Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

JD Barleycorn · 09-25-2013, 01:41 AM

http://www.redding.com/news/2013/sep...bid-secession/

Instead of going away another county has expressed interest in forming a new state. They will continue to look for some counties wanting to break free of land of fruits and nuts California. Notice how large their GDP would be if they did break free.

WTF · 09-25-2013, 05:53 AM

JD wants another Civil War! Good Lord JD, you really do hate half this country.

Guest123018-4 · 09-25-2013, 06:22 AM

I applaud their efforts. Seems like the people there have a good understanding of what is bringing them down and want no part of it any longer. I wonder if they would be a red state or a blue state. Not really.

JD Barleycorn · 09-25-2013, 08:23 AM

I guess WTF can't read or comprehend. They want to secede from California and not the US. California is by all intents and purposes three states. The interior is far different than the coast with very different concerns. One big thing; water. The water comes from the interior to the coast and the farmers are getting shafted. Millions of acres have been turned into dust so that Hollywood elite can fill their pools. If another state was started then they could negotiate for that water and get the major cities to pay fair market share rather than steal it in the state house. On other environmental stuff, the people who live in the desert can decide for themselves if a desert tortoise or rat has more rights than people think in San Fransisco.

I support them in their quest for justice and liberty. Just like that little bit of land between Georgia and Tennessee. There is no reason to think that what is now is what will always be. Look at Elwood, KS or is it St. Joseph, KS? 60 years ago the Missouri river changed course and left an oxbow lake around the airport. The airport is now only acessible from Kansas and is by all definitions in Kansas. It is still Missouri territory. Note: this is the airport only. The small town of Elwood is Kansas. States change. Don't you want some more hope and change?

Old-T · 09-25-2013, 08:30 AM

The way we defined state boundaries in the past was always heavily colored by politics, so why should we believe politics isn't as big an issue now in where state boundaries should be? Read the history of why there is a New Mexico and an Arizona some time, and why it took so long. Filled with lots of the anger and racial issues this board loves to argue about.

I hate to see what state redistricting battles would look like, but I agree with the people who believe we should occasionally consider state realignment. I would hope we have a serious debate on the rules and logics BEFORE we take out the meat cleaver, but there are some serious inequities. Almost every one of the "big" population states has divergent views, but there is also a real question why the people of Wyoming have the same number of senators as the people of California. Reasonable population numbers in 1776 to form a state are not reasonable population numbers today. And I would hate to see a rapid fractionalization that gave us 300 states--pity the poor school kid who would have to learn all the state capitols.

JD Barleycorn · 09-25-2013, 08:40 AM

Representation by senators has nothing to do with population. Each state is equal by intent. The House represents the people by population. You cannot confuse the two. It was intentional. You won't see 300 states. There are too many benefits for some territories to stay together but rural California is seeing the handwriting on the wall. It is about self determination and survival. The people on the coast are going to demand so much money for all of their liberal programs the state will go bankrupt (like it already isn't) and like a drowning person they will take everyone else in the state down with them. I also believe that someone like Obama and his party will allow a floundering state like Calofornia to pull down the other states with taxpayer bailouts without required changes in the way California does business. Do you want to be forced to give money to someone else who refuses to change their wasteful ways?

lostincypress · 09-25-2013, 09:35 AM

Yreka Ca......yes, that Yreka....home of Jodie Arias. I suppose the 44,000 residents of the area will be more than happy to reimburse the Federal government for the infrastructure, dams, roads, etc and restrict themselves to using only non Federal land in their pursuit of economic freedom. A cursory examination of the area in question shows mostly Federal forests and National Parks. Why, 100 of these pioneers showed up for the vote on forming a new state...the State of Jefferson...which was first proposed pre WWII.

CJ7 · 09-25-2013, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostincypress

Yreka Ca......yes, that Yreka....home of Jodie Arias. I suppose the 44,000 residents of the area will be more than happy to reimburse the Federal government for the infrastructure, dams, roads, etc and restrict themselves to using only non Federal land in their pursuit of economic freedom. A cursory examination of the area in question shows mostly Federal forests and National Parks. Why, 100 of these pioneers showed up for the vote on forming a new state...the State of Jefferson...which was first proposed pre WWII.

snick

JD Barleycorn · 09-25-2013, 10:58 AM

What is so hard to understand (maybe its a liberal thing). They ARE NOT seceding from the union, they want to secede from California. There is no impact on dams, highways, or infrastructure....IDIOTS!!!

CJ7 · 09-25-2013, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What is so hard to understand (maybe its a liberal thing). They ARE NOT seceding from the union, they want to secede from California. There is no impact on dams, highways, or infrastructure....IDIOTS!!!

that's totally different then ... after an earthquake swallows up the county, they can call in their own National Guard to help them out, and have a bake sale to pay for rebuilding the towns ....

WTF · 09-25-2013, 11:07 AM

JD when was the last time there was statehood in this country?

Think about it and then go back to your bunker....

lostincypress · 09-25-2013, 11:23 AM

I suppose the 44,000 residents could cover the 20% of the citizens Medi Cal costs to the tune of $37000000 per year. 45% of the residents make less than $25000 per year however, they are not reporting income generated from Marijuana farming and actual income could be considerably higher.

Guest032516 · 09-25-2013, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old-T

I hate to see what state redistricting battles would look like, but I agree with the people who believe we should occasionally consider state realignment. I would hope we have a serious debate on the rules and logics BEFORE we take out the meat cleaver, but there are some serious inequities. Almost every one of the "big" population states has divergent views, but there is also a real question why the people of Wyoming have the same number of senators as the people of California.

Actually, there isn't a real question about why big and small states have the same number of Senators.

That is because the Senate does not represent the people - the House does that and is appropriately weighted by population.

The Senate represents the states and each of the states is an equal political entity - hence an equal number of Senators.

And there is no real inequity or unfairness in that system. We all live under it and we know the rules. If a person in California somehow feels shafted because Wyoming has the same number of Senators, then that person can quickly correct that situation by moving to Wyoming. Problem solved!

But then that person might not like the fact that California has fifty times as many representatives as Wyoming. So he may never be happy.

The bicameral Congress is set up that way to balance the interests of the states vs. majorities of the people. They say that pure democracy is a system under which 51% of the people vote to piss in the corn flakes of the other 49%. Truer words were never spoken. That's why republics put restraints on the powers of the majority. And the primary restraint on majorities is the US Senate.

Without a Senate, the Representatives of about 10 states could vote to piss in the corn flakes of the other 40 states. The Big 10 could vote to use neighboring states as their garbage landfills. So New York's trash would get dumped in New Jersey and Vermont. California would dump its trash in Nevada, and so forth.

Water rights? Well, the water belongs to the Big 10, of course. Why do you ask?

Coal plants? Well, they're built in the lower 40 and the electricity gets sent to the Big 10. The same goes for any type of chemical plant or nuclear plant.

See how easy this is without a Senate? No need for any of that messy negotiation between the House and Senate.

And just think how much easier it will be for lobbyists to push through legislation that favors their clients! You can focus all of your money and attention on the 51% of Representatives of the Big 10 and ignore the other 49% of Representatives.

NO THANKS. I think I will pass on reform.

I B Hankering · 09-25-2013, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

JD when was the last time there was statehood in this country?

Think about it and then go back to your bunker....

Puerto Rico: September 23, 2013.

CJ7 · 09-25-2013, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Puerto Rico: September 23, 2013.

P Rico is IN this country ??

gee, who knew?