LETS BREAK UP THE USA

well we were talking abt this a lil on the gop speculation thread last night, i suggested having the south start their own country as a way to separate the highest concentration of foreign interventionists from their supply of cash, this is all abt making the world a better place, how would you break up the usa?

my other idea is to have the usa canada and mexico become one big awesome country

Been there, done that.

ice cre?m, you know we fought a civil war about this, right.

lilz

idk that was before my time, feel like conditions have prob changed

good luck texico

what's changed – the South still racist, homophobic, and beyond redemption?

oh, right – the South is now a GOP bastion. The Dems are now the lapdogs.

it took you 30 seconds to remember that?

well theres not slavery anymore for one, and for two weve developed a nasty habit of killing poor people all over the world w/our army

feel like theres so much status quo bias re the concept of a 'country' - itd be better if the whole thing was a lil more fluid

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/florida.gif

itd be better if the whole thing was a lil more fuid

fantastic thread, feel like this'll be really productive

http://i38.tinypic.com/6pyd20.gif

john how would you break up the usa

or does anyone think this is really the ideal configuration

you are allowed to add one additional country to the usa as a ~wildcard state~, which do you choose + where will you put it

can we grab pieces of canada and mexico in the mix? like seattle and vancouver make more sense together than seattle and alabama.

I'm asking ice cram not canadians this question btw

send everybody who thinks it's amusing or cool to spend time & energy hating on states/regions to some country full of similarly small-minded bigots, leave everybody else to be posi w/each other

yeah i feel like thats reasonable xp

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lpiDRDaH-mU/SigyPn7WUVI/AAAAAAAAN70/GK3YGtw113c/s400/ALTERED+STATE.jpg

the rules say if you want a piece of canada you have to give up one of the five ilx-agreed-upon big US cities, which will you choose

houston

every IHOP should be its own little principality within the united states, like andorra. none of the IHOP countries would have extradition agreements with the US, so if you commit a crime you can cross the border over into an IHOP to avoid being arrested. but you have to make a purchase every hour or they kick you out, also there's a two-hour wait for a table.

like my position is: you hate New York? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Alabama? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Seattle? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Mississippi? fuck you, you're an asshole. do that 46 more times and then do Puerto Rico, Guam & American Samoa just to be on the safe side

but your position is also 'all americans deserve suffering cause they voted for reagan'

john i feel like weve been through this, i totally do not hate the south, i like the south v much and would def choose to live there over some other regions of the country *cough cough midwest* - this is purely abt the political structure of the country, or countries

When you decide what to do with Canada, please post here so I can let everybody else know.

feelin p amused & cool right now tbh

*cough cough midwest*

explain

ice cr?m diplomatically extends his swathe of hated land

the idea that in the absence of The Part Where the People Have Bad Voting Habits the rest of the country will continue to vote as it has (instead of reorganizing along the same idiotic lines that are inherent within a two-party system) is idiotic. carve off the south, new states will become The Bad States. that's what everybody's love of binary thinking gets them

can we make gabbneb president of flyoverlandia

like my position is: you hate New York? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Alabama? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Seattle? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Mississippi? fuck you, you're an asshole. do that 46 more times and then do Puerto Rico, Guam & American Samoa just to be on the safe side

fwiw I have completely justified, non-assholish reasons for hating Tupelo, MS

'the part where people have bad voting habits' is very linked to the culture of the part where people have bad voting habits

but your position is also 'all americans deserve suffering cause they voted for reagan'

people's inability to grasp what "deserve" means in that formulation is really not working wonders for my ability to think highly of fellow human beings, step up game please iats

besides we all know this country is going nowhere fast until my inevitable bloody military coup

'the part where people have bad voting habits' is very linked to the culture of the part where people have bad voting habits

yup, and those cultures will form themselves in any collection of Americans. it's not "southerners" who are racist dickheads in NY and Portland. I know I'll never in a million years cure you of your ridiculousness on this q and yet one tries from time to time. You're wrong, you'll always be wrong, nothing's going to change that, you're never going to know it & you'll trudge on in the darkness of your ignorance on this question for the rest of your life, <3 u anyway but it's true, the end.

I mean the idea that a place like oklahoma can have more people voting for kerry than obama *in every district* would have nothing to do w/ ~the culture and people of oklahoma~, it's just like, hey 'bad voting habits'

can a mod change the thread title to LETS BREAK UP ILX

I mean the idea that a place like oklahoma can have more people voting for kerry than obama *in every district* would have nothing to do w/ ~the culture and people of oklahoma~, it's just like, hey 'bad voting habits'

― iatee, Tuesday, November 1, 2011 5:01 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark

posts v. much in character

the idea that in the absence of The Part Where the People Have Bad Voting Habits the rest of the country will continue to vote as it has (instead of reorganizing along the same idiotic lines that are inherent within a two-party system) is idiotic. carve off the south, new states will become The Bad States. that's what everybody's love of binary thinking gets them

― pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, November 1, 2011 12:57 PM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

oh well unless we adopt a new form of government which im totally in favor of btw well still have a two party system, its just the center will shift, im hoping enough that we can stop spending all our money on killing poor people in countries far away and spend it on fast trains and the social safety net instead, maybe my plan wont accomplish that, or maybe theres some other plan that works better idk

*cough cough midwest*

explain

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, November 1, 2011 12:56 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

eh idk its just not my style, too down to earth or w/e

I promise that after my bloody coup I will spend time killing poor people right here in our country (as well as middle-class and wealthy people; basically I pledge to go all Vorhees on the country)

eh idk its just not my style, too down to earth or w/e

but you're down to earth?? right???? i dunno

voting DJP, filming his rampages

yeah i mean the midwest has many places that im sure would please me, i was just teasing m/l, i tbh p much agree w/john that everywhere is sweet in its own way, like i said this thread is more abt political structures xp

some perspective:

Your Papers, Please [Jay Nordlinger]

Have a friend who was in Riverside Park (Manhattan) with his baby daughter. A woman came up to him and said, “Are you a registered Democrat?” He said no. She said, “Well, you can register right now — it will just take a second. I have the necessary paperwork here.” He said, “No, actually, that’s not it — I am registered. It’s just that I’m a registered Republican.” He said that the woman gave him a look of hate such as he had seldom seen — sent a shudder down his spine. She walked away, still glaring, bitterly, without a word.

Now, the thing is, my friend’s not very political at all — he’s not like me and the rest of us NRO-niks. He just has a nice career (unrelated to politics), and a nice family, loves to play golf, likes to go to the movies, and goes about his business. And he thought, “Shouldn’t she simply have been pleased that I was registered? Isn’t political participation and good citizenship what it’s all about?”

Oh, no, no, my friend — not by a long shot. Come the revolution, you will understand. And that lady will give you a good long time in a camp to think about it.

ice cr?m hates dairy states, how ironic

the best part about rounding up all of the Republicans and putting them into camps will be the looks on their faces when they see all the Democrats

not really understanding the zing in alfred's 'perspective', dems run manhattan news at 11

Guys, we've already had the Articles of Confederation and the Confederacy and w/o the French esp but also the Dutch and the Spanish, our very loose confederation during the Revolutionary War wouldn't have gained independence from Britain. Those failed or highly imperfect systems still arbitrated conflicts between the States; imagine if the only arbiter was war?

ice cr?m hates dairy states, how ironic

― very public (bnw), Tuesday, November 1, 2011 1:12 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i lovermont tho

tbh i have often thought that carving up the US would be a good idea in theory. its kinda the only vaguely libertarian idea i can still get with. also p sure we've had threads about it, either specifically, or by way of clusterfuckery.

http://i.imgur.com/qRyGs.gif

TN and KY should be blue there.

i was looking for that, thx

"russian professor"

http://recordingsurface.blogsome.com/images/Man_In_The_High_Castle_map2.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)

^^^would emigrate to immediately

Expel Florida, keep the rest.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2041365,00.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

economically what places would benefit most from 'being their own county' assuming no weird trade wars?

california, texas, greater nyc, maybe greater northeast

would smoke cascadia's cash crop

country

That Russian professor's map is risible

that russian professor's map is the dumbest thing i've ever seen

also, love how "let's break up the usa" becomes "stop hatin' the south" like immediately

tbf thats carry-over of aero ice cr?m beef on another thread

also p sure that cascadia would do v well on its own, also alaska?

i dunno how i'd break it up if i had to, don't think it's a good idea generally, new nations made out of pieces of old ones have a very poor record. the only examples we have recently are all super poor and war torn, but then there's like east germany.

part of my idea abt just splitting off the south and not breaking the rest of the country up is then the south just like tenn nc sc ga fl al ms la ar ok would be p small and poor and subject to political influence from our new country thereby somewhat mitigating the effect of having all that concentrated bad politics in one place

i could go with a new constitutional convention tho, redrawing all state boundaries is essential

states should be broken down to the county level

Do we let Dixians immigrate to the US?

i like the idea of organizing US splinter nations by ecosystem, but that's just because it's aesthetically pleasing to me.

no xp

after that breakdown by county, we should systematically set each new state on fire and do a whirling dervish dance in the resulting ashes

NO RIGHT OF RETURN

yes, new rule should be state boundaries must follow physical geographical features. none of this creepy straight line shit, what is that.

howbout the republican of red dots

http://keep3.sjfc.edu/students/jmm02377/e-port/north%20america%20pop%20map.gif

er 'republic' guess my fingers just add the 'an'

there should be no such things as states states r dumb, also the senate can we eliminate it

if we eliminated the senate we wouldn't even need this thread

get rid of senate + electoral college and fuck it everyone can stay

Do we let Dixians immigrate to the US?

― Muammar for the road (Michael White), Tuesday, November 1, 2011 1:45 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

absolutely, no closed borders, work restrictions, none of that bullshit - my feeling is more progressive southerners will be drawn north than conservatives looking for work

if you want to have an upper house of the legislature (tho why) then there are ways of doing that.

if you want to have semi-autonomous internal zones with some legal authority vested in them, you can do that too.

what we have now is just rickety crap

can we also get rid of habeus corpus and make all traffic offenses punishable by firing squad

dang perry for mod of the new confederacy

otm

none of this creepy straight line shit

What about where there are no geographical features?

in that case borders are drawn for their comedic value

I'm just going to warn you all now, Saxby Chambliss is getting a cabinet position in my regime because his name is hilarious

tough but fair

I already called Shakey Mo as my secretary of defense.

SHAKEY MO IS SAXBY CHAMBLISS????????????

explains a lot doesn't it

http://www.celsias.com/media/uploads/admin/fairley80701.jpg

those states look weird

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/835641802_ef422b12cf_b1.jpg

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d4b2c60cadcbb5b0d220000-592-396/nfl-america-map.jpg

you guys and your fucking sports

you guys and your sport fucking

do you want to understand america or not xp

http://alexlyras.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/roller-f.jpg

note to sporting cartographers, the bottom half of connecticut is solidly in the new york sports market

lol @ the two raiders splotches

like my position is: you hate New York? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Alabama? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Seattle? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Mississippi? fuck you, you're an asshole. do that 46 more times and then do Puerto Rico, Guam & American Samoa just to be on the safe side

― pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned),

let's hear this again next week if the Personhood Amendment passes

If the USA were to break up, it wouldn't be precisely along existing state borders for christ's sake. As most of us know, breakups are messy in real life.

I'd be looking at pictures of the Gateway Arch on Facebook and thinking "Aw, St. Louis wasn't so bad at times."

are you from the new haven area cr?m? i remember there being plenty of boston fans growing up.

naw I'm from boston, id be curious to know where that fandom line is particularly and how that works

I had that conversation with a Nutmegger one night, but I don't remember what he said since I had gotten off on the wrong foot by asking if his Connecticut tattoo was of Georgia.

lol

With regards to Connecticut fandom, there's a pretty good mix of Boston and NY fans, and they aren't necessarily portioned out like you would think. Also a lot of fair-weather-fans. Not sure if this is because CT doesn't have it's own team to default to (RIP Whalers!), or because of my age at the time (The Bulls, The Cowboys, and The 49er's were all very popular as I recall).

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3BaJMgGKAmE/Sibcix9II9I/AAAAAAAAKe8/RYL5rn_YMGc/s1600/connecticut+red+sox+vs+yankees.PNG

n.b. this is not actually entirely accurate

The New York Times thinks it knows.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/18/sports/18Fans.Map.jpg

that's p much as ive observed/imagined

there are a bunch of giants fans in western vermont which is kinda weird

where do those of us who hate pro sports get to live in this wonderful new world

the ocean

I could tell you, but then you would be forced to love college sports.

there are a bunch of giants fans in western vermont which is kinda weird Baseball or football?

you would be forced to love college sports

Why do you make this sound like a punishment?

Jonathan Kaplan's book An Empire Wilderness is pretty much about this exact issue, he concludes that Quebec is gonna be the first to go and then the US will follow suit. It's a good read, he also wrote Balkan Ghosts.

quebec will go, americans will hear a joke about it on leno, not get it

oops it's Robert D. Kaplan not Jonathan, was thinking of Kozol recently.

let's hear this again next week if the Personhood Amendment passes

dude I'll be pissed if the Personhood Amendment passes & I've put in plenty of groundwork & money to stop it from doing so, but because I graduated from 6th grade many years ago + am not stupid, I won't go "OH MISSISSIPPI WHAT A TERRIBLE PLACE WITH SUCH AWFUL PEOPLE"

they tell you how bad mississippi is in 7th grade fyi

at which point any 7th grader who's not too thickheaded to be allowed the vote oughta go "oh wait that's bullshit"

aerosmith what is your beef with pre-6th graders dawg

you guys should make south dakota and oregon team capitans and then they each have to pick a state to join their new country and divide up the usa that way

maybe the states picked last wld be shamed into being less terrible

it's like kickball but with life

wait 7th graders have the vote now?

no wonder this country's goin down the tubes

dead people vote in FL, why not 7th graders too

let's break up

Chicago should be its own country. Maybe an island in the middle of lake Michigan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSkik6EUQUc

there are a bunch of giants fans in western vermont which is kinda weird Baseball or football?

― Muammar for the road (Michael White), Tuesday, November 1, 2011 5:34 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

football, leftover from before the patriots via proximity to ny state

part of my idea abt just splitting off the south and not breaking the rest of the country up is then the south just like tenn nc sc ga fl al ms la ar ok would be p small and poor and subject to political influence from our new country thereby somewhat mitigating the effect of having all that concentrated bad politics in one place

lol so basically "let's strip them of their political power so we can exploit their weakened economy & political infrastructure"? I mean, I know this is America's thing but I didn't know u were behind it, esp. on our own soil

I think whatever happens we should airlift israel to wisconsin like in that one atom and his package song, who cares about wisconsin anyway

well u said it yrself w/o the guidance of the rest of the country some p dark shit could go on down there - I mean it's just like if u want to join the eu youve got to ditch the death penalty xp

How much of the South's traditional fear of govmt stems precisely from the institution of slavery - going back to colonial times, even?

southern skepticism towards the federal government dates back well before the Civil War for reasons broader than slavery afaik

but obv major elements of anti-government sentiments in the South were reshaped with the Civil War & the decades leading up to it, as well as Reconstruction, and slavery is inseparable from all that etc.

southern skepticism towards the federal government dates back well before the Civil War for reasons broader than slavery afaik

^^^yeah, Jefferson's concerns weren't strictly slavery-oriented.

lol Crut like any of these haters think of reconstruction as anything but a hilarious party

did anybody actually knock the south in general here or are you just gettin on yr soapbox cuz it's that kind of day

this thread is carryover from another thread, as has been noted on this thread several times.

also if somehow we could get the south out of the country things would be a lot mellower
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, November 1, 2011 4:18 AM (19 hours ago)

do keep up.

Last night's 2011 GOP candidates thread provided hours of fun.

yes what happened there? (^^^^^^^)

an explosion of rhetorical jism, apparently

Michelle Bachman exploded???

actually op, crapitalist hegemony is what we need to 'break up' - hth

http://i.imgur.com/0h0SP.jpg

http://artinvestment.ru/content/download/news/20080717_moscow_on_the_hudson.jpg

the famous leaning tower of rome

'Cause I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died
And gave that right to me
And I'll gladly stand up next to you
And defend her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land

(Except for the fucking South)

Now we might have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves,
but you outsiders best leave us alone.
This Lady may have stumbled, but she ain't never fell.
And if the Russians don't believe that, they can ALL GO STRAIGHT TO HELL.

Just lay your hand on a Pittsburgh Steelers fan, and I think you're gonna find he understands.

wiki:

Economy

In the last two generations, the South has changed dramatically. In recent decades it has seen a boom in its service economy, manufacturing base, high technology industries, and the financial sector. Examples of this include the surge in tourism in Florida and along the Gulf Coast; numerous new automobile production plants such as Mercedes-Benz in Tuscaloosa, Alabama; Hyundai in Montgomery, Alabama; Kia in West Point, Georgia; the BMW production plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina; Volkswagen in Chattanooga, Tennessee; the GM manufacturing plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee; and the Nissan North American headquarters in Franklin, Tennessee; the two largest research parks in the country: Research Triangle Park in North Carolina (the world's largest) and the Cummings Research Park in Huntsville, Alabama (the world's fourth largest); and the corporate headquarters of major banking corporations Bank of America in Charlotte; Regions Financial Corporation, AmSouth Bancorporation, and BBVA Compass in Birmingham; SunTrust Banks and the district headquarters of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta; and BB&T in Winston-Salem; and several Atlanta-based corporate headquarters and cable television networks, such as CNN, TBS, TNT, Turner South, Cartoon Network, and The Weather Channel. This economic expansion has enabled parts of the South to boast of some of the lowest unemployment rates in the United States.[5] The many automotive manufacturing plants in Alabama, primarily those owned by automakers Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, and Honda,[citation needed] in coordination with countless automotive supplier corporations, have made the state of Alabama the number one center for automotive manufacturing and production, having surpassed Detroit in recent years.[citation needed] Alabama is also home to a large-scale manufacturing project owned by the German steel megacorporation Thyssen-Krupp, which operates a massive, state-of-the-art facility in the Alabama port city of Mobile.

I remember hearing on NPR at some point in the last couple years that the South(east) has turned into the most prosperous economy in the country and is among the top 10 in the world, so ice cr?m should definitely reconsider.

i understand xp

i kindly direct you to this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

hey and this one http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

In what way does median household income dictate economic power? People can get by on less money in the South because all the shit is RIGHT HERE.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/10-states-with-the-greatest-food-stamps_n_860233.html#s278470&title=10_South_Carolina

fyi everyone knows Mississippi is in terrible shape

also Tupelo sucks major ass

http://i.imgur.com/NVAia.png

http://data.nationalpriorities.org/mashups/vv1n87jqixw8stsz/?gclid=COil0ZSgmKwCFUKo4AodWhBdPw

Some states are propped up by their neighbors, sure, but that's true in every region of the country.

the south is the poorest region of the country

the interesting thing about that last site is that apparently there are more people living in poverty in CA than in any other state in the union

You're throwing a lot of charts and maps my direction, but nothing yet convinces me that the union would be better off without the South. Your motives seem irrational, and I think maybe you just don't like grits.

its not thaat interesting, california has the most people xp

tho it is in v bad shape

a. i do like grits
b. my argument is that the entire world would be better off if we changed our mind re letting the south succeed

a. Good to know.
b. Fuck you in your ugly face.

Perhaps as much as from the South's enduring sense of separate identity annoyingly and ubiquitously underlined for the rest of us, the fantasy of a seceded South stems from the fact that it would be edifying to see a place that votes for super right-wing Republicans all the time have to give up all those liberal states' Federal tax monies and fund their own food stamps (or let their populace lose a little weight, perhaps).

I'm pretty sure that unlike 1861, the South would not choose to secede, even if given the chance to vote on it.

oh yeah for sure not, i would be curious to see how a vote would play out tho, like would 25% vote to succeed

a. Good to know.
b. Fuck you in your ugly face.

― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 11:27 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hey man this is nothing personal against the south, im just brainstorming ways to make the world a better place, sometime you have to dream

I am pretty sure everyone would vote to succeed, I mean who actually wants to fail (besides Rush Limbaugh)

We love our heroic failures down here.

lol spell check

i mean just because countries are shaped the way theyre shaped doesnt mean thats the best shape for them, i mean id support a new york city city state but i dont think thatd do anything but make new york city more awesome, im trying to think a lil bigger here

I just get soooooooo tired of people basing their impressions of the South on PBS specials about the civil rights movement and not actually coming down and seeing it for themselves. The car you drive was probably built here. Your bank is probably headquartered here. Your iPod, your microwave, your television, your smartphone, etc...all of it based on the technological advances made during the Mercury and Apollo (and Space Shuttle) programs that were centered in Alabama and Florida.

the south is the poorest region of the country

― ice cr?m, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:23 AM Bookmark

We are the 99%.

dude i have been to the south and as ive said sooo many times in this thread i like it, this is not abt that, even you must admit that the south is home to a bunch of regressive politicians who are ruining the world xp

I'm tired of being lectured about what is American by whiny apologists for the Confederacy and partisans who live for the culture wars and wedge issues. There's an irrational side to the South that I find tedious. (There's a lot I love about the South, too, don't get me wrong)

I know it's got the word "South" in its name, but we don't include South Dakota in our region.

and i have nothing against poor people, it was just my idea that if a poor region has an unusually high % of the political base thats causing problems as far as warfare environmental destruction etc, you separate them from the wealth thats allowing them to cause those problems

Yes, there are a lot of them, yet we somehow get by regardless. xps re: politicians

sure you get by but wouldnt it be nice if the usa wasnt bombing some new country every day, wouldnt it be cool if we could pass some reasonable environmental standards, or if like there werent new rollbacks to a womans right to choose all the time

the problem is not state vs state, it's urban vs rural

thats also somewhat true, but unfortunately you cant just pluck out the cities and make a country out of them

Environmental destruction is a Southern thang, eh? *drinks refreshing Ozark Mineral Water*

Yes you can! Sovereign city-states is the way forward, any other plan is doomed to failure.

ITT: statistics reveal the south contains many unpleasant dickholes; ice cram demonstrates we don't have all of them.

do you really need the "unpleasant" qualifier for the noun "dickholes", like how many pleasant dickholes have you encountered

(*waits*)

Restrictive abortion laws - Howdy, Wisconsin! Howdy, Minnesota!

joe is the worst kind of 'capitalism with a friendly face'-obsessed liberal, 'southern politicians are ruining the world' - a thing he actually believes, lol

Environmental destruction is a Southern thang, eh? *drinks refreshing Ozark Mineral Water*

― pplains, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 11:47 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well im talking abt opposition to environmental regulation, which is by no means limited to the south, its just concentrated there, this is all abt just shifting the balance

if we're talking about fantasies that would help the world, why not start with shooting every banker in the face

and to all you southerners calling me names plz i would welcome yr refutations of my plan, i admit its a bit of a harebrained half thought through scheme, it might be fun to ponder what the consequences would be

my scheme is also more fun to ponder

i personally do not believe in shooting people in the face, also i suspect more bankers would just grow back in their place

I totally believe in shooting people in the face, just not with guns

I thought this was going to be a fun thread but it turns out it is a serious thread

I am sad and angry

hey man it could still be fun

look I did my best, it's not my fault that ice cr?m turned out to be durian-flavored

wait did you lick ice cr?m

also i suspect more bankers would just grow back in their place

Also, like attorneys and cops, everybody hates bankers until they need one. Getting rid of access to credit isn't likely to grow more jobs.

well if you shot like 80% of the bankers you might be on to something

YOU COULD CALL IT "A GOOD START…" HA HA HA RIGHT?

FORWARD THIS TO TEN OF YOUR FREIENDS.

do you really need the "unpleasant" qualifier for the noun "dickholes", like how many pleasant dickholes have you encountered

(*waits*)

― he carried yellow flowers (DJP), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:49 AM (23 minutes ago)

was hoping some fans of urethral sounding would step forward by now

look I did my best, it's not my fault that ice cr?m turned out to be durian-flavored

― he carried yellow flowers (DJP), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:06 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

durian is good :/

DJP is right in that the real battle is urban vs. rural. The South and the West are simply more expansive, whereas the NE is concentrated within an inch of its life. The assholes who live in rural Alabama are the same as the assholes who live in rural Oregon.

thats only partially true, i mean i am currently right now sitting in an entirely rural state that has a socialist senator, also the west manages to be less regressive politically than the south despite being more rural, the south has the rural dynamic for sure but it also has a unique southern dynamic

i too believe that 'southern politicians' are the only things propping up american imperialism and neoliberal hegemony, and that without them the whole house of cards topples. coincidentally, i'm also a fuckshit moron

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/USA-2000-population-density.gif/450px-USA-2000-population-density.gif

i mean here is a population density map, it does not strongly correlate to political tendencies

im not looking for the 'whole house of cards' to topple, just improvement

southern identity isn't going anywhere. i'm very much a northern partisan, but if you want to split the country up to save the world i dunno why the mason dixon needs to be the line.

ice cr?m is talking about quarantining the power of american conservatism, which has been welded on to southern-ness in a long conscious effort. they look identical now but they're not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/USA-2000-population-density.gif/450px-USA-2000-population-density.gif

i mean here is a population density map, it does not strongly correlate to political tendencies

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

look at the "County leaders" map and compare it to the one you just posted

WELCOME TO THE SOUTHS: FUCK YOU IN THE FACE

The West certainly has more of a progressive bent, simply because people (of all cultures and races) went that way two centuries ago looking for peace, freedom and wealth. The South's dynamic is a little more complex, sure, because it began as a region of immigrant poors who were quickly stepped on by the riches and exploited—a practice you can still see today. Also, religion and religious zealotry is rampant down here, just because of tradition.

STILL, I don't think it's a good reason to close your eyes and wish it away. Any nation who's ever been great has had to work through problems at a snail's pace. We're still a baby.

look at the "County leaders" map and compare it to the one you just posted

― he carried yellow flowers (DJP), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:23 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

oh theres a correlation its just p clear that there are other serious factors at work, also if you were to drill further down that the presidential binary youd find that the the west is more progressive than the south despite being much less populated

STILL, I don't think it's a good reason to close your eyes and wish it away. Any nation who's ever been great has had to work through problems at a snail's pace. We're still a baby.

― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:24 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i do feel like the whole plan is gravely unfair to the south, but im attempting to weigh that against the needs of the rest of the world, like if the u.s. wasnt such a major player internationally i for sure wouldnt be in favor of it

lets break up ice cr?m's bones, and grind them into dust, and light him on fire http://i.imgur.com/ztzlH.gif

the people who this plan really sucks for is southern minorities

i dont think we need to break up the USA i think we need to add canada and mexico, why not right

well yeah that would be my first choice tbh, like im not sure how it would play out, but id be awesome

the people who this plan really sucks for is southern minorities

― max, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:34 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i feel like we could institute some sort of relocation stipend for any minority woman or child who wanted to move north

i dont think we need to break up the USA i think we need to add canada and mexico, why not right

― max, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:35 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol did you know that theres a major conspiracy theory that this is gonna happen, some loon was telling me abt it all seriously and i was like 'wow what wonderful sounding new country'

yeah ppl are hella worried about "the amero" its awesome

Ironically, the great migration is now moving back South

http://www.shawnlazarus.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/amero-obama-350x296.jpg

http://i965.photobucket.com/albums/ae136/MuskegonCritic/132962423.jpg

WELCOME TO YANKEE LAND.

"hmm, minority children. Don't you like ASH IN YOUR TEA CUP?"

yeah i feel like we could institute some sort of relocation stipend for any minority woman or child who wanted to move north

is there gonna be an electrified double wall involved in this plan, & to what extent are we embracing the german model here

Lou Dobbs, a former commentator for CNN, claims a "North American Union" is being implemented, without the knowledge and consent of the majority of the people who would be affected by this.[13] This Union, he and others claim, would include a common currency. He has never provided any substantive evidence to support his claim.

In 2006, Conservative Caucus Chairman Howard Phillips, WND columnist and author Jerome Corsi, activist Phyllis Schlafly, among others, reportedly formed a coalition against a North American Union.[14] On January 22, 2007, Republican Representatives Virgil Goode of Virginia, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Walter Jones of North Carolina, and Ron Paul of Texas were among the 43 federal lawmakers who introduced H. CON. RES. 40, a resolution advocated by the coalition, that expressed:

"The sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico or Canada."

"don't worry about a thing, little minority children. the bad people can't hurt you here in South Boston. You'll forget all about that horrible Atlanta place soon enough."

is there gonna be an electrified double wall involved in this plan, & to what extent are we embracing the german model here

― Abattoir Educator / Slaughterman (schlump), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:41 PM (59 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Do we let Dixians immigrate to the US?

― Muammar for the road (Michael White), Tuesday, November 1, 2011 1:45 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

absolutely, no closed borders, work restrictions, none of that bullshit - my feeling is more progressive southerners will be drawn north than conservatives looking for work

― ice cr?m, Tuesday, November 1, 2011 1:51 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

naw, no fence, all are welcome

are there any sci-fi novels written along these dystopian lines?

"don't worry about a thing, little minority children. the bad people can't hurt you here in South Boston. You'll forget all about that horrible Atlanta place soon enough."

― pplains, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:42 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

nice

guys ive repeatedly said all the bad people are not in the south, just that theres a higher concentration of them

yes yes go on

It would be hilarious if they put up a wall, East Germany style, to prevent emigration from the South.

can bad people in the north trade places if they wanna go roll w/their own kind & be racist & opt out of their new civilised utopia?

where's goldman sachs headquartered again

haha how did you think this thread was gonna go, jho? btw you were otm in that republican candidates thread about that "deserve" argument.

<3 PP but can't get used to new lowercase screenname

"i liked it well enough for the first year, but after that? i missed the wars"

i just think its an intersting topic

i mean america is just a concept lets not get all uptight

can bad people in the north trade places if they wanna go roll w/their own kind & be racist & opt out of their new civilised utopia?

― Abattoir Educator / Slaughterman (schlump), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

haha was wondering this too, because i live in buffalo.

all of western new york would pilgrimage south

it's gonna be really confusing if the two countries are called north america and south america

can bad people in the north trade places if they wanna go roll w/their own kind & be racist & opt out of their new civilised utopia?

― Abattoir Educator / Slaughterman (schlump), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

haha was wondering this too, because i live in buffalo.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:49 PM (31 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this would be up to the new confederacy, i respect their sovereignty

They'd probably let you in but you'd have to jump through some serious hoops and give up any vestigial Yankee loyalties.

feel like this would make the nfl even more interesting than it already is

You bring up a valid point in that all borders on Earth are really imaginary, but still I don't like the whole tone of this exercise. It's essentially just saying "let's get rid of THOSE people so my life can be marginally improved."

You bring up a valid point in that all borders on Earth are really imaginary, but still I don't like the whole tone of this exercise. It's essentially just saying "let's get rid of THOSE people so my life can be marginally improved."

― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:55 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i agree thats def the biggest problem w/my plan

"let's get rid of THOSE people so my life can be marginally improved."

this is the core of practically every political discussion you can think of (for varying values of "get rid of")

tho it is abt improving the whole worlds life in aggregate, would be interested in arguments that it would make the world worse btw

Pretty sure the Prime Meridian is a natural phenomenon. How else can my watch say it's noon right now with the sun over my head?

I think the bigger problem with your plan is that your assumptions about the geographic distribution of "bad people" in the US are completely unfounded

you're seriously a stupid person if you think this would make a dent in american imperialism. just flat out dumb as shit in a way that will force me to recalibrate how i interpret all your posts from now on.

then again, we're the ones entertaining your 'thought experiment' so what does that make us

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/38states.jpg

i'm not entertaining this idea at all!

long, non-geographic, geometric borders dividing people who are very similar but feel themselves to be existentially opposite is a recipe for a lot of misery

xp dividing alaska? wth

why did they not use any of the old state names?

that's just confusing

some great names tho. bitterroot.

'erie' isn't even on lake erie smdh

you're seriously a stupid person if you think this would make a dent in american imperialism. just flat out dumb as shit in a way that will force me to recalibrate how i interpret all your posts from now on.

^^^ I was a big jhosh booster but ever since he became ice cram it's been a downward trajectory

it's been downhill since scoops, actually...til it became so downhill it was uphill again!

no way am i sharing a state with pittsburgh

wait downhill and uphill both have negative connotations in english. *shakes fist at shakespeare*

the best part of drawing new us maps is renaming the states

no way am i sharing a state with pittsburgh

feeling is mutual

Pplains's map strangely chooses to place the new border between Cascade and El Dorado exactly parallel to the present Oregon border with California and Nevada, but a few miles to the south. Baffling choice.

One of those names is the surname of an ex-girlfriend of mine.

How I miss Susie Cochise.

is it really necessary to split the u.p.?

i just think we need a new constitutional structure, jettisoning some of the land and people of the historical US is just stilly.

how does it work, does the benevolence of northerners mean that housing 1x escapee southern family will be voluntary? or will we take turns w/the refugees of formerly neighbourly states.

xp rip u & cumberland

whole new canon of great country songs comin up if we adopt the new state names btw

Gosh, if only the north had some empty houses for all these new folks to live in.

there's an innate lilt in susquehanna that's just waiting for the right half-broke baritone

i thought we were drifting towards norwegian style commune based living, you can't just dump the new guys in their "own home" and "let them get on with it". sounds like isolationism all round tbh

judging by the posts here i think this thread might actually have got the US a little closer to breaking up

Renaming Hawaii mightn't go over too well with the natives, though, no?

I have no idea what this map is suggesting, but I grabbed it off a Ron Paul site, so caveat emptor.

http://www.russellmeansfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/rol.jpg

lol the mephitic sanctimony in this thread makes it p difficult to wade into - obvs ice cream's plan would not be ideal but if the objective is to lessen the south's political clout - which we should all agree is a worthwhile/noble one - a better/probably more practical plan would be to just get rid of the electoral college and the senate - problem solved

here are my ideas, which are better than partition

1. removal of the senate. specific constitutional duties of the senate are given to the house.
1a. if that's no good, simply merge the two bodies; the "senate" becomes a kind of supercomittee of the senior two representatives of each state, but all votes are taken across the whole body and each rep. still has to stand every two years.
1b. really, failing either of these, just get rid of the filibuster already.

2. presidencies are six years, limited to a single term. reelecting a president is a huge waste of time. presidential elections are a direct national popular vote.

3. supreme court terms are set at 18 years. having to choose young justices, and asking old ones to serve forever, is perverse. each seat is placed on its own schedule, so every two years there would be a minor court drama. (have to think about how to select a chief tho)

xp lol
xp lol

^^^support

^ good ideas

let's just disenfranchise white people

you're seriously a stupid person if you think this would make a dent in american imperialism. just flat out dumb as shit in a way that will force me to recalibrate how i interpret all your posts from now on.

then again, we're the ones entertaining your 'thought experiment' so what does that make us

― The sham nation of Israel should be destroyed. (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 1:02 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^^ I was a big jhosh booster but ever since he became ice cram it's been a downward trajectory

― pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 1:12 PM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it is touching to me that you guys care enough to attune yrselves to the vicissitudes of my posting style, and i irl lold, which is not to say that your complaints are unfounded, just that something abt the whole sitch made me lol, so thank you

ice cr?m is confusing the power of the south with the power of conservatives with the power of senators. there's only one of those that's a huge problem to me, in a poli sci sense.

xp google yeah i had two threads i wanted to start this one which is mostly for the lolz and a more serious 'restructure the us government' but i thought id stagger them - agree 1 and 3, but im strongly opposed to 2, term limits are anti democratic, people should be able to vote for who they want - tho obvs agree w/the popular vote provision

lol @ kilauea

i am opposed to term limits on that principle as well, but i'm also in favor of churn. term-limiting the one national and most powerful branch is ok by me, 6 yrs is plenty.

house members provide plenty of continuity (against their designed purpose, funny enough)

So get rid of the Senate - which is more geographically diverse and offer longer terms, thereby reducing election grunt work - and keep the House - elected by population which currently skews heavily toward southern Republican suburbs.

Gotcha.

ice cr?m is confusing the power of the south with the power of conservatives with the power of senators. there's only one of those that's a huge problem to me, in a poli sci sense.

― goole, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 1:54 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i agree that conflating the south w/conservatism is an inexact fit, its a hack *shrug*

If people are seriously not understanding what's going on in that "proposed 38 states" map I have to say I'm very surprised. Maybe if they had said "nations" it would have been a bit more obvious, but I dunno, maybe history HAS been completely rewritten.

Meanwhile, waiting for more policy proposals from the Dan Perry administration. My vote's already pretty much solid but more lols are required in advance of the election.

So get rid of the Senate - which is more geographically diverse and offer longer terms, thereby reducing election grunt work - and keep the House - elected by population which currently skews heavily toward southern Republican suburbs.

Gotcha.

― pplains, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 1:59 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol huh

how can something be elected "by population" but "skew heavily toward suburbs"

i mean compared to rural areas maybe

lol Sean. I've been checking the thread to see if anyone got it.

how would throwing 50 six-year-termed offices into two-year races reduce electoral grunt work?

southern (republican) suburbs have grown like crazy over the past decades; i guess we need iatee in here to argue that this is not a given indefinitely. i don't think those districts would be overrepresented tho, how could they be?

anyway, my little brainstorm isn't meant to destroy the south utterly like general jho sherman here, just deliver a field of representation closer to what the country thinks.

Look at where the population lives right now. If you live on a maple syrup farm in Vermont right now, there are six districts in Texas to match yours.

lol Sean. I've been checking the thread to see if anyone got it.

― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 2:04 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

idgi

i don't think those districts would be overrepresented tho, how could they be?

It's called Gerrymandering.

well sure, but that's because roughly an equal amount of ppl live there. sucks kinda, but dunno what else to do about it except wait it out i guess

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/ElectoralCollege2012.svg/500px-ElectoralCollege2012.svg.png

Let's let all those deep blue states make all the rules. Thanks for keeping up, Evergreeners.

so? that's fine. the current problem is that the senate gives greater power to those few people who live in low-population states. the greater number of low-pop states are conservative (at least now, and for any forseeable future).

maybe i should just start the restructure the government thread but one problem i have is w/our winner take all elections - like lets say you have a congressional district that 40% gop 60% dem, 40% is a lot but if youre a republican youre not going to have your views represented in congress, the solution i think is larger districts w/like 5 representatives each

well yeah (republican) gerrymandering sucks but they're only "overrepresented" according to one's point of view

What is "the deal" with the 38 states map?

some xps there

i don't think those districts would be overrepresented tho, how could they be?

It's called Gerrymandering.

― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 1:06 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

gerrymandering can only take from within one state and give to another district within that same state. congressional districts have hard boundaries at the state lines. america's overrepresentation problem is a senate problem.

idgi that 38 states map i guess. is it native language groups or something?

native american ffs

it's a joke afaict, pretty sure max has posted it like 100x here before xp

No, it's real. They're changing the big green signs out by the interstate as we speak.

i don't see why the "southern suburbs" thing would be a huge problem, if those places are growing they should have growing (democratic) clout. anyway, i guess i don't see why they would instantly over-represented if the senate were removed.

also, since most people don't change their political minds, movement of people from north to south just means more blue-staters in the south over time, ie dilution of "southern" power. IF that change is being represented adequately which it may not be.

http://www.tjc.com/38states/

FYI

Abolish senate, collapse both bodies into one house, enforce term limits, blah blah blah NONE of it means a lick unless you get the money out.

With one fell swoop, public financing of campaigns would do more to repair the system than all these measures combined. (Except maybe cutting Texas loose jk)

btw I am considering redesigning our military uniforms along the design aesthetic of Isabel Mastache

Not sure about getting rid of the Senate but abolishing the filibuster wouldn't be a bad thing.

What's our unicameral state? Wyoming?

Nebraska. They don't even use party affiliation.

(which means they're all Republicans, but nice sentiment.)

southern suburbs gonna be the are the '70s-era dangerous inner cities' 10 years from now, except w/ way more government welfare

are gonna be*

but regardless of where people live they should get equal representation, sorta hard to argue anything else, which is why the senate is so indefensible

And then the population centers will be in Southern Republican exurbs, such a line of dominoes.

southern republican exurbs will seem less appealing to people v. soon

Abolish senate, collapse both bodies into one house, enforce term limits, blah blah blah NONE of it means a lick unless you get the money out.

With one fell swoop, public financing of campaigns would do more to repair the system than all these measures combined. (Except maybe cutting Texas loose jk)

― Hadrian VIII, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 1:23 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

i highly doubt this frankly. the money gets spent to influence politics one way or another.

the UK has highly proscribed campaign and contribution limits. politicians are parties are very limited in what they can say directly to people via advertising, and when (if i understand it right). this places a greater amount of power in the hands of political media; if you want to say something you have to play the game with the people holding the microphones. this is the exact source of murdoch's power, for one thing.

w/o a BBC i think this would not be entirely a good thing in the US. our system of massive amounts of money paying for massive amounts of advertising is relatively straightforward, at least. you're just asking for even more big-money front groups and astroturfing essentially.

'ca/ny people move to the south and buy $30 houses' type-migration trends are already on their way out thanks to the recession xp

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

lol i love it

The primary purpose of Thirty-Thousand.org is to conduct research on, and increase awareness of, the degradation of representative democracy in the United States resulting from Congress’ longstanding practice of limiting the number of congressional districts despite the continuing growth in the nation’s population.

I do have to reveal my contradiction in shouting creams down for being do intolerant while at the same time, hoping to high heaven for either a secession or Mexican invasion of the Lonely Star State.

the money gets spent to influence politics one way or another.

Uh, yes, campaigns cost money. But if "one way" is restricted to taxpayer dollars and federally purchased tv/radio slots, qualified candidates less beholden to corporate interests would at least have a shot in this game, which they currently don't.

Discussing "the media" as if it has designs on anything other than ratings/ad dollars I think is off-base. For a very long time in this country "the media" did just fine for itself by exploiting the campaigns of politicians who degreed in law or public policy. The difference, now, is that they made their dollars off of Pizza CEO's and real estate tycoons.

made=make

what if someone started a whole media network to push certain political ideas and outcomes

i mean, imagine

Rupert Murdoch is an ideologue by accident—if there was as much money to be made by frightening the left as there is by frightening the right, he'd have started something like MSNBC decades ago.

But just to be clear, you believe this system of unfettered, limitless campaign contributions, isn't having a deleterious effect on our democracy?

I just don't understand how anyone can see this as LESS of a problem, than, say, term limits or representation disparities. In the case of small states with inordinately large legislative power it is CORPORATION DOLLARS that determine policy.

But just to be clear, you believe this system of unfettered, limitless campaign contributions, isn't having a deleterious effect on our democracy?

fuckin hate when people argue like this

what, without reading the posts of the people they are arguing with?

it is touching to me that you guys care enough to attune yrselves to the vicissitudes of my posting style, and i irl lold, which is not to say that your complaints are unfounded, just that something abt the whole sitch made me lol, so thank you

― ice cr?m, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 5:52 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

it's sad to me that you have to frame this as if it were anything other than people who like you telling you "you're coming off like a dick now dude, your positions here are lame & dumb" but w/e

i think as long as you have power structures with disproportionately large concentrations of capital compared to the electorate at large, those structures will disproportionately influence the outcome of elections, whether you set a spending cap or not.

for example: if you fund election spending publically, how do you decide which candidates or parties are deserving of public funding?

sorry if i offended you john, i just wanted to do this thought-experiment, clearly it got a little out of control

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/3065/catbitewj1.gif

lol wut the

ahahaha

am0n OTM

for example: if you fund election spending publically, how do you decide which candidates or parties are deserving of public funding?

all of them

basically you just set a limit (say, no. of signatures or registered voters) and say anybody over that limit gets funding. this is not complicated.

(becomes candidate)

and then you mandate that the money has to be spent on campaign activities or returned, set accounting requirements etc.

which is not to say that rich/powerful interests wouldn't find ways to game the system (they would, this is their sole reason for existence - to exercise power), but it would create a radically different electoral playing field than the one we have now

my all time favorite campaign finance reform proposal http://www.salon.com/2007/02/05/campaign_finance_10

The rich/powerful have already sussed that mastering the flow of information is urgent and key, and that a monopoly over informational content is unnecessary so long as you can command the lion's share of attention. So long as the vast majority of us are members of an essentially passive audience, they are extremely happy. They are succeeding in ways that nearly fullfill their wildest dreams.

basically you just set a limit (say, no. of signatures or registered voters) and say anybody over that limit gets funding. this is not complicated.

well this is where i was heading - bear in mind i'm not familiar with all the mechanics of the US system, but - you have to set the bar at a sizeable level of support or else everybody who fancies a few thousand out of the public purse can put their hand in the pot and the thing rapidly becomes unaffordable. the higher the level of voter support you set to be eligible for public funding, the higher the existing public profile of the candidate wd need to be. and who is advantaged in having a high public profile? clue: it's not people with no money. and so on.

admittedly i am thinking mainly of the UK system, wherein it seems likely that public funding wd do little to introduce new voices and ideas into politics but simply help to sustain the increasingly shaky finances of the existing shitehawk parties we have.

obv really i'm coming from a position that believes reforming our existing representative systems is little more than shining the jackboots of the guy that's stamping on yr face

More like buying him new boots with crepe soles. Might help with his bursitis though

I keep on checking in on this thread to see if it gets fun like who's gonna draft tennessee, the reds or the commies, but damn you guys

do you really need the "unpleasant" qualifier for the noun "dickholes", like how many pleasant dickholes have you encountered

(*waits*)

― he carried yellow flowers (DJP), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:49 AM (23 minutes ago)

was hoping some fans of urethral sounding would step forward by now

― D. Boon Pickens (WmC), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:14 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark

Sorry, it's been a busy as hell week. Hope I'm not too late.

let's just get rid of states so that the ones left will form a smiley face

http://makingmaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/smiley-bomber.jpg

http://monarch.tamu.edu/~smrs/09425456.gif

hahahahaha

http://i39.tinypic.com/j6mlfk.jpg

This one from Common Census Project is the most interesting of these to me, mostly cause it's based on the actual spheres of influence that people experience. It's much more readable on the site.

http://www.commoncensus.org/maps/national_640.gif
This map draws responses to the question,

"On the level of North America as a whole, what major city do you feel has the most cultural and economic influence on your area overall?"

omg Salt Lake hogging that shit

the nfl teams one works better imo

every nfl fanbase should get 2 senators

that would genuinely lead to a more representative form of government than what we have atm

this is my favorite map right now

lol at grand junction being influential in utah but not within its own borders

redding california cannot qualify as a major city, I bet like half the people in ca couldn't tell you where that was

ca people aren't really knowledgeable w/r/t geography tho

lol @ minneapolis getting its own sphere of influence apart from the twin cities, and that it's all in iowa and the western burbs

rip st. paul

intersting map!

lol at Montreal taking part of upstate New York

Reminds me of figuring out what side of the lake someone was from by whether "town" was Clinton or Heber.

http://commoncensus.org/maps/mlb_1280.gif

http://commoncensus.org/maps/nfl_1280.gif

salt lake city must be a weird place to watch baseball

hard to find beer

http://aschmann.net/AmEng/#LargeMap

redding california cannot qualify as a major city, I bet like half the people in ca couldn't tell you where that was

i will always treasure redding because it contains the northernmost in-'n-out burger on the west coast