Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from easydoesit2. Show easydoesit2's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : The New England states are too diverse to ever consolidate.  We all needs options when we decide we can't live in Mass anymore.
    Posted by massmoderateJoe


    NEW ENGLAND is "too diverse"!?  Hell, Joe, I often wonder how the City of Boston stays together!!!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheRLeePost. Show TheRLeePost's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    First, let's not forget that less than 24 decades before today men, and women, in New England dared to broach this very subject. ------------------------------ Lets also not forget that less than 11 decades before, a group of states had the same idea, and looked like idiots after a war that cost more American lives than any other in history. Other problems include: Connecticut is more aligned with NY and NJ and wouldn't play, and we would need Rt 84 and Mystic Pizza. Vermont would immediately secede and join Canada. The new capital being Boston, Maine would revolt and turn off the lobster. Buddy Cianci would stage a coup in RI and join Italy, thereby invoking the Monroe Doctrine NH wouldn't care That would leave a People's Republic of Massachusetts, which is redundant.
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    I can certainly appreciate the humor in your reply.  But, there is humor to be found in all politics, certainly you don't deny that.

    That you mentioned the 'idiots' of a former rebellion has an interesting role to play here, but not as you suggest.  Indeed, the 'idiots' were the masses in the South who were 'played' by the upper economic class to support and even fight for their right to enslave others for financial gain.  That same 'playing' did not end in 1865, it only adjusted to conditions.  The 'idiots', as you labeled them, have not changed, and thus we find ourselves subjected to the weakness of their gullibility.

    Though, the important points of my posts have been lost to the more popular topic, your mention of war is sheer hyperbole.   The basis for the existence of the United States is the Constitution, and it would be through that document that any dissolution would proceed.   In simple terms, it would be an amicable divorce.

    In 1990, I doubt that anyone would have been willing to bet so much as $1 that in less that 20 years two men could get married within the U.S.  And, yet it has occurred not only in New England, but even in the midwest.  

    I recall in the early 70's the pervasiveness of smoking, and the desire to have it curtailed, but had I suggested the very limits we have today, I would have been riduculed.

    That I've yet to see a reply that recognizes the inherent problems we have in our government, and that it calls for more than just a "vote the bums out" response, is a signal that we will continue to elect the same every four years, just with a different slogan.   The names may change but not the intellect.
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheRLeePost. Show TheRLeePost's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    I have never considered an Independent New England.  I am a US Citizen and like it.  But I have often wondered seriously, how it would work out if New England merged into one large state. I wonder what the effects would be and if any of them would be beneficial. Obviously, losing 10 Senators would be a downside, but a singular New England state would be huge in population, wealth, natural resources, etc., etc., etc.  Anyone care to comment?
    Posted by easydoesit2


    Kudos for creativity.  However, I don't see the results you mentioned as benefits.   Larger population:  the only benefit I see to this is the ability to gain some efficiency in the cost of state government per capita, which I'll address in moment.  Wealth:  the aggregate wealth would not increase, nor the per capita wealth, and again other than the cost of government issue I don't see how it would be a factor.  Natural resources: virtually all 'resources' are privately held, thus the only benefit which could be had here is a uniformity in laws and regulations at the state level which apply to those resources.  The etc.'s: dunno.

    If there was ever a good argument to be made for these states to consolidate into one, it would have been in the earliest days after independence.  While most laws which affect us are still within the states' code books, fiscally, we've evolved to where the federal government is where the bulk of tax revenue is collected and spent.  The federal budget is more than twice that of the combined state budgets.  Thus, having 12 votes in the Senate is far more advantageous than any savings exacted through combining state governments.  

    Our problems lie with the means which we choose those who spend our money and decide upon our liberties.  Our methods doom us to failure.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : That's because you sir, are a larper
    Posted by lrecliner


    He is indeed, sir. A man more larping I have yet to meet.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : As I stated upfront, "I fear my topic here shall be a lightening rod for knee-jerk reactionaries," and since you are so fond of childish acronyms I'll originate one just for you, KJR.  You've failed to address the problems framed in the post, instead choosing to comfort yourself in the bosom of popularly applauded ridicule that requires no great intellect.
    Posted by TheRLeePost


    How dare you sir! How dare you undermine my intellectual integrity with remarks such as these. I think it likely you will meet the end of my studded heel soon. I challenge you to a dual!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheRLeePost. Show TheRLeePost's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : You're a smart guy mate, but comparing smoking laws and gay marriage to secession ain't helping that cause.  You couln't get 2 New England states to agree on tolls, and yet you suggest they secede and form a nation.  Just plain silly mate.  Lets address the issues without such a ridiculous premise. Cheers
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    Sadly, you didn't address the 'issues' I raised at all.  And it's likely that your reading is so shallow, that you would have to return to the text to even know to what I refer.

    I can talk issues, and I've raised quite important ones, but you likely are more interested in discussing only the things which someone else has given you your talking points.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheRLeePost. Show TheRLeePost's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : How dare you sir! How dare you undermine my intellectual integrity with remarks such as these. I think it likely you will meet the end of my studded heel soon. I challenge you to a dual!
    Posted by JaySev2010


    I'll give you this, you can be humorous; I mean your poor grammar, misuse of words, misspellings, avoidance of issues, one dimensional view aside, you can elicit a slight chuckle, but I see far better humor on a daily basis.

    And that would be a 'dual' what?  
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : Sadly, you didn't address the 'issues' I raised at all.  And it's likely that your reading is so shallow, that you would have to return to the text to even know to what I refer. I can talk issues, and I've raised quite important ones, but you likely are more interested in discussing only the things which someone else has given you your talking points.
    Posted by TheRLeePost


    And I said, "Lets address the issues without such a ridiculous premise"

    You resort to this sht.  I take back what I said about your being smart and raising poignant issues.

    You're a dunce.  A dunce with whom we could have engaged in a good discussion, but the dunce thing took over.

    Have a nice day.


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

     "The basis for the existence of the United States is the Constitution, and it would be through that document that any dissolution would proceed.   In simple terms, it would be an amicable divorce."

    Secession is unconstitutional, as pointed out in my post, quoting Lincoln. The Civil War decided the issue, end of story.
    It cannot happen under the US Constitution.
    It would have to be a total rebellion against the United States itself.
    You wont get an argument from conservatives that the federal government has overstepped its authority in many areas. Your solution is so absurd in many ways.
    The New England states each have their own character, and they have little in common other than being adjacent to each other.
    Now, the liberal eastern seaboard , including Mass,  Conn, NY , eastern PA,  Washington, DC, northern VA, now they could be a distinct entity.
    The United Confederation of Moonbats.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    Now, the liberal eastern seaboard , including Mass,  Conn, NY , eastern PA,  Washington, DC, northern VA, now they could be a distinct entity. The United Confederation of Moonbats.
    Posted by BobinVa


    Nooooooo!  The entire Universe would end in flames and a giant sucking sound!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : I'll give you this, you can be humorous; I mean your poor grammar, misuse of words, misspellings, avoidance of issues, one dimensional view aside, you can elicit a slight chuckle, but I see far better humor on a daily basis. And that would be a 'dual' what?  
    Posted by TheRLeePost


    You sir, are a coward. I offer you a duel and you offer me a lesson in grammar instead. Do not challenge my use of the English language. For it is the 18th century, we spelle as we desire, and the lexicon is far from codified (that English swin Johnson be damned!). Besides the opium fumes are a pungent sting in my eyes, and make it a chore to rendre words 'pon the page.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheRLeePost. Show TheRLeePost's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
     "The basis for the existence of the United States is the Constitution, and it would be through that document that any dissolution would proceed.   In simple terms, it would be an amicable divorce." Secession is unconstitutional, as pointed out in my post, quoting Lincoln. The Civil War decided the issue, end of story. It cannot happen under the US Constitution. It would have to be a total rebellion against the United States itself. You wont get an argument from conservatives that the federal government has overstepped its authority in many areas. Your solution is so absurd in many ways. The New England states each have their own character, and they have little in common other than being adjacent to each other. Now, the liberal eastern seaboard , including Mass,  Conn, NY , eastern PA,  Washington, DC, northern VA, now they could be a distinct entity. The United Confederation of Moonbats.
    Posted by BobinVa


    I don't understand why I have to point out every little detail.  You first assumed the only means to separate was WAR; you couldn't concieve of anything else.  I then pointed out that it would be done legally through the Constitution; you then assume that means only the current Constitution; you can't conceive of an actual amendment to it which would provide for dissolving the union or parts thereof.

    This is the major difference between problem solvers and others.  Some people can concieve of things which don't exist, but can.  

    I have every intention of moving to Massachusetts, to the 'moonbats' as you view them, for the very reason that they have smaller portions of 'dimwits' than other areas of the country, particularly in the South.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : I don't understand why I have to point out every little detail.  You first assumed the only means to separate was WAR; you couldn't concieve of anything else.  I then pointed out that it would be done legally through the Constitution; you then assume that means only the current Constitution; you can't conceive of an actual amendment to it which would provide for dissolving the union or parts thereof. This is the major difference between problem solvers and others.  Some people can concieve of things which don't exist, but can.   I have every intention of moving to Massachusetts, to the 'moonbats' as you view them, for the very reason that they have smaller portions of 'dimwits' than other areas of the country, particularly in the South.
    Posted by TheRLeePost


    Please stop.  There is no wellspring of support for this idea of secession either in New England or the nation as a whole that could form the basis of a movement to amend the Constitution and allow secession. Just because you have a flight of fancy does not mean we have to take it seriously.  We have difficult political times currently, but things have been far worse in other periods of our history.  Remember, folks around here invented this nation and they kind of like it the way it is.   Remember also, a bunch of other folks from around here fought and died to keep it together.  We are not going to just let it fracture and dissolve for some very uncertain possible local gain.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : I don't understand why I have to point out every little detail.  You first assumed the only means to separate was WAR; you couldn't concieve of anything else.  I then pointed out that it would be done legally through the Constitution; you then assume that means only the current Constitution; you can't conceive of an actual amendment to it which would provide for dissolving the union or parts thereof. This is the major difference between problem solvers and others.  Some people can concieve of things which don't exist, but can.   I have every intention of moving to Massachusetts, to the 'moonbats' as you view them, for the very reason that they have smaller portions of 'dimwits' than other areas of the country, particularly in the South.
    Posted by TheRLeePost


    Okay this has gone on long enough. With all due respect dude, I've read your original post a number of times, and you obviously don't have much of a grip on reality. You equate imitating the language of the founders, with being intelligent. And I am willing to wager a bet that most of what you know about the world you learned from reading fiction. Just go away.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : I have every intention of moving to Massachusetts, to the 'moonbats' as you view them, for the very reason that they have smaller portions of 'dimwits' than other areas of the country, particularly in the South.
    Posted by TheRLeePost


    Boy, I have to reply to THAT.

    Listen, where the hell did you get that idea?  I have been so many places I can't even express it to you.  And let me assure you, we have as many dimwits here as anywhere else in the US (and several foreign nations too).

    You want to know what we DO have?  Dimwits with degrees.  Oh yeah, boy, that's an improvement alright.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : NEW ENGLAND is "too diverse"!?  Hell, Joe, I often wonder how the City of Boston stays together!!!
    Posted by easydoesit2

    Good point, but it wasn't the type of diversity that liberals embrace. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheRLeePost. Show TheRLeePost's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : Boy, I have to reply to THAT. Listen, where the hell did you get that idea?  I have been so many places I can't even express it to you.  And let me assure you, we have as many dimwits here as anywhere else in the US (and several foreign nations too). You want to know what we DO have?  Dimwits with degrees.  Oh yeah, boy, that's an improvement alright.
    Posted by PragmaticAmerican


    It's clear that we disagree on what and who constitutes a dimwit. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : Boy, I have to reply to THAT. Listen, where the hell did you get that idea?  I have been so many places I can't even express it to you.  And let me assure you, we have as many dimwits here as anywhere else in the US (and several foreign nations too). You want to know what we DO have?  Dimwits with degrees.  Oh yeah, boy, that's an improvement alright.
    Posted by PragmaticAmerican


    I have to agree. I've lived on the west coast, been to the south plenty (plus I have family there) and I've lived and been all over the east coast. We have just as many dimwits here. Having a BA or MA, and using big words, doesn't mean you can't be a dimwit. Honestly I've heard more stupid things said, and seen more stupid things done, within the halls of a college (usually by a professor) than I have on the street. Dumb people are everywhere and in every walk of life.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheRLeePost. Show TheRLeePost's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : There seems to be a concensus here about one dimwit
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    Labels and sarcasm are the primary tools of lazy minds.  If pithy comments fulfill your esteem needs, you're fortunate.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to:  Okay this has gone on long enough. With all due respect dude, I've read your original post a number of times, and you obviously don't have much of a grip on reality. You equate imitating the language of the founders, with being intelligent. And I am willing to wager a bet that most of what you know about the world you learned from reading fiction. Just go away. Posted by JaySev2010
    There isn't much point to continued elaboration here (though I may put forth the effort), as the traffic level is abysmal, and made up primarily of 'politically correct' trolls with limited cognitive depth.   But the cognitive depth isn't so much the problem as is the lack of a serious interest in analyzing public problems to ascertain solutions.  Of course, the cognitive ability is a problem to the degree that a certain level is needed to see that which is not readily apparent, and to concieve of that which does not exist, yet could.   The lack of those abilities could be overriden with curiosity and a belief that there are things to be learned, and in one's own faith in their ability to learn, however long that may take.  Here, I do not see those latter characteristics.  Though they likely exist to some degree, it is largely repressed by the much more powerful need to 'be right' with the amount of mental exertion already expended, and moreover the need to be seen as being right. You said you read my post three times, a thorough effort on your part.  And yet, you've barely addressed any of the core elements given for prompting the title of the post.   The closest you've come has been with, " . . this is a bad idea because we we would lose economically and the US would lose economically AND militarily," and "You think losing land, resources, and unity with the rest of the country will grow new england?" The first statement asserts a contrary opinion without any supporting rationale; it simply states that my assertion is not true; it doesn't debunk any of my underlying rationale.   The second statement, on a latter reply, at least ventures a little foundation to your opinion, but was in the midst of a larger irrational or off subject rant that I was too distracted to bother focusing on it.  But not wanting to ignore the little objection you offered . . . New England currently has no more control over the 'land' and 'resources' outside of its six states than it proportionally has over the land and resources in the other 44 states, which is to say that only federal statutes applicable to private land, and the lands which are owned by the U.S. government are at issue, and New England would not lose anymore 'advantage', whatever that might be, as it would gain by a separation.  Adding to that point: we are a capitalist nation, resources are far and away in private hands, not considered community wealth, beneficial to the state only to the extent they are taxed.   'Unity' is a state of being that out of context poses neither a negative or positive, and is again only a contrary opinion of a preferred state of being without supporting rationale.     You've made two references to my writing as an 'attempt' to mimic a style, that of the 'founders'.  As I initially give all criticism a fairshake, as I do people, I winched at the accusation, then simply laughed.  Finally, I realized that if your remark wasn't simply part of one of your attack formulas, i.e. a group of rehearsed slurs for a topic, but was a genuine original analysis, then I am quite complimented.   The latter, not because I think my style mimics that of the founders, but that you've confused style with articulation.  That my ariculation evokes in your mind the 'style' of the founders is both humorous and comforting. Finally, you've at least twice signaled your inner desire to dictate, "But more importantly I have no desire to separate" and "Okay this has gone on long enough.  Just go away."   I don't know your personal desires, and even if I had, a single person's desire wouldn't have carried more weight than my concern for the welfare of 14 million others, though I am interested in your thoughts, as they pertain to these matters, as I would hope you were in mine.   Your last comments are just pathetic, but thanks for playing; sorry we have no parting gifts.   
    Posted by TheRLeePost


    And you've shown a continued interest in wasting your own time. I've addressed the core concerns of your OP. If you are too stupid to accept that fine, but don't blame me if I happen to think your reasoning is terrible. Like I said, being able to use big words, and knowing how to think are two very different things. You can emulate the style of a thinker, but you have no substance in your remarks. And I pretty much ignored all but the first paragraph of your last post for this reason. I can't waste my time reading drivel from someone who thinks he has a handle on things because he's mastered a word-a-day dictionary. All your points have been addressed by different posters here. You have failed to convince anyone. I repeat, you've failed to convince anyone. Rather than blame the posters for failing to catch on to your "brilliant ideas" maybe you should blame yourself for taking a terrible idea, and building a bad argument for it.

    Enjoy your re-enactment of Bunker Hill (and before you correct us, or insert some other pedantic remark, yes everyone here from mass. knows it was mostly fought on Breed's Hill).
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : Labels and sarcasm are the primary tools of lazy minds.  If pithy comments fulfill your esteem needs, you're fortunate.
    Posted by TheRLeePost


    I believe you fail to see the irony of this statement.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    Your last comments are just pathetic, but thanks for playing; sorry we have no parting gifts.   
    Posted by TheRLeePost


    The truth hurts doesn't itRLEE. What? I hit a nerve?

    For someone who recoils at ad homs, you use them an awful lot.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
      You've made two references to my writing as an 'attempt' to mimic a style, that of the 'founders'.  As I initially give all criticism a fairshake, as I do people, I winched at the accusation, then simply laughed.  Finally, I realized that if your remark wasn't simply part of one of your attack formulas, i.e. a group of rehearsed slurs for a topic, but was a genuine original analysis, then I am quite complimented.   The latter, not because I think my style mimics that of the founders, but that you've confused style with articulation.  That my ariculation evokes in your mind the 'style' of the founders is both humorous and comforting.


    Your style doesn't evoke the sound of the founders to me, it evokes someone trying to sound like them, or at least trying to sound more intelligent than he truly is. The fact is, you are very bad writer and a very poor communicator. You are unclear, you are needlessly verbose, and your sentences are akward at best. in short, you are trying way too hard.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?

    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?:
    In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England? : Labels and sarcasm are the primary tools of lazy minds.
    Posted by TheRLeePost


    Certainly.  This is why you applied a broad brush to some vague group as "dimwits."

    Live by your own rules.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share