Comments on: The Breakway Republic Of Vermont?

Small Cadre Of Writers And Academics Plots A Secession Strategy

[toldyouso21]

It doesn't make economic sense, it doesn't make political sense, it doesn't make historical sense. Other than that, it's a good idea."

Please hush this junk up.......
Posted by ToolMangler at 07:00 PM : Jun 04, 2007


You have a point--still...there is something seductive about not compromising ideas for once and simply living or dying by what people believe. There will always be needs that will keep people kowtowing, phony and sucking up. There is something really liberating about being strong enough to stand on convictions, to live or die by them , to finally (maybe for many the first time in their lives) to say--"to hell with the consequences--I'm not playing this game anymore"

Most people have to kiss azz, suck up and endure their entire lives--to finally say up yours to the government and mean it (with all the resultant economic, political fall out makes sense.

Historically it DOES make sense. It is no different than what America did to England. When the government no longer reflects or serves the people's interest--they can either try to change the government or remove themselves from it. I think a lot of people see the dug in mindsets and attitudes of many of the opposite side--loathe what they see--and want no part of it.

I for one, would love to see them attempt it--I love renegades, especially when they have a valid point.

[lordradish]

As one of the bloggers who was really pushing the SVR- racist ties I'm astounded that the MSM never seems to do its homework. Because of the way SVR and Naylor reacted (even trying to get one of the bloggers fired), they have very little support from the left in VT now. THe mainstream VT'ers either don't know about them or view them as a novelty. Naylor ranted like a lunatic with typical conspiracy *** (we're trying to bring them down because we fear them - yeah, right). Nobody takes them seriously and they always overstate thier popularity and importance. If for some crazy reason you'd like to follow the whole fiasco, go here, go back to the first post and read up to the end:
http://fivebeforechaos.com/category/second-vermont-republic/

[toldyouso21]

Well then we would only have 49 states to protect when the terrorists get here.
Posted by scottyusa at 05:22 PM : Jun 04, 2007


Make that about 23 states. Because if Vermont succeeded, a lot of other states would follow suit. The question is, who would pay for the US Government, once all the states left?

[toldyouso21]

You are a traitor. You are parading the destruction of the Union.
Posted by jdweymouth at 11:48 PM : Jun 04, 2007

You should remember that song by that Good Ol' Southern boy--Kenny Rogers----"The Gambler"

Sometimes change is inevitable--it is the basis for evolution you know. It is not the strongest or the most unwilling to change that survives it is the one who can adapt, who can bend--who realizes the necessity. But like Kenny said: "You gotta know when to fold 'em, know when to hold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run--you never count your money--when you're sittin at the table, there'll be time enough for countin' when the deal is done."

America is not simply geographic land or demographic, it is ideas and beliefs--when they are diametrically opposed, you can either work on it (you neo cons don't know how to do that) live in misery--or let it all go. Just gotta know when to fold 'em. Frankly from what I have seen us deteriorate to in the past 6 years--the idea of splitting DOES seem appealing. But to help you out (intelligence not being your strong point) my posts were simply in rebuttal to others about the split and I live in Kansas. As for my right to say anything--NOBODY gives me the right. UNlike you and people like you--I don't need permission to think or express myself. I always believe it is better to die and be yourself than comply. So fvck you --you and other neo cons are the parasites-- LOL

[lordradish]

The writers of this article obviously didn't do their homework. If they had, they would have learned that back in March, the Second Vermont Republic lost almost all of its support on the left due to the fact that some of the people on their advisory board have some serious ties to white supremacist groups and are on the Southern Poverty Law Center's watch list. When the bloggers broke the story, SVR dug in their heels, defended the people(what's the big deal?) acted like a bunch of whack jobs and even tried to get one of the bloggers fired from his job. Very few people on the left take them seriously at all anymore, and mainstream VT'ers either don't know about them or view them as a novelty.

You can read more about this here:
http://fivebeforechaos.com/category/second-vermont-republic/

[toldyouso21]

The real question is, who gets the militia and National guard and the state arsenals? Vermont? or since he signed a bill claiming dibbs in violation of the constitution-- (05/09/07)does Bush?

[toldyouso21]

You haven't seen ANYTHING yet! Just wait till they try to ram the amnesty bill thru. It's only going to get worse. As the country splits philosophically and politically, the left will occupy certain gorgraphic areas as will the right.

The diffrences will become much more pronounced and severe.
Posted by infidel_us at 03:58 PM : Jun 04, 2007


Most Americans do not occupy and live in certain areas based on ideology or mindsets--we go where our corporate bosses tell us we have to be. In short--where the jobs are. What could happen, is that a lot of businesses might move one way or another--because those with the intellectual know how exist in one political/social camp or another.

Well..if this were to happen--imagine the GOP without new movies or music (except country and Western) and without the stock market and without a lot of the water they need. They also would be without Science and would probably be a police state, sort of like the Soviet Union was in its heyday except with more guns for the public.

Imagine the Democrats without the huge pain in the azz and the out of control self centeredness that the GOP uses as religion, also imagine the Dems with a runaway population that was full of corruption and that did not and would not learn English.

For a look at the more probable future--just imagine the 2 back together, with all the same issues.

[lordradish]

The writers of this article obviously didn't do their homework. If they had, they would have learned that back in March, the Second Vermont Republic lost almost all of its support on the left due to the fact that some of the people on their advisory board have some serious ties to white supremacist groups and are on the Southern Poverty Law Center's watch list. When the bloggers broke the story, SVR dug in their heels, defended the people(what's the big deal?) acted like a bunch of whack jobs and even tried to get one of the bloggers fired from his job. Very few people on the left take them seriously at all anymore, and mainstream VT'ers either don't know about them or view them as a novelty.

You can read more about this here:
http://fivebeforechaos.com/category/second-vermont-republic/

[jdweymouth]

toldyouso;

You are a traitor. You are parading the destruction of the Union. You are a parasite. Living off the rights to say what you just said, but calling for the destruction of the very entity that gives you the right. You are disgusting slime. And as for your rant against the south, it (the south) has a powerful economy, a large population, and nationalism beyond compare. Unlike traitor filth like you from NYC, LA, ot SF. My disgust with areas mentioned may be a apparent, but I would not call for their separation, or the dissolution of the Union.

If the Union dissolves, no state will survive.

[toldyouso21]

CORRECTION:

LOL. If it happened, other states would follow suit with the resultant ABSENCE OF Scientists, industrialists, economists and intellectuals left in the hot, dry South.

[toldyouso21]

Posted by mjlewis6 at 02:14 PM : Jun 04, 2007


The Civil war was not simply a result of the North wanting to beat the South and hold the US together. It was the very real fact that a large portion of the country's wealth was tied up in or to the South and to let any part to secede would have been economic suicide. The war was pragmatic, as was the freeing of the Slaves. It was not done out of compassion. It was done to prevent the British and other European nations from siding with the South. Since they had all abolished Slavery and it was made the lynch pin issue--no European country would support the South after they were defined as fighting over the right to keep enslaving people. Again, sheer strategy.

[toldyouso21]

This sounds like a good idea to me.

If it happened, it just might drain a good number of nut cases & screwballs from the rest of the country up into Vermont (see toldyouso21's comment below). And Vermont can have 'em and, if we're lucky, keep 'em.
Posted by Canaima at 12:15 PM : Jun 04, 2007


LOL. If it happened, other states would follow suit with the resultant Scientists, industrialists, economists and intellectuals left in the hot, dry South.

No doubt, America would just exist of a few Southern states with no true economy and with a Bush like mentality. In less than 5 years, the angry and impoverished GOP (because that and your illegal amnesty slaves would be all that were there) would attack all of the states that seceded, in the hopes of once again improving their lot by proxy. It has to be this way for them--because on their own, they have neither the brains, acumen or gumption to succeed.

you will note that most Republicans try to live their lives by running over and backstabbing each other, lies and smears and basically being parasites to others' successes. They are all little Bushes with the midas mud touch to prove it. ON their own--they would degenerate further, and they would live by war--destruction and ugliness is their creed--goes well with their other creed--greed.

[jdweymouth]

I believe in State's rights. If I had lived during the Civil War, I would have been a Jacksonian Democrat-someone who believed in state's rights, but also believed that the Union had to be preserved at all costs. So, basically, I believe that the right to secede is a fundemental reserved power held by the state; but I also believe that the Union, if all else fails, has the right to bring them back using force.

Pretending this could happen:

Personally, I don't think Vermont could survive without help, and if this by some miracle happened, and the US doesn't immediately graft it back into the Union, then I say we should strangle it. Canada isn't much of a problem considering they jump when we bark. But, it would set an example that could spread like wildfire and start a civil war. If that happened, foreign powers (such as Russia and China) would attempt to intervene, and leftists would like the idea.

All in all it would be a mess that would have to quickly be brough under control by the federal government.

[bellal-2009]

Posted by ainttaken at 08:42 PM : Jun 04, 2007

OK, forget terrorism. What if they're taken over by the mob or drug gangs. Would the US have to assist them militarily since they are our brothers and sisters. It's a valid question. You're the one who seems to have a problem with the word terrorism not me.

[feelfree1]

Re: "Small Cadre Of Writers And Academics Plots A Secession Strategy"

This is a very good strategy. I would be in favor of my region making a similar move.

Why allow ourselves to be pulled down the drain along with the stinky empire?

[toolmangler-2009]

Posted by ttinsly at 07:26 PM : Jun 04, 2007


I subscribe to a form of Enlightened self-interest.

Enlightened self-interest was a concept that Alexis de Tocqueville discussed in his work Democracy in America. The notion he held was that Americans voluntarily join together in associations to further the interests of the group and, thereby, to serve their own interests. Using "self-Interest rightly understood" (Tocqueville 1835) to describe this concept, he combined the right of association with the virtue to do what was right. The following passage from Democracy in America sums up the concept of enlightened self-interest:

"The Americans, on the contrary, are fond of explaining almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of interest rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist each other, and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state." (Ibid., 647)

Enlightened self-Interest poses the question of whether or not it is to the advantage of a person to work for the good of all. Murphy asserts that it is not a natural inclination to do so, but learned through practice (2002). Yet, the answer may lie in the evidence that the virtue of working together is useful to those involved.

[cozzicon]

"This will make liberals happy,
since liberals seem to desire the destruction of the USA."-- Posted by processor2

Hey, if the southern half of the country wants to go ultra conservative, and the northern and coastal areas want to be liberal- why not?

The USA, for all it's great ideals, can change. And maybe it should.

Rather than fight consistently over issues that never get resolve- you go your way, and I'll go mine. Maybe we would be better off.

Chanting a mantra of "One Nation" when half of the nation despises the other isn't going to solve any problems.

Unless we can compromise, why not separate?

[bellal-2009]

If Vt. suceeded would the US military be required to protect it from invaders. Say it becomes Vermontistan would they want our help or would they be OK with fundamentalist Islam as their national governance.

[pakaal]

They don't have the right to secession any more than the South did.
Posted by jiminoregon at 05:52 PM : Jun 04, 2007

Actually, in principle, they do. The Declaration of Independence says we have SPECIFICALLY that right. The declaration itself...

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another...."

...couldn't be much more clear. Our country was founded by people who decided the form of governance they fell under was no longer satisfactory. And in fact the grievances against the British king listed after that famous preamble: refusing to assent to established laws, neglecting laws, obstructing the administration of justice, making judges answerable to him alone, erecting obscure governmental offices, depriving us of trial by jury, etc., seem eerily familiar today.

Personally, I doubt it'll happen - heck, Vermont wasn't even one of the 13 colonies signing onto this! But it's certainly one of the many symptoms we're seeing of a very dissatisfied populace.

[processor2]

This will make liberals happy,
since liberals seem to desire the destruction of the USA.

...