Reply With Quote
yes.
a grandiose scale. one's level of commitment also plays a role.and that one was relatively tame compared to what this one would be.
Really? That's like saying that the red US is too dependent on the blue US for education, or technology, or any other asinine "it's this simple" idea.
yes.
a grandiose scale. one's level of commitment also plays a role.and that one was relatively tame compared to what this one would be.
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31595.pdf
This shows some production... there's a map about halfway down.
As you can see, New England produces a decent amount, as does the Michigan/Illinois area.
Ain't that the truth.
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence ?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated,
but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his Ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown , Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters.
He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed.
The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives.
His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste.
For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. Some of us take these
liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't.
thread kill
We'll see. And not that I want it to go on...but individuals and not party activists will continue it.
Best data I could find had values for agricultural exports. All the northeastern states are near the bottom. There's no way they can produce enough food for themselves.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications...123/fau123.pdf
There's a difference between things like agricultural products and natural resources which can only be found in certain geographic locations and things like education and technology which can be located/developed anywhere.
I believe this idea was already floated after the 2004 election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map
Personally, I think it's a great idea. Not that it would ever happen. But I'd love to dump all those states in the middle of the country. Now if only we could literally dump them, so it wouldn't be 3,000 miles worth of travel every time I want to go to Oregon, which I do at least once a year.
Transportaion of these goods would also rank as a significant factor.
If the NE had to rely on it's food supplementation from the biggest producer California...I wonder what tarrifs would be leveed for that transportation across red state lines?
Of course that would be a major issue for red states exports as well being they would have to ship their goods to the far east through California, Portland or Washington ports.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map
Analysis
2004 United States presidential election by county, on a color spectrum from Democratic blue to Republican red.
In the context of the Jesusland map, the states in which a majority voted Democratic in the 2004 election are viewed as more socially liberal in outlook, and therefore having more cultural similarities with Canada than with the remainder of the United States. The Republican-voting red states tended to vote based more on what they referred to as moral values, such as opposition to same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research.[6] Holders of these values are characterized by a high degree of faith in Evangelical Christianity, thus causing the name of Jesus to be affixed to the hypothetical country;[7] in an article by Ron Suskind of the New York Times, a Republican official characterized the divide as being one between a "faith-based community" and a "reality-based community."[citation needed]
The gap is seen as stark enough that some Democratic bloggers have ironically or semi-seriously advocated secession, whilst some on the Republican side (such as Mike Thompson, a past chairman of the Florida American Conservative Union) suggested that the federal government expel the blue states.[8] To that end, some have noted the similarity between the electoral map of the U.S. in 2004 and a map of the United States in 1860, showing the free and slave states prior to the American Civil War.[9] [10]
That's the issue that would make life tough for red-u.s. The only water access they would have would be the gulf coast. Plus they'd still be dependent on blue-u.s. to be a major trade partner in buying their products. In the end what this all boils down to is that even if you split the u.s. into two, the two separate nations are still going to be interdependent on each other. Thus splitting up makes no sense for anyone.
The Northeastern states are near the bottom, but look at the populations for these states. Besides Massachusetts, the populations are relatively low. Additionally, the Northeast states produce a good amount of seafood.
Also, note that California, Iowa, and Illinois, three of the headlining states, are solidly blue. Methinks your argument is somewhat defeated.
Agree to disagree.
Who gets the military?
Are you denying that Iowa, Illinois and California are all blue states?
I think that there would be problems on BOTH sides, for food production, technology, and everything else. And as shown on the map, it's not a bright clear divide.. there are pockets of red and blue mixed in everywhere.
The biggest problem and advantage the 'red side' would have is that they're mostly rural. It would mean that they have alot of the farming areas and other such land, but it would also make it harder for them to band together.
Ha! You and I both know there's no good answer to that one... stop poking at the hornet's nest ES.
Are you denying that Iowa, Illinois and California are all blue states?
No. I'm disagreeing with you that Iowa, Illinois and California would be able to feed all of blue nation.
I agree with this.I think that there would be problems on BOTH sides, for food production, technology, and everything else. And as shown on the map, it's not a bright clear divide.. there are pockets of red and blue mixed in everywhere.
The biggest problem and advantage the 'red side' would have is that they're mostly rural. It would mean that they have alot of the farming areas and other such land, but it would also make it harder for them to band together.
No more so than Texas could provide for all of red.
No. I'm disagreeing with you that Iowa, Illinois and California would be able to feed all of blue nation.
Damn skippy. Anyone who doesn't think like we do needs to be forcefully removed.
If I have to go to war over a ing lobster, then I'm out.
Look, in 30-50 years when the economy collapses and people get desperate and hungry, here's what will happen. The authority of the central government will collapse. There will be widespread violent chaos for a little while, until multiple provisional authorities get set up. These will coalesce into de-facto successor states.
People in these successor states will be very angry and looking for someone to blame for what happened. In conservative areas, racial minorities, sexuals, and liberal urbanites will take the blame. A lot of them will get killed and many others will be forced out. In liberal areas, confessional Christians and whoever is viewed as politically incorrect will take the blame. Not as many of them will get killed, but many will be forced out, and the ones that remain will have whatever is left of rights in those days severely curtailed. (There won't exactly be two diametrically opposed regions like that, but it illustrates the point.)
Those who are forced out, upon being reunited with their respective tribes, will tell stories about the atrocities inflicted upon them. This will inflame passions and accelerate the oppression on the scapegoated groups in each camp. With what is left of their economies, states will start cutting off trade to punish one another. The only political speech left will be hate speech. Once-fellow citizens of the now-forgotten United States will be one another's most despised enemies in all the world.
While this is going on, the armaments of the former American military will be floating around. Eventually one successor state, most likely a "reddish" one, will launch an attack on a "bluish" one as revenge for perceived atrocities (which of course it too will have committed). This will escalate into a larger conflict among several successor states where a whole bunch of cities get destroyed and millions of people die. Somebody, again probably on the red side, will use nuclear weapons against cities on the other side, and probably get hit back.
When it is all over, much of the central third of North America will be reduced to scorched earth and rubble. A hundred million or more will be dead.
And then the Mexicans will rebuild it and rule it for themselves.
I am highly skeptical of all doomsday scenarios for the United States, and find it much more plausible that we would lose our status as world-bearers in the same way that England and Spain have done so. Revolutions might occur, but a hundred million dead is a bit high of a body count.
Northeastern states/Illinois/California/PNW would having biotechnology companies, software technology, logging, as well as seafood and fishing industries to support them.
Midwest/Southern states would have oil and farming, but I suspect those things would run out pretty quickly. They're already depleted industries. "Jesusland" would be a pretty impoverished country pretty quickly.
I would make a bet, but since if I won one or both of us would probably be dead, there's no point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
