washingtonpost.com — "Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again. We think the time to make that happen is now. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has grown too big, too corrupt and too aggressive toward the world"
Apr 1, 2007 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountApr 2, 2007
Americans are so f**king spoiled. This is one of the only countries in the entire world where you can even talk about secession and still be able to walk around without being treated like a traitor. The radicalism in America, and on Digg, still doesn't cease to amaze me. Liberals wanting to secede, how is this a new idea from these morons?
unstablemindApr 2, 2007
You forget that when they secede all the money generated would no longer go to the federal reserve. Hence they will definately get a substantial amount of money if you count what people currently pay for state and federal. Not to mention they could raise/lower to compensate. I think it's very possible. Almost anything local is paid for by the state and local governments anyway, including schools, roads, fire, and police. Show me where the federal dollars go and I'll consider your concern...oh wait, almost a half-trillion to Iraq, sorry, I meant non-bid contracts, ie Halliburton, er DubaiAmerican Revolution 2.0
unstablemindApr 2, 2007
I hope your sarcasm tag wasn't working, otherwise I would bury you...You do know more people die each year from the flu or common cold than do terrorist attacks. The fearmongering must be working on some of the sheeple. Imagine what almost a half-trillion dollars in research could have done...instead, it's in some damn desert...
unstablemindApr 2, 2007
Then we'll move into the next state that secedes!
kd1sApr 2, 2007
I would love for all of New England, New York and New Jersey to split off from the rest of the U.S. It's been demonstrated over and over again how much money we feed into the federal government, yet we get very little of that back. Matter of fact I'd be willing to keep paying my share of fed tax to a regional authority if I knew that my money actually stayed in region and all benefited equally.
harrybauzoniaApr 3, 2007
Bye. I'll take up a collection at work to pay for Ted Kennedy's train ticket home.Let us know your new address though, so we can still exchange Christmas cards.Of course my own idea was to arrange with Canada to swap you for Alberta, and most of B.C. (minus Vancouver)...maybe Saskatchewan and Manitoba too if we throw in a little extra. Would you go for that?
fyngyrzApr 3, 2007
@enchantrem: " Please clarify this statement, preferably with sources?"Sure. The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution explicitly reserves the right of slavery to the government, specifically if a person is convicted of a crime. ANY crime:"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."In this manner, the US has enslaved many (chain gangs, anyone? License plate manufacture? etc.) and will enslave many more. Slavery never went away. It just became the domain of the government. It is for this reason that the 13th amendment stands as the low point of the entire constitution.
joetacoApr 15, 2007
I'd take Manitoban over BC bud any day of the week, twice on Sunday.
jswhittenMay 27, 2007
It was people in Vermont who died centuries ago who agreed to join the Union. Why should the living be slaves to the dead?
jswhittenMay 27, 2007
Actually, it happened twice. This first time the American colonies were successful in seceding from the British Empire. The second time, the CSA was unsuccessful.The Constitution actually allows states to secede unilaterally:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."Since the power to secede has not been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, each individual state has the right to secede without the consent of the others.Now the Supreme Court disagreed in Texas v. White, but it was clearly an incorrect decision, and there's nothing preventing the Supreme Court from ruling the other way next time.
jswhittenMay 27, 2007
There are countries that are smaller than Vermont and have fewer resources that have done very well on their own.