Well, if the latinos and mexicans were supportive of the US, that is to say that it was basically Florida or California but with the average skin tone being darker, I don't see why they'd separate.blademaster wrote:
Would U.S. give up California or Florida, if 90% of the people living there were Latinos and Mexicans?
Would we have to give those two states its own independence?
Also don't say its never gonna happen...
I'm just asking hypothetically what would happen if.... ^
Last edited by Hurricane (2007-06-22 14:44:53)
interesting comment, the reason I asked this is because there are A LOT of Mexicans and Latinos in California, if you are not familiar.Hurricane wrote:
Well, if the latinos and mexicans were supportive of the US, that is to say that it was basically Florida or California but with the average skin tone being darker, I don't see why they'd separate.blademaster wrote:
Would U.S. give up California or Florida, if 90% of the people living there were Latinos and Mexicans?
Would we have to give those two states its own independence?
Also don't say its never gonna happen...
I'm just asking hypothetically what would happen if.... ^
If it was basically Mexico encroaching on our territory, well, I don't think we'd ever let it get THAT bad.
Last edited by r2zoo (2007-06-22 14:49:48)
To be quite frank, I think the U.S. is too big for one government to handle effectively, so I'd be all for splitting up the country into different parts. California and Texas could each be their own countries, and Florida could probably do the same.blademaster wrote:
Would U.S. give up California or Florida, if 90% of the people living there were Latinos and Mexicans?
Would we have to give those two states its own independence?
Also don't say its never gonna happen...
I'm just asking hypothetically what would happen if.... ^
hypothetically if 90% of California is populated by Mexicans would we have to give independence to California?r2zoo wrote:
We fought the Mexicans(or was it Spain? i cant recall) for it once we'll do it again
I dont think they could legally succeed, theyd need to take over the states goverment and all that, its not just a majority decides to break off and it happens.
Last edited by blademaster (2007-06-22 15:08:00)
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-06-22 21:26:41)
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'd love if we seperated from the States.
with me as President
If you to are serious then....well...just wow. On a second thought, I dont see any states succeeding, remember what happened last time a state succeeded? The American Civil War. Anyways, whats the point of succeeding? They could stay in the country and live off our welfare.Turquoise wrote:
To be quite frank, I think the U.S. is too big for one government to handle effectively, so I'd be all for splitting up the country into different parts. California and Texas could each be their own countries, and Florida could probably do the same.blademaster wrote:
Would U.S. give up California or Florida, if 90% of the people living there were Latinos and Mexicans?
Would we have to give those two states its own independence?
Also don't say its never gonna happen...
I'm just asking hypothetically what would happen if.... ^
I wouldn't do it for racial reasons though. I just think administration would work out better that way.
Secede, genius, and he wasn't saying he thinkgs they will secede, rather that it would be better for everyone if the US was split into smaller states (the global rather than national use of the term) so that there were less administration.Commie Killer wrote:
If you to are serious then....well...just wow. On a second thought, I dont see any states succeeding, remember what happened last time a state succeeded? The American Civil War. Anyways, whats the point of succeeding? They could stay in the country and live off our welfare.
And these were the two suggesting I must be a little kid not so long ago .usmarine2005 wrote:
The word "succeeded" reminds me of Hawaii. They want to get rid of the "white man," but not the federal funding.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-06-22 22:20:13)
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-06-22 22:39:45)
The only reason why the South lost was because Lincoln and the Radical Republicans were too arrogant to just leave things be. Things would have turned out better if the Civil War had never occurred, because slavery would have eventually disappeared due to sheer economics. Slavery is simply not an efficient system in the long term. It makes far more sense for your labor to be free and able to fend for itself, because as the Industrial Age progressed, the number of workers mattered less and less -- and technology mattered more and more. Technology is expensive in the short run, but it brings labor savings in the long run. If you have to feed and provide shelter for your labor, you don't have enough money to spend on improving your technology (and therefore require less labor).Commie Killer wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'd love if we seperated from the States.
with me as PresidentIf you to are serious then....well...just wow. On a second thought, I dont see any states succeeding, remember what happened last time a state succeeded? The American Civil War. Anyways, whats the point of succeeding? They could stay in the country and live off our welfare.Turquoise wrote:
To be quite frank, I think the U.S. is too big for one government to handle effectively, so I'd be all for splitting up the country into different parts. California and Texas could each be their own countries, and Florida could probably do the same.blademaster wrote:
Would U.S. give up California or Florida, if 90% of the people living there were Latinos and Mexicans?
Would we have to give those two states its own independence?
Also don't say its never gonna happen...
I'm just asking hypothetically what would happen if.... ^
I wouldn't do it for racial reasons though. I just think administration would work out better that way.
it IS Mexico encroaching on our territory. they go nuts every time we want to build a fence etc.Hurricane wrote:
Well, if the latinos and mexicans were supportive of the US, that is to say that it was basically Florida or California but with the average skin tone being darker, I don't see why they'd separate.blademaster wrote:
Would U.S. give up California or Florida, if 90% of the people living there were Latinos and Mexicans?
Would we have to give those two states its own independence?
Also don't say its never gonna happen...
I'm just asking hypothetically what would happen if.... ^
If it was basically Mexico encroaching on our territory, well, I don't think we'd ever let it get THAT bad.
Considering that several larger states actually contribute more in taxation than they receive from the system, I'd say some of them have already proven themselves self-sufficient. I could easily see California and Texas succeeding in seceding. You're correct though.... I doubt that many people in either state would WANT to secede.r2zoo wrote:
In todays goverment, succeded from the United State is laughable. No state or its residents would willing say today to break of from the U.S. So what if a massive amount of the population is a certain race, back in the day Hamtramack Michigan was pretty much only Polish people, does that mean the area should declare it self a soverign nations or part of Poland? No it cant. a state can try a succed, but they would pretty much lose all its resources, have difficulties with trade, that and the U.S goverment just sitting their waiting for it to come back pleading...No state is self sufficent unless they want to drop back a few decades in technology. Yes, you have plenty of food, water, trees, etc, but are you going to be able to still provide power? Are oyu still gonig to be able to produce gasoline? Can you keep new vehicles coming in? Most importantly, can you keep massive corporations pumping money into the states economy in that state, still producing its wares?
Works for me... I'd support that.Harmor wrote:
Well since I live in San Diego I guess I have the authority to speak about it.
1. There are alot of gangs, latino gangs, around here.
2. Alot of hispanics in schools (ESL - English as a Second Language - classes were full)
3. Alot of babies born in highschool (we had a baby center right on campus).
4. Alot of Crime (1 mall near me has 1 car stolen each day)
5. Hospitals full of hispanics (you goto the hospital, you have to wait upwards of 4-5 hours for help)
Now I am a Hispanic, 1st generation in the United States.
Really all you need to do:
1. Put a fence on the border.
2. Tamperproof ID
3. Strict Employer Sanctions
Doing the above would allow the 12 million illegals to leave on their own. What's funny is some illegal turn themselves into the police so they can get a free ride back to their country.
Until we have a law / constitutional amendment passed that doesn't allow a child of an illegal alien to be a United States citizen, then they will come over here and drop a kid (Anchor Babies).
Thumbs up.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this is a pretty stupid question. if the rest of the United States was 90% white, should she become a member of the british common wealth?
since when the fuck did being American mean being white.
Thats what happens when its 3:49 in the morning. Im sorry Bubs.Bubbalo wrote:
Secede, genius, and he wasn't saying he thinkgs they will secede, rather that it would be better for everyone if the US was split into smaller states (the global rather than national use of the term) so that there were less administration.Commie Killer wrote:
If you to are serious then....well...just wow. On a second thought, I dont see any states succeeding, remember what happened last time a state succeeded? The American Civil War. Anyways, whats the point of succeeding? They could stay in the country and live off our welfare.And these were the two suggesting I must be a little kid not so long ago .usmarine2005 wrote:
The word "succeeded" reminds me of Hawaii. They want to get rid of the "white man," but not the federal funding.
I hope you realize that the war was not started because of slavery, it was started because states seceded from the Union, Liconls goal was to restore the Union, the the Emancipation Proclamation didn't occur until September 22, 1862, and it allowed states to keep their slaves if they returned to the Union. And the Thirteenth Amendment which banned slavery was not ratified until December 6, 1865. The Confederate States(which in truth never existed because not a single country ever officially noticed them as a foreign country) seceded from the Union starting with South Carolina because they were afraid of the Congress, with its higher majority of free states, trying to ban slavery, especially since the majority of territories west of the Mississippi were free by their own choosing.Turquoise wrote:
The only reason why the South lost was because Lincoln and the Radical Republicans were too arrogant to just leave things be. Things would have turned out better if the Civil War had never occurred, because slavery would have eventually disappeared due to sheer economics. Slavery is simply not an efficient system in the long term. It makes far more sense for your labor to be free and able to fend for itself, because as the Industrial Age progressed, the number of workers mattered less and less -- and technology mattered more and more. Technology is expensive in the short run, but it brings labor savings in the long run. If you have to feed and provide shelter for your labor, you don't have enough money to spend on improving your technology (and therefore require less labor).Commie Killer wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'd love if we seperated from the States.
with me as PresidentIf you to are serious then....well...just wow. On a second thought, I dont see any states succeeding, remember what happened last time a state succeeded? The American Civil War. Anyways, whats the point of succeeding? They could stay in the country and live off our welfare.Turquoise wrote:
To be quite frank, I think the U.S. is too big for one government to handle effectively, so I'd be all for splitting up the country into different parts. California and Texas could each be their own countries, and Florida could probably do the same.
I wouldn't do it for racial reasons though. I just think administration would work out better that way.
Anyway, getting back on topic, as Bubbalo mentioned, states as large as California and Texas could easily fend for themselves as countries. Texas was an independent Republic for a short time, by the way. Florida is yet another state large enough to survive as a separate nation.
Which is entirely the truth, this country was founded on the belief that every man is created equal, now while that truth has not been practiced in all parts of our country by all people in our history and sadly still today in a very small minority I have to say, so the fuck what if your Black, White, Yellow, Red, Purple or Turquoise, it doesn't mean shit, as long as you are a legal citizen of this country then god damnit you are a American and no one has a the right to take that away from you except yourself, by yourself, and with only yourself, not with the property you own, you can't decide that you dont like be American and because of that you are going to denounce your citizenship and take your property that you own and create your own country. Its illegal here, and I dont think your gonna find anywhere thats gonna allow you to do that.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this is a pretty stupid question. if the rest of the United States was 90% white, should she become a member of the british common wealth?
since when the fuck did being American mean being white.
Wonderful isn't it. Now while I dont want to turn this into a Iraq war debate I have to say that while I support the war in Iraq, though not the way it is being fought(you can't fight a god damned limited war, we learned that in Vietnam and Korea), I think if a alliance between the drug cartels in Latin America and international terrorists was formed, we could have one hell of a major problem at our southern boarder, of course though, a alliance between them is highly unlikely as the hard-core Islamics are against drugs and the only usage that the Islamics would have to the Drug Cartel is if they, the Jihad crazies and what ever, would be willing to distribute drugs through out Europe and the Mid East. So we are probably going to be ok in our Southern Boarder and won't have to worry about terrorists coming across.Harmor wrote:
Well since I live in San Diego I guess I have the authority to speak about it.
1. There are alot of gangs, latino gangs, around here.
2. Alot of hispanics in schools (ESL - English as a Second Language - classes were full)
3. Alot of babies born in highschool (we had a baby center right on campus).
4. Alot of Crime (1 mall near me has 1 car stolen each day)
5. Hospitals full of hispanics (you goto the hospital, you have to wait upwards of 4-5 hours for help)
Now I am a Hispanic, 1st generation in the United States.
Really all you need to do:
1. Put a fence on the border.
2. Tamperproof ID
3. Strict Employer Sanctions
Doing the above would allow the 12 million illegals to leave on their own. What's funny is some illegal turn themselves into the police so they can get a free ride back to their country.
Until we have a law / constitutional amendment passed that doesn't allow a child of an illegal alien to be a United States citizen, then they will come over here and drop a kid (Anchor Babies).
Rebel scum! You'll come crawling back, mark my words!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this is a pretty stupid question. if the rest of the United States was 90% white, should she become a member of the british common wealth?
since when the fuck did being American mean being white.
Agreed, but I mentioned the slavery thing upfront to prevent being called a racist. The war was mostly fought because of economics though. The South seceded because of the shitty trade policies that favored the North and screwed the South. Eventually, the South got fed up and left.Commie Killer wrote:
I hope you realize that the war was not started because of slavery, it was started because states seceded from the Union, Liconls goal was to restore the Union, the the Emancipation Proclamation didn't occur until September 22, 1862, and it allowed states to keep their slaves if they returned to the Union. And the Thirteenth Amendment which banned slavery was not ratified until December 6, 1865. The Confederate States(which in truth never existed because not a single country ever officially noticed them as a foreign country) seceded from the Union starting with South Carolina because they were afraid of the Congress, with its higher majority of free states, trying to ban slavery, especially since the majority of territories west of the Mississippi were free by their own choosing.
And yes, Texas and California were free countries until by popular majority they decided that they wanted to join the Union and asked for permission from out government.
I lived there for two years, and it is the truth...on Oahu at least.Bubbalo wrote:
And these were the two suggesting I must be a little kid not so long ago .usmarine2005 wrote:
The word "succeeded" reminds me of Hawaii. They want to get rid of the "white man," but not the federal funding.
The south's economy was based on cotton and tobacco, which, by 1860, were being produced far cheaper overseas. Essentially, their economy was doomed to fail, regardless of the North's trade policies.Turquoise wrote:
Agreed, but I mentioned the slavery thing upfront to prevent being called a racist. The war was mostly fought because of economics though. The South seceded because of the shitty trade policies that favored the North and screwed the South. Eventually, the South got fed up and left.Commie Killer wrote:
I hope you realize that the war was not started because of slavery, it was started because states seceded from the Union, Liconls goal was to restore the Union, the the Emancipation Proclamation didn't occur until September 22, 1862, and it allowed states to keep their slaves if they returned to the Union. And the Thirteenth Amendment which banned slavery was not ratified until December 6, 1865. The Confederate States(which in truth never existed because not a single country ever officially noticed them as a foreign country) seceded from the Union starting with South Carolina because they were afraid of the Congress, with its higher majority of free states, trying to ban slavery, especially since the majority of territories west of the Mississippi were free by their own choosing.
And yes, Texas and California were free countries until by popular majority they decided that they wanted to join the Union and asked for permission from out government.
Lincoln should have never chosen to fight the South, but he and his industrialist friends wanted to subdue it for business interests. This explains the massive amount of carpetbagging that occurred right after the war. Slavery was an issue as well, but the reason why it was an issue was because the South's economy depended on it.
South Carolina and the rest of the South had every reason to hate what the North was doing, and I'd say they put up a good fight, considering how many men the North lost before they won.