| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not just no but HELL NO.
[Shakes head]
Comrade Dingo, please spellcheck your petitions.
Also,
Live free or die!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We'd have to change our name. Too much paperwork.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We'd have to change our name. Too much paperwork.
On the plus side, you'd only have two senators - so instead of debates you could settle things through wrestling in that chamber.
MUD wrestling.
"Hey, McCain! Cruz! No fighting dirty!"
"MCCAIN! I said no biting! Don't make me tell you again!"
We'd have to change our name. Too much paperwork.On the plus side, you'd only have two senators - so instead of debates you could settle things through wrestling in that chamber.
Nah. Let's give them one hour of verbal debate. If they can't solve it by then, they solve it via Russian Roulette.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dingo Australia has 6 states + territories.... You can't get us to unite...
There is no way a hard working industrious New South Welshman like me, would want to be associated with a XXXX drinking, thong wearing, banana bending yobbo Queenslander or an Arty farty, black turtle neck wearing, latte sipping, arial ping pong cultist Victorian or, god bothering socks and sandal wearing serial killing South Australian, or white shoe brigade, isolationist, shoot it if moves chop it down if it doesn't and dig it up if you are standing on it Western Australian, then there is your lot crazy cane toad licking swamp dwelling alcoholic Northern Territorians and you may have noticed I haven't mentioned Tasmania.... That's because nobody should mention Tasmania.
So if Australians have issues between 6 states and the territories, imagine the problems with 50 odd states.
Dingo Australia has 6 states + territories.... You can't get us to unite...
There is no way a hard working industrious New South Welshman like me, would want to be associated with a XXXX drinking, thong wearing, banana bending yobbo Queenslander or an Arty farty, black turtle neck wearing, latte sipping, arial ping pong cultist Victorian or, god bothering socks and sandal wearing serial killing South Australian, or white shoe brigade, isolationist, shoot it if moves chop it down if it doesn't and dig it up if you are standing on it Western Australian, then there is your lot crazy cane toad licking swamp dwelling alcoholic Northern Territorians and you may have noticed I haven't mentioned Tasmania.... That's because nobody should mention Tasmania.
So if Australians have issues between 6 states and the territories, imagine the problems with 50 odd states.
Is Tasmania still a state?
And you left out New Zealand| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dingo Australia has 6 states + territories.... You can't get us to unite...
There is no way a hard working industrious New South Welshman like me, would want to be associated with a XXXX drinking, thong wearing, banana bending yobbo Queenslander or an Arty farty, black turtle neck wearing, latte sipping, arial ping pong cultist Victorian or, god bothering socks and sandal wearing serial killing South Australian, or white shoe brigade, isolationist, shoot it if moves chop it down if it doesn't and dig it up if you are standing on it Western Australian, then there is your lot crazy cane toad licking swamp dwelling alcoholic Northern Territorians and you may have noticed I haven't mentioned Tasmania.... That's because nobody should mention Tasmania.
So if Australians have issues between 6 states and the territories, imagine the problems with 50 odd states.
Is Tasmania still a state?
And you left out New Zealand
...probably because New Zealand isn't an Australian state/province?
We own New Zealand, we just let them think they are a separate country. ;-)
In reality New Zealand was in the original talks for Federation an provision for them to become a state is in the constitution. In interestingly Western Australia was not originally part of the talks, but shat themselves when they realised like Texas they couldn't go it alone.
...probably because New Zealand isn't an Australian state/province?Dingo Australia has 6 states + territories.... You can't get us to unite...
There is no way a hard working industrious New South Welshman like me, would want to be associated with a XXXX drinking, thong wearing, banana bending yobbo Queenslander or an Arty farty, black turtle neck wearing, latte sipping, arial ping pong cultist Victorian or, god bothering socks and sandal wearing serial killing South Australian, or white shoe brigade, isolationist, shoot it if moves chop it down if it doesn't and dig it up if you are standing on it Western Australian, then there is your lot crazy cane toad licking swamp dwelling alcoholic Northern Territorians and you may have noticed I haven't mentioned Tasmania.... That's because nobody should mention Tasmania.
So if Australians have issues between 6 states and the territories, imagine the problems with 50 odd states.
Is Tasmania still a state?
And you left out New Zealand
Yeah. When listing states/provinces, one generally doesn't include territories.
*flees*
Edit: There was originally a post after this. I deleted it because it was me getting too pedantic. And, frankly, it didn't contribute anything of value to the conversation.
Well other than having to rewrite the Constitution on how the government works, it is a really stupid idea.
The U.S. and A. will remain a quarrelsome place. =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dingo provides an entertaining and thought provoking level of crazy that I enjoy. Imagine if all the states were disbanded for a central government, what kind utopia or nightmare land would The United State of America be?
Don't just write him off as unintelligent, YD is far from stupid, he may have a few roos loose in the top paddock or be a couple of stubbies short of a slab, but the guy is not an idiot.
He just wants you to think out of your concreted in paradigm. This is stuff you can use creatively.
So it would all be like Puerto Rico then?
As an outsider here, what do people see as the advantages of individual states? (Not arguing at all, I'm genuinely curious - come to think of it, what is the advantage of unifying?)
Bear in mind I know pretty much nothing other than the very basics of where state/federal responsibilities are currently separated.
|
As an outsider here, what do people see as the advantages of individual states? (Not arguing at all, I'm genuinely curious - come to think of it, what is the advantage of unifying?)
Bear in mind I know pretty much nothing other than the very basics of where state/federal responsibilities are currently separated.
Pros of many states? Much easier governing.
Cons? so so so many...
Dingo provides an entertaining and thought provoking level of crazy that I enjoy. Imagine if all the states were disbanded for a central government, what kind utopia or nightmare land would The United State of America be?
Don't just write him off as unintelligent, YD is far from stupid, he may have a few roos loose in the top paddock or be a couple of stubbies short of a slab, but the guy is not an idiot.
He just wants you to think out of your concreted in paradigm. This is stuff you can use creatively.
It is possible to be an idiot and intelligent. *cough*Tony Abbott.*cough*
Personally I think he's got mangiferacephalus.
He is not intelligent he is owned by Rupert Murdoch and does what he is told.
|
|
As an outsider here, what do people see as the advantages of individual states? (Not arguing at all, I'm genuinely curious - come to think of it, what is the advantage of unifying?)
Bear in mind I know pretty much nothing other than the very basics of where state/federal responsibilities are currently separated.
Pros of many states? Much easier governing.
Cons? so so so many...
Care to list a few cons?
some of the cons are the laws are not the same from state to state. mostly minor things like traffic laws. but marriage laws are becoming more different from state to state which causes some problems for people. there are also times when a States law is different from the federal government. in Denver and Washington recreational marijuana is legal and several more states medicinal marijuana is legal however under federal law marijuana is not legal under any circumstances meaning that some people are by elation of federal law and could be arrested for violating that law.
I think however that overall it would be nearly impossible to govern a country that is so large and varied with out the states.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a horrifically bad idea on many levels. The entire point of having individual states in the first place is so that the government (of each state) can be tailored to the needs and preferences of that state. If you don't agree with what your state provides/requires, you either move somewhere you like more, or you work to change the system in your state. Having one big monolithic government morass would only guarantee misery for everyone.
This is a horrifically bad idea on many levels. The entire point of having individual states in the first place is so that the government (of each state) can be tailored to the needs and preferences of that state. If you don't agree with what your state provides/requires, you either move somewhere you like more, or you work to change the system in your state. Having one big monolithic government morass would only guarantee misery for everyone.
Not entirely accurate...
The name "United States of America" actually comes from the old definition of "state": Nation. It was intended to be an alliance of independent nations with a singular government overseeing that alliance. Thus, the Articles of Confederation.
That didn't work out, so they instead decided to try an alliance with a more centralized, more powerful government... thus, the Constitution. A State was still capable of leaving that alliance, though, but creating States was done at the federal level. Beyond that and what was expressly in the Constitution, it was kinda intended that States would be mostly self-sufficient.
It isn't until the Civil War that the U.S. truly became a singular nation; even the language changed as a result. Before the Civil War, people said "the United States are" and after they said "the United States is."
That's also why it is that States have counties; originally, the counties were subdivisions of nations.
It isn't until the Civil War that the U.S. truly became a singular nation; even the language changed as a result. Before the Civil War, people said "the United States are" and after they said "the United States is."
This is a popular notion, which I think we can probably blame in part on Shelby Foote telling everyone on PBS, but it's not clearly so. Rather it appears that "United States is" and "United States are" constructions had roughly equal popularity between 1800 and 1820, with various periods where is came up ahead, and then the is phrasing pulled decidedly ahead in the 1830s. There is some narrowing in the 1840s but by that point you have to look at it in part as an expression of deliberate political rhetoric being consciously developed in contrast to the then-dominant tone.
A more likely situation is that the phrases were used interchangeably in the early nation without much distinction of meaning between them. Only as the slavery controversy heated up and it became clear that the slave states were on the losing end of the demographics (a point Calhoun liked to gripe about) that it suddenly became important that the Constitution established a bizarre alliance even less firm than the Articles of Confederation, in the service of their goal of preserving the interests of the white minority section in slavery against the will of the white majority section.
But don't believe me, you can look at the data right here for the general English corpus and here for the American English corpus. Broadly the same trend.
Cool. Learned something ^^
Won't stop my using the horrific oversimplification, though. And I apologize for that.
I should have marked my post as using horrific oversimplifications...
I'm all for kicking Chicago out of Illinois. Does any other state want it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for kicking Chicago out of Illinois. Does any other state want it?
Let's give it to Cuba.
We'd have to change our name. Too much paperwork.On the plus side, you'd only have two senators - so instead of debates you could settle things through wrestling in that chamber.
I'm going to choose to send my former governor as my representative.
Cool. Learned something ^^
Won't stop my using the horrific oversimplification, though. And I apologize for that.
I should have marked my post as using horrific oversimplifications...
Since you showed contrition, I'll suspend the conventional sentence of three spankings with a paddled labeled "history is complicated".
Just keep your nose clean. Recidivism risks confinement on the Dry Tortugas with only John Wilkes Booth's doctor for company.
This is a horrifically bad idea on many levels. The entire point of having individual states in the first place is so that the government (of each state) can be tailored to the needs and preferences of that state. If you don't agree with what your state provides/requires, you either move somewhere you like more, or you work to change the system in your state. Having one big monolithic government morass would only guarantee misery for everyone.
I can understand that. In a way, it's very much like our own hobby - many tables, each playing essentially the same thing, but tailored to the people that choose to sit at that table.
If everyone was forced to play Pathfinder RAW and to the same style, many of us would hate it. Thinking in those terms, I understand why having multiple states (tables) joined by a common federal government (the core rulebook, with the ability to modify it, but generally allowing for shared ideas such as what makes a fighter different to a cleric) makes sense :)
Cool. Learned something ^^
Won't stop my using the horrific oversimplification, though. And I apologize for that.
I should have marked my post as using horrific oversimplifications...
Since you showed contrition, I'll suspend the conventional sentence of three spankings with a paddled labeled "history is complicated".
Just keep your nose clean. Recidivism risks confinement on the Dry Tortugas with only John Wilkes Booth's doctor for company.
Bwahahaha!
Well, that's better than the Citadel of Unending Peace. I use that for the more rebellious souls that try to avoid being consumed and added to the whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an outsider here, what do people see as the advantages of individual states? (Not arguing at all, I'm genuinely curious - come to think of it, what is the advantage of unifying?)
The designed advantage is that the individual states can serve as laboratories for democracy; individual states can experiment with different social policies to see if they work, and the ideas that prove to be sensible will then be copied. California is a common example of this; many of the ideas that many Americans now take for granted originated as experiments in California -- one of the most obvious is the "right turn on red" laws.
Another advantage is that governance can more easily be tuned to the needs of the local populace. There's often a lot of tension between local government and higher levels of government, for example, when the mostly-Republican state government in Albany conflict with the needs of the mostly-Democratic local government in New York City. The conflicts between Chicago and upstate Illinois, between Washington DC and the Federal Government, and so forth, are good examples. The Federal government is generally prohibited from passing laws specifically regarding specific cities or states, so it's much harder for the Fed to interfere in the local issues in Pennsylvania than it is for Pennsylvania to try to interfere with the local issues in Pittsburgh. As an example, every state can set its own tax rates; Oregon has no sales tax but a high income tax, Washington across the river has just the opposite. Presumably this works for the people of both Oregon and Washington in a way that a uniform setup wouldn't.
I could've sworn there were better things to do on this site than constantly create petitions no one thinks are good...
This makes me wonder... can we use an overload of petitions to bring down the White House website?
Maybe we should encourage him to create more just to find out.
|
Dingo provides an entertaining and thought provoking level of crazy that I enjoy. Imagine if all the states were disbanded for a central government, what kind utopia or nightmare land would The United State of America be?
Don't just write him off as unintelligent, YD is far from stupid, he may have a few roos loose in the top paddock or be a couple of stubbies short of a slab, but the guy is not an idiot.
He just wants you to think out of your concreted in paradigm. This is stuff you can use creatively.
It is possible to be an idiot and intelligent. *cough*Tony Abbott.*cough*
Personally I think he's got mangiferacephalus.
Mommy!! The mean internet person equated me with Tony Abbott...
|
|
...probably because New Zealand isn't an Australian state/province?Dingo Australia has 6 states + territories.... You can't get us to unite...
There is no way a hard working industrious New South Welshman like me, would want to be associated with a XXXX drinking, thong wearing, banana bending yobbo Queenslander or an Arty farty, black turtle neck wearing, latte sipping, arial ping pong cultist Victorian or, god bothering socks and sandal wearing serial killing South Australian, or white shoe brigade, isolationist, shoot it if moves chop it down if it doesn't and dig it up if you are standing on it Western Australian, then there is your lot crazy cane toad licking swamp dwelling alcoholic Northern Territorians and you may have noticed I haven't mentioned Tasmania.... That's because nobody should mention Tasmania.
So if Australians have issues between 6 states and the territories, imagine the problems with 50 odd states.
Is Tasmania still a state?
And you left out New Zealand
It will cost one point two trillion dollars to build a bridge linking Sydney to new zealand.
It will cost one point two trillion dollars to build a bridge linking Sydney to new zealand....probably because New Zealand isn't an Australian state/province?Dingo Australia has 6 states + territories.... You can't get us to unite...
There is no way a hard working industrious New South Welshman like me, would want to be associated with a XXXX drinking, thong wearing, banana bending yobbo Queenslander or an Arty farty, black turtle neck wearing, latte sipping, arial ping pong cultist Victorian or, god bothering socks and sandal wearing serial killing South Australian, or white shoe brigade, isolationist, shoot it if moves chop it down if it doesn't and dig it up if you are standing on it Western Australian, then there is your lot crazy cane toad licking swamp dwelling alcoholic Northern Territorians and you may have noticed I haven't mentioned Tasmania.... That's because nobody should mention Tasmania.
So if Australians have issues between 6 states and the territories, imagine the problems with 50 odd states.
Is Tasmania still a state?
And you left out New Zealand
Vitoria does need a big infrastructure project to employ all those auto workers
But hey! All we need then is a mega-lottery!