" Then for dinner you can go down on Zazamora and gorge on authentic mexion cusine. Dallas Ft Woth Lubbock Houston El Paso have nothing on the 210:2thumbsup:
Yes Zazamora is pretty good. There is a place can't remember the name of it - but its near the river, that serves some of the best southern Mexico cusine that I have ever come across in the states.
Now if you want some good mexican cusine in the states go to Las Crucas and Santa Fe. Alberque (SP) also has some very good mexican cusine - some with Navajo and Apache touches to the food. Very good stuff.
Never just settle for what you know - get out and explore.
Durango Colorado has a nice hole in the wall cafe that is also excellent.
Strike For The South
07-15-2006, 01:16
I just had 2 krispee Kreemees...Im not going to be able to eat for another 3 weeks. I honestly feel like carp. Austin? really? I dunno to libreal:laugh4: I do plan to see more of the state. I always liked Rockwall and Katy. I should be going to Port A and then hopefully go camping in Hondo. I want to see Odessa just to see if it is as big as carphole as the stories make it out to be. To each his own right?
Duke Malcolm
07-15-2006, 11:32
Besides what types of goverment would be emplaced in Hawaii? Another corrupt Monarchy filled with drunkard idiots just to satisfy a few Hawaiian seperatists with no knowledge of history or economics!
Just on this little matter, I feel I must point out that there are more corrupt republics than corrupt monarchies...
AntiochusIII
07-15-2006, 16:42
Just on this little matter, I feel I must point out that there are more corrupt republics than corrupt monarchies...[lurkmode off]
Just on this little matter, I feel I must point out there that there are more corrupt monarchies than corrupt republics...
[/lurkmode on]
Justiciar
07-15-2006, 19:27
The difference is that Monarchs don't NEED to be corrupt. Their democratic representatives may be, but that has nothing to do with a Monarchy itself.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.