In Vermont, nascent secession movement gains traction

In Vermont, nascent secession movement gains traction

By John Curran, Associated Press Writer | June 3, 2007

MONTPELIER, Vt. --At Riverwalk Records, the all-vinyl record store just down the street from the state Capitol, the black "US Out of Vt.!" T-shirts are among the hottest sellers.

But to some people in Vermont, the idea is bigger than a $20 novelty. They want Vermont to secede from the United States -- peacefully, of course.

Quote:

---

"The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable -- it's too big, it's too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens," said Rob Williams, editor of Vermont Commons, a quarterly newspaper dedicated to secession.

"Congress and the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war. If you care about democracy and self-governance and any kind of representative system, the only constitutional way to preserve what's left of the Republic is to peaceably take apart the empire."

---

Quote:

---

"People would obviously relish coming to the Republic of Vermont, the Switzerland of North America," he said. "Christ, you couldn't keep them away."

But there are plenty of skeptics.

"It doesn't make economic sense, it doesn't make political sense, it doesn't make historical sense. Other than that, it's a good idea," said Paul Gillies, a lawyer and Vermont historian.

While neither the Vermont Constitution nor the U.S. Constitution forbids secession per se, few think it's viable.

---

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ver...ains_traction/

People of Vermont rise up! We have nothing to lose but our dignity!

heh, I found the Republic of Vermont's website

http://www.vermontrepublic.org/

Having been to Vermont more then a few times the people there are a unique breed. While this is cute on the surface I find it hard to take seriously on any level other then an attempt at a political statement on a national scale.

Good luck to them

indeed. good luck, O patriots of Vermont.

Until that military-industrial complex gets rolling and the U.S. takes back the state.

That would be ironically amusing and disgusting if the U.S. had to illegally occupy itself. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

That would be ironically amusing and disgusting if the U.S. had to illegally occupy itself. lol

---

Are you implying that there's such a thing as a "legal" occupation? Just asking ...

This story reminds me of some of the better graffiti in New York, including a wall with giant letters spray-painted on it that read, "U.S. Out of Brooklyn!"

sure, I'd be perfectly willing to accept the Allied occupation of Germany as legal.

The North shall rise again !

I say they go for it. States seceding worked out pretty well last time they tried it, if memory serves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

I say they go for it. States seceding worked out pretty well last time they tried it, if memory serves.

---

:laugh4:
None could stand against the might of Vermont!

Isn't Vermont sparsely populated? How much of an economy do they have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Isn't Vermont sparsely populated? How much of an economy do they have?

---

check out the numbers here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Isn't Vermont sparsely populated? How much of an economy do they have?

---

Tourism.

There's always been talk of secession if a state has been really, really PO'd at the national policies. Happened before the Civil War, happened after. They'll never do it, not with the 2008 elections coming up.

Forget Vermont, I think it's high time the People of Washington D.C. rise up against their US oppressors.

"She's a rebel!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

The North shall rise again !

---

Seriously, who do they think they are? Quebec?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Seriously, who do they think they are? Quebec?

---

Well...they are called Vermont for a reason, 'Green Mountain'. With Montpelier for a capital. And a population that's of 23% French / French Canadien heritage. So:

Vive le Vermont! Vive le Vermont libre! Et vive l’Amérique française!

I think Louisiana would join in this Francophone liberation movement (VQL-Vermont, Quebec, Lousiana!)

As the official Org delegate from the Republic of Vermont I have to say I am astonished and offended by the unfair and degrading treatment you people have showed our great nation. We may at the moment be a member state of the United States of America, but we have a history of independence dating back to the 18th century when Vermont was an independent state during the time of the Articles of Confederation, with no alliegance to the United States of America.

As to the accusations that Vermont is in some way attempting to follow Quebec or is serving the interests of our French-Canadian minority in it's quest for independence I find that equally offensive. In no way is Vermont a part of the Francophone conspiracy of world domination. Furthermore Vermont has no need to follow the example of such a second rate secessionist state such as Quebec, which has never achieved independence as Vermont did in the 18th century after several small conflicts with New York and New Hampshire. No offense intended to any citizens of Quebec of course.

On a more serious note Vermont is a really great state and I'm really proud to be from Vermont and though it would definately make it much harder for me to figure out where I'm going to college (or easier due to limited selection?) when I seriously think about it in a foriegn relations and civil liberties point of view Vermont would do a much better job governing itself than the USA. At least in my opinion, being a bit of a lefty as I am. Economically it would cause a lot of problems for Vermont if Vermont seceded if the US did not allow free trade between the two states. In that case Vermont would also have to rely on Canada for trade with the outside world. That's assuming the USA didn't send in the army and blow the hell out of my beloved state of course.

Vermont really is a very special place and I can't say I'd really be against it if I was asked to vote for secession. At this point I doubt the USA would get away with forcefully reoccupying Vermont because of where international opinion has sunken to, though the US could just mimic Russia and ignore world opinion I suppose. It'd be a loss for the USA though, there would no longer be a socialist in the senate (Bernie Sanders) or a socially progressive state like Vermont showing the rest of the USA that Civil Unions (or *GASP* gay marriages) are not one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

That being said it's not going to happen. Where I live there isn't any serious talk of secession and I doubt the majority of people, especially the republicans, would be all that interested in seceding.

EDIT: Oh yeah and stop pronouncing Montepelier like you would in French you francophiles! In Vermont it's called Mont-peal-yur not Mont-peal-ye or however you would right that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

We may at the moment be a member state of the United States of America, but we have a history of independence dating back to the 18th century when Vermont was an independent state during the time of the Articles of Confederation, with no alliegance to the United States of America.

---

I'm intrigued as to the Constitutional position. Since Vermont was an independent state that joined the United States, does it in fact have the full right to secede? Surely a state can enter into a treaty and then at some point, withdraw? Or has there been an Amendment that, by acquiescing to its passage, founder states relinquished the right to secede?

What would be the requirements for this to happen, if allowed? Would it be a matter for the state legislature, or the governor or would it have to go to a referendum of the people? What quorum would be considered binding?

I think this is really quite interesting, it gives the US butting into other countries business a whole new perspective.

Afetr all didn't they have an opinion about NI? Other than paying for weapons that is.

I fully support anyone who wants a quick way out of Bush's influence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'm intrigued as to the Constitutional position. Since Vermont was an independent state that joined the United States, does it in fact have the full right to secede? Surely a state can enter into a treaty and then at some point, withdraw? Or has there been an Amendment that, by acquiescing to its passage, founder states relinquished the right to secede?

What would be the requirements for this to happen, if allowed? Would it be a matter for the state legislature, or the governor or would it have to go to a referendum of the people? What quorum would be considered binding?

---

Well technically there isnt anything in the constitution that I have seen that prohibits sucession. the 10th amendment under the bill of rights tells us that the federal government is limited to power only granted under the constitutution. Therefore an issue not covered by the constitution defaults to the states, thier constitutions and legislatures.

So unless I missed it, the constitution does not prohibit succession, therefore the federal government has no legal ability under the constitution to enforce a law or act should a state seceed. I cant find a legal argument to explain the american civil war, simply the justification that the confederacy was in revolt.

Im sure there are civil war scholars here that will correct me with detail, but from what i have read i dont see any legal way in which the feds could stop Vermont, via the constitution anyway.

Interesting stuff. About the rule of law, when did the current administration bother with little intricacies as that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Interesting stuff. About the rule of law, when did the current administration bother with little intricacies as that?

---

Sadly, a lot of the actions by the current administration have fallen under the rule of law. That wonderful legislation called the "patriot act" gave a lot of lattitude to these clowns, of course like most drunk on power they over reached.

Vermonts timing is actually pretty good, there chances of success are greater,

Maybe if we're lucky we'll end up with a Crimson Skies scenario, albeit without the sky-pirates.

And with regards to the 'the south will rise again!' phrase - well, the charming parallel universe of Crimson Skies would certainly support that.

Long live the Confederation of Dixie!

Quote:

---

That would be ironically amusing and disgusting if the U.S. had to illegally occupy itself. lol

---

Hasnt that already been done?

Everyone wants to be like Texas:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Everyone wants to be like Texas:smash:

---

Having spent some time in Texas myself, they can try as hard as they want, there is only one Texas.

At the rate things are going I would not be surprised in the least if a state or collection of states decided to cut loose and go it alone or as a combined nation. Can you imagine how wildly popular these seceding states would be if they offered smaller government, lower taxes, minimal to non-existent social engineering wastage (i.e. affirmative action), etc.?

The problem would be if any of these states considering secession were simply too valuable to lose. The loss of Vermont would not be nearly as alarming as the loss of say, Texas or Alaska. The Union moved heaven and earth to keep the South from seceding because there was far too much real estate, raw materials, farmland and tax revenue to simply let it go.

Quote:

---

Everyone wants to be like Texas

---

Im surprised at this coming from you but your close. I dont think Texas was alone or led this venture. Have not states already tried this? What was the result? What do you think Bush's response would be ?:laugh4:

Our brave Union soldiers will fight and fall on the fields of ... whatever fields there are ... in Vermont. Um, our cannons will blast those damn rebs from the hillsides, and our cavalry will scour the back alleys of Burlington and Rutland until every rebel is dead or surrendered. After our steam-powered warships have shelled the Vermont coast into submission, we will try and hang that notorious seditionist, their "governor" Jim Douglas.

His truth is marching on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Having spent some time in Texas myself, they can try as hard as they want, there is only one Texas.

---

You cant emulate perfection

Need we remind you that you guys made Bush famous as you elected him to run your state. Perfection indeed :laugh4:

You know what they tell you in the service about Texans. Theres only two kinds. :)

This is ironic. The sepratist movement in Quebec looks to be circling the drain at the same time that a sepratist movement is born in Vermont. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'm intrigued as to the Constitutional position. Since Vermont was an independent state that joined the United States, does it in fact have the full right to secede? Surely a state can enter into a treaty and then at some point, withdraw? Or has there been an Amendment that, by acquiescing to its passage, founder states relinquished the right to secede?

---

My view on it is that there's no "backsies". The state entered into the agreement (Constitution) and it has no expiration date or mechanism with withdrawing from it. It doesn't matter if they willing entered into the agreement. If I willingly sign a contract, it doesn't free me to end it at will- quite the opposite, in fact.

Of course, in reality, they can do what they want and then it's up to the rest of the USA to force them into compliance- or not.

Seeing as how a large part of our US military is from Texas, they'd have a pretty good chance. Besides I dont think the "Union" could seriously legitimately do anything bellicose against succeeding states these days, we wouldn't let them do anything illegal.

Quote:

---

If I willingly sign a contract, it doesn't free me to end it at will- quite the opposite, in fact.

---

In this case the contract had changed. Do you imagine any state would have joined if they had known that this was to be the interpretation of the constitution? Maybe a few in New England. It was supposed to be a Republic with states rights supreme in most matters even down to declaring a state religion. Ut oh here we go again folks.

Actually, New England was the first successful secessionist movement in the USA. They voted to leave during the War of 1812 as they wanted to remain on good terms with England and didn't want to lose the trade prospects. Read up on a little known historical event called the Hartford Convention. Never seen such backtracking and sucking up in all your life (they accidentally seceeded after the peace broke out, had to really cozy up to Madison).

As for Vermont seceding, sure, why not? It'll make the flag look pretty again (49 stars line up way better than 50). And since they're a bunch of pot-smoking hippies over there that take more in federal funds than they pay in taxes, we'll actually wind up net positive. Good riddance! :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

As for Vermont seceding, sure, why not? It'll make the flag look pretty again (49 stars line up way better than 50). And since they're a bunch of pot-smoking hippies over there that take more in federal funds than they pay in taxes, we'll actually wind up net positive. Good riddance! :whip:

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Our brave Union soldiers will fight and fall on the fields of ... whatever fields there are ... in Vermont. Um, our cannons will blast those damn rebs from the hillsides, and our cavalry will scour the back alleys of Burlington and Rutland until every rebel is dead or surrendered. After our steam-powered warships have shelled the Vermont coast into submission, we will try and hang that notorious seditionist, their "governor" Jim Douglas.

His truth is marching on!

---

Why do you hate freedom maple syrup?

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

Quote:

---

In 2001, Vermont produced 275,000 US gallons (1,040,000 L) of maple syrup, about one-quarter of U.S. production. For 2005 that number was 410,000 accounting for 37% of national production. [15] The Vermont Department of Agriculture maintains a rating standard for maple syrup that is higher than the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, all other states, and Canada.

---

This must not come to pass! To arms! :charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Actually, New England was the first successful secessionist movement in the USA. They voted to leave during the War of 1812 as they wanted to remain on good terms with England and didn't want to lose the trade prospects. Read up on a little known historical event called the Hartford Convention. Never seen such backtracking and sucking up in all your life (they accidentally seceeded after the peace broke out, had to really cozy up to Madison).

---

Professor 'Don' Hoyle speaketh.

Quote:

---

As for Vermont seceding, sure, why not? It'll make the flag look pretty again (49 stars line up way better than 50). And since they're a bunch of pot-smoking hippies over there that take more in federal funds than they pay in taxes, we'll actually wind up net positive. Good riddance!

---

Yeah but the syrup man, what about the maple syrup? Brown gold, Vermont Tea. Do you really wanna pay through the nose for syrup sold by <gasp> some crazy Canuck? ~:shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Yeah but the syrup man, what about the maple syrup? Brown gold, Vermont Tea. Do you really wanna pay through the nose for syrup sold by <gasp> some crazy Canuck? ~:shock:

---

Our trade deficit is bad enough as is. ~D

I love Vermont, it's offbeat and wacky, but not annoying like California. It would be a great loss, we need some fruits and nuts in the mix.

Maybe all the Quebec separatists snuck through our porous northern border and moved to Vermont. Once they get amnesty, kiss Vermont goodbye! :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

EDIT: Oh yeah and stop pronouncing Montepelier like you would in French you francophiles! In Vermont it's called Mont-peal-yur not Mont-peal-ye or however you would right that.

---

Well, sorry but Montpelier is Montpelier, and Vermont is Vermont. Not our fault if you screwed up the pronouncing and forgot the correct one :-P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

My view on it is that there's no "backsies". The state entered into the agreement (Constitution) and it has no expiration date or mechanism with withdrawing from it. It doesn't matter if they willing entered into the agreement. If I willingly sign a contract, it doesn't free me to end it at will- quite the opposite, in fact.

Of course, in reality, they can do what they want and then it's up to the rest of the USA to force them into compliance- or not.

---

The Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. Lincoln took your interpretation, and enforced it.

Article 4, which addresses relations between the states, gives Congress -- with the consent of the states -- power to create new states or combine existing ones.

Implicitly (my interpretation) secession would be possible in the same manner as an ammendment to the Constitution. Congress, The President, and 2/3 of the existing states (34) would need to concur.

It is, imo, FAR more likely that we would see some of the larger states divide into smaller states than secession.



Edit: If they secede illegally, "King Syrup" will bring England and France in against us, and then we'd be.....oh, never mind.

Quote:

---

Article 4, which addresses relations between the states, gives Congress -- with the consent of the states -- power to create new states or combine existing ones.

---

This sounds pretty cool. Perhaps you should combine all of the states in New England into one super-state? I mean, some of them are ridiculously small, it's rather fiddly to look at on a map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

This sounds pretty cool. Perhaps you should combine all of the states in New England into one super-state? I mean, some of them are ridiculously small, it's rather fiddly to look at on a map.

---

If state power continues to wane in favor of the federal government -- and this seems likely since that is the general trend in the USA over the last 140 years -- it would actually be a fairly smart move. Not likely to happen soon though, as the various governors, legislatures, etc. will not willingly give oer their power to one entity (Europe may have some experience on this issue :cheesy: ).

Texas is so big we can split in to 5 states. We are the best

Banquo: Well, it's already been tried. Texas used to be its own independent Republic. It requested and received annexation, and a few years later it seceded with the CSA.

Quote:

---

The Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. Lincoln took your interpretation, and enforced it.

---

Exactly. Again no state would have joined the union if they had thought that Xiahou's position was that of the constitution. Its almost like saying we cant withdraw from the UN. That is one reason I always sided with the South.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Why do you hate freedom maple syrup?

Yeah but the syrup man, what about the maple syrup? Brown gold, Vermont Tea. Do you really wanna pay through the nose for syrup sold by <gasp> some crazy Canuck? ~:shock:

---

There's as much syrup coming out of my state as there is Vermont. We just don't get the press. See, New Hampshire is Vermont, done Right and done right. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

This sounds pretty cool. Perhaps you should combine all of the states in New England into one super-state? I mean, some of them are ridiculously small, it's rather fiddly to look at on a map.

---

Hey man, watch your tongue. Rhode Island could kick the crap out of Wales any day of the week. :boxing: And I don't even want to think what would happen if Connecticut decided to take you on..:skull:

Yeah, all kidding aside, at the very least the three lower states should get rolled up. I remember when I first visited Houston. I was struck by an idea and went and looked it up, and.... yep, the city of Houston (and several others) are larger by area than Rhode Island. :embarassed:

New Hampshire is actually bigger than you might think: it's roughly trapezoidal with the height about 200 miles, the wider bottom is about 100 miles across, the top is tapered down to about 20. Vermont is roughly the same size, just flipped around. Maine is actually pretty good sized, it's slightly bigger than the entire island of Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. Lincoln took your interpretation, and enforced it.

Article 4, which addresses relations between the states, gives Congress -- with the consent of the states -- power to create new states or combine existing ones.

---

Actually, I would think from a legal standpoint that nothing would have to be done at the federal level to secede. If the Constitution doesn't mention it, it should fall into the realm of the 10th Amendment. You know, the one we don't pay attention to anymore, which is the whole reason we are having this discussion. I assume an action by the state government would be enough.

That's true, but then surely King George would try to pronounce them terroist neer-do-wells and send in the liberators :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

That's true, but then surely King George would try to pronounce them terroist neer-do-wells and send in the liberators :)

---

The Southern argument for leaving the country back in 1861 is essentially the same thing that Vermont is saying now. They don't like the President, or how Washington is running things, and nobody should be able to force them to stay in. Your point?

Uh, that they're right? And no one should be able to force them to stay in, that much should be obvious as states willingly entered the Union and have the right to leave it if it is in their people's intrest.

Okay, so then I assume you supported the CSA's right to secede then?

(I'm not using this against you, just interested to know.)

Well certainly they had the right to secede. They did vote for it. Thats why they call it the War of Northern Aggression.

Even if they didnt have the right is that a reason to start a war and kill people? If I enter into a contract with you and I break it can you attack me or kill me?

Texas is bigger than France and the low countries put together

And Quebec, whose people are mostly French decended. Is over twice the size of Texas. With less than half the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Even if they didnt have the right is that a reason to start a war and kill people?

---

It's fine to kill traitorous rebels with French leanings. I thought everybody understood that. Let them eat Freedom Fries!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

If I enter into a contract with you and I break it can you attack me or kill me?

---

You're the guy making people sign contracts every day, right? Don't tell me there isn't a little clause in there somewhere about breaking their kneecaps if they don't return the movies ...

Quote:

---

You're the guy making people sign contracts every day, right? Don't tell me there isn't a little clause in there somewhere about breaking their kneecaps if they don't return the movies ...

---

I dont rent them I sell them. But if you dont buy i may have to make you an offer you cant refuse. :skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Texas is bigger than France and the low countries put together

---

Quebec is bigger then Texas and France put together.

But as big as Canada is, we'll make room for Vermont to join the family any time she wants. Alaska too. :canada:

A serious note. If Vermont did secede, would it be viable as an independent state? If not, would it be feasible for it to join the Canadian federation? How would the new subjects of Her Britannic Majesty take to their new found freedoms and liberties?

Would any other of our thirteen former colonies realise the error of their ways and plead to return to the fold?

In the UK, if one of the constituent countries decided to leave by a popular vote then it would be allowed to. Would the US allow the same if the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the Union?

Before we get too serious I'd just like to say that New Hampshire is way more red (Republican) than Vermont and because of that way more main-stream and normal. That's why Vermont maple syrup (and Ben and Jerries') is so much better than every other type of syrup and ice cream that comes from somewhere else. Wackiness actually makes things taste better. The wakiness of Vermont maple trees makes the maple syrup produced in Vermont up to 30% tastier. Who can argue with such facts? Either bow to our collective will to govern in a more privacy/individual respecting manner and not invade every country that looks at us funny or prepare for us to secede and bring the most valuable liquid substance on this planet with us.

I don't really think Vermonter's would be all that thrilled about joining Canada. If Vermont seceded the people would probably want to lead their own independent state. But that's just my feel on the topic, I haven't exactly questioned my fellow Vermonters very intensly about that, especially since I won't be back in Vermont until the 15th of July.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's fine to kill traitorous rebels with French leanings. I thought everybody understood that.

---

Wasn't that King George's position? ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

A serious note. If Vermont did secede, would it be viable as an independent state?

---

Well "viable" is subjective and we would get lots of views on that, but let me throw some facts out see what you think.

1. in 2004 Vermont recieved 4,632,923,000. in federal spending. So thats 4.5 billion less that would go into thier economy.

2. in 2004 average earnings per job was $34,963.00, the rest of the country's avarage was $44,503.00. So vermont would need to be competitive to maintain the workforce, how do you raise the income of the workers in your country? Mandated wage increases?

3. total sales(retail, manufacturing etc) total approx 23 million by 2002 estimates (I think I am reading the chart correctly). How much new tax would be needed to support a military? Would it be derived on a sales tax?

Quote:

---

If not, would it be feasible for it to join the Canadian federation?

---

Given the numbers and the prospect of maintaining the same standard of living they enjoyed in the U.S., Id say it would be feasible, would canada make up that 4.5 billion though?

Quote:

---

How would the new subjects of Her Britannic Majesty take to their new found freedoms and liberties?

---

Since we are on a serious note (per your request) what new freedoms and liberties do you mean?

Quote:

---

Would any other of our thirteen former colonies realise the error of their ways and plead to return to the fold?

---

I dont think so, its far to expensive to return to the fold, and "pleading" isnt something most like to do.

Quote:

---

Would the US allow the same if the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the Union?

---

In my opinion no, but loosing vermont isnt going to be a major drain on the U.S. anyway.

Source of data appears in link on my post on first page of the thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Given the numbers and the prospect of maintaining the same standard of living they enjoyed in the U.S., Id say it would be feasible, would canada make up that 4.5 billion though?

---

Probably not. IF GDP per capita is the same as median income. Then by simple conversion of Vermonts median incomeand comparing it to the provincial GDP per capita's. If Vermont did join our confederation they'd have the second highest GDP per capita. A straight conversion comes out as $51,350, which would be second to Alberta's $66,644. Meaing they pay money to Ottawa. But that's only for the federal equalization. I've no data on how much money the federal government contributes to each provinces healthcare plan and education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Since we are on a serious note (per your request) what new freedoms and liberties do you mean?

---

Having more federal senators that they don't have to elect (going by the Newfoundland example). Tossing all those republican institutions (like their constitution and book of laws) and becoming subject-citizens of her majesty the Queen. That whole upper house of their legislature. Being legally obligated to set up a socialized health care system (which is a provncially run insurance plan that covers everyting save elective surgery, eye, and dental care), and support it with some kind of VAT sales tax. It's rate being deterined by what their economy could support. And having to pay a 6% VAT called GST on 90% of comsumer goods and services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Having more federal senators that they don't have to elect (going by the Newfoundland example). Tossing all those republican institutions (like their constitution and book of laws) and becoming subject-citizens of her majesty the Queen. That whole upper house of their legislature. Being legally obligated to set up a socialized health care system (which is a provncially run insurance plan that covers everyting save elective surgery, eye, and dental care), and support it with some kind of VAT sales tax. It's rate being deterined by what their economy could support. And having to pay a 6% VAT called GST on 90% of comsumer goods and services.

---

:dizzy2: I'll wait on you for the punch line....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Before we get too serious I'd just like to say that New Hampshire is way more red (Republican) than Vermont and because of that way more main-stream and normal. That's why Vermont maple syrup (and Ben and Jerries') is so much better than every other type of syrup and ice cream that comes from somewhere else. Wackiness actually makes things taste better. The wakiness of Vermont maple trees makes the maple syrup produced in Vermont up to 30% tastier. Who can argue with such facts? Either bow to our collective will to govern in a more privacy/individual respecting manner and not invade every country that looks at us funny or prepare for us to secede and bring the most valuable liquid substance on this planet with us.
.

---

I disagree completely. Utterly. No basis in truth, whatsoever. If anything, maple trees here in New Hampshire are the product of wholesome, traditional forestry services. Many foresters even carry a bible on them. As a result, the maple trees grow up more well adjusted and more prepared to perform the duties society requires of them, namely producing sap.

In Vermont, you go back and forth between ignoring your trees, what with your high-times parties with your buddies to trying to soothe your own guilt by spoiling them rotten, giving them the latest new fangled fertilizer. Your trees have no sense of responsibility and grow up to be rotten producers, if they ever produce at all. You have no work ethic and therefore you have no work ethic to pass on to your trees.

We in New Hampshire believe in doing things the way they've always been done. The time honored tradition of the nuclear forestry program, dating back to the golden age of the 1950s. Our trees know what's expected of them from an early age, and they are brought up knowing if they don't do it, there's no safety net. We give them wholesome environments and we even make certain that James Dobson comes out to read to them at least twice a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

:dizzy2: I'll wait on you for the punch line....

---

The punch line, those weren't jokes. :sweatdrop:

And I forgot about the whole having to provide all official documents in both official languages thing.

Sorry to dive in like a Martian but briefly what the general idea of Vermont residents are about this secession? Is it a mere one shared by a few or significantly general ?

Why Texas should be independent.

-Oil
-Nukes
-Gas
-Uranium
-Coastline
-Self sufficent
-Abundant land
-Were better off by ourselves

The US is on the brink of collapse, LEN.

I give it five more years. Ten max. All I'm hoping for anymore is a relatively peaceful transition into it's successor states.

Texas will reign supremee
:smash: :smash: :smash:

Will you conquer Mexico for me then? :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The US is on the brink of collapse, LEN.

I give it five more years. Ten max. All I'm hoping for anymore is a relatively peaceful transition into it's successor states.

---

I was serious with my question :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

I was serious with my question :book:

---

I suppose you'll have to wait until Uesugi Kenshin got back to Vermont, as he is most likely to get first-hand observations about it. My guess? Just a popular fad or another way to blow off steam for being ruled by an idiot for seven Terrible Years of Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth.

Here in Nevada, Jesusland, I don't think most people here even know where Vermont is. :beam:

Edit: 2500...? *shock, internet suicide pending*

Quote:

---

Will you conquer Mexico for me then?

---

Isnt it going badly then for Texas? I mean its the other way around today no? Soon Strike will only be speaking Spanish :laugh4: