why not break up the US into 10 smaller countries?

[prison/con.net]

each one would STILL have far more power (given a few nukes) than 95% of the rest of the world's countries. What is it that you don't like about the idea, hmm? maybe the split up would mean that you can't sit around on your arse, living off of other people? Maybe you could not feel "tough" while "your" troops go oppress other countries in your name? What makes you afraid of this outcome, hmm? Nobody attacks Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, dozens of other rich, small countries, even tho they AInT got nukes. A VERy few nukes suffice to guarantee that Isreal will never be attacked by any large group of people, in any organized fashion, and Isreal doesn't have nuke missiles, nor missile subs. The 8-10 smaller frags of the US could have a nuke missile sub EACH, and have a treaty to defend each other, too. there's nothing to be afraid of, except your own personal weakness and incompetence.

 

[orogenicman]

To what end?

 

[kaz]

each one would STILL have far more power (given a few nukes) than 95% of the rest of the world's countries. What is it that you don't like about the idea, hmm? maybe the split up would mean that you can't sit around on your arse, living off of other people? Maybe you could not feel "tough" while "your" troops go oppress other countries in your name? What makes you afraid of this outcome, hmm? Nobody attacks Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, dozens of other rich, small countries, even tho they AInT got nukes. A VERy few nukes suffice to guarantee that Isreal will never be attacked by any large group of people, in any organized fashion, and Isreal doesn't have nuke missiles, nor missile subs. The 8-10 smaller frags of the US could have a nuke missile sub EACH, and have a treaty to defend each other, too. there's nothing to be afraid of, except your own personal weakness and incompetence.

Maybe you should start with why we should do it rather than asking why we shouldn't, ya think?

 

[JoeMoma]

What about the 50 states?

 

[NYcarbineer]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

 

[kaz]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

So when the Federal government is imposing leftism on us all, your concern is that OMG, conservative states may still have conservatives and we need to stop that? What part of you won, quit already don't you get?

 

[orogenicman]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

Or if they could simply learn to play nice, it wouldn't even be an issue.

 

[saveliberty]

We are 50 states united. Centralized power can't help but try to grab more power.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some states could be consolidated reasonably, to economize on expensive governance. Breakup the country? That is a non-starter.

 

[my2¢]

It may evolve to that but change would come slowly with economic, travel, security and other councils established at least 10 years in advance to coordinate an organized disunion and establishment of new bureaucracies.

 

[there4eyeM]

Not likely.

 

[kaz]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

Or if they could simply learn to play nice, it wouldn't even be an issue.

You mean like liberals do? LOL, I crack myself up...

 

[SuperDemocrat]

each one would STILL have far more power (given a few nukes) than 95% of the rest of the world's countries. What is it that you don't like about the idea, hmm? maybe the split up would mean that you can't sit around on your arse, living off of other people? Maybe you could not feel "tough" while "your" troops go oppress other countries in your name? What makes you afraid of this outcome, hmm? Nobody attacks Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, dozens of other rich, small countries, even tho they AInT got nukes. A VERy few nukes suffice to guarantee that Isreal will never be attacked by any large group of people, in any organized fashion, and Isreal doesn't have nuke missiles, nor missile subs. The 8-10 smaller frags of the US could have a nuke missile sub EACH, and have a treaty to defend each other, too. there's nothing to be afraid of, except your own personal weakness and incompetence.

That is not a bad idea but where would the illegals go?

 

[regent]

Wow,we could really see some wars then and each of the ten divisions would have a nuke, but what would prevent them from building more nukes? Slavery could be reintroduced in some areas at least Jim Crow, and education eliminated. Some areas could create a mandatory Area-religion and.... Happiness is on the way.

 

[Redfish]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

 

[Redfish]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

You are so FOS. Minority rights would not exist if not for the majority voting them into law. WTF is wrong with you? Are you a complete mental zero?

 

[orogenicman]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Right. That would explain why the red states are more dependent on Federal dollars than blue states. Oh wait, I doesn't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CA would get overrun by Mexican drug gangs inside of 5 minutes, then what?

 

[bripat9643]

To what end?

So we don't have to put up with goose stepping Nazis like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

You are so FOS. Minority rights would not exist if not for the majority voting them into law. WTF is wrong with you? Are you a complete mental zero?

Why do conservatives want abortion, or same sex marriage, left up to the states?

Because they know that's the best chance they can be banned at least in some states.