Mew. :homestar:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957743,00.html
Quote
The Secessionist Campaign for the Republic of Vermont
By Christopher Ketcham / Montpelier Sunday, Jan. 31, 2010
The President on Wednesday may have reassured Americans that the state of the Union is "strong," but, just the week before, a group of Vermont secessionists declared their intention to seek political power in a quest to get their state to quit the Union altogether. On Jan. 15, in the state capital of Montpelier, nine candidates for statewide office gathered in a tiny room at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, to announce they wanted a divorce from the United States of America. "For the first time in over 150 years, secession and political independence from the U.S. will be front and center in a statewide New England political campaign," said Thomas Naylor, 73, one of the leaders of the campaign.
A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as "left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy." The group not only advocates the peaceful secession of Vermont but has minted its own silver "token" — valued at $25 — and, as part of a publishing venture with another secessionist group, runs a monthly newspaper called Vermont Commons, with a circulation of 10,000. According to a 2007 poll, they have support from at least 13% of state voters. The campaign slogan, Naylor told me, is "Imagine Free Vermont." In his fondest imaginings, Naylor said, Vermonters would not be "forced to participate in killing women and children in the Middle East." (See how the Beans of Egypt, Maine sprouted a militia.)
Second Vermont Republic's gubernatorial candidate is Dennis Steele, 42, a hulking Carhartt-clad fifth generation Vermonter and entrepreneur. He owns Radio Free Vermont, an Internet radio station, and honchos an online venture called ChessManiac.com. Steele says that, if elected, his first act in office would be to bring home Vermont's National Guard from overseas deployments. "I see my kids going off to fight in wars for empire 10, 15, 20 years from now," said Steele, who served three years in the U.S. Army. "People in Vermont in general are very antiwar, and all their faith was in Obama to end the wars. I ask people, 'Did you get the change you wanted?' They can't even look you in the eyes. We live in a nation that is asleep at the wheel and where the hearts are growing cold like ice." (See Michael Grunwald's opinion of Vermont and its politics.)
Steele and the secessionists have nothing but contempt for Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, who are otherwise considered among the most liberal members of Congress. "They've done nothing to stop the wars," says Steele flatly. Thomas Naylor was more pointed: "Every time a Vermonter serving in the National Guard gets deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, likely to be hurt or killed, Bernie and Patrick are there to commemorate the departure and have pictures taken."
With 20 or so mostly middle-aged attendees looking on, the candidates each stood at the podium to deliver a remarkably unified message: The U.S. government, they said, was an immoral enterprise — engaged in imperial wars, propping up corrupt bankers and supersized corporations, crushing small businessmen, plundering the tax-base for corporate welfare, snooping on the private lives of citizens — and they wanted no more part of it. "The gods of the empire," Steele told the room, "are not the gods of Vermont."
"It's an abusive relationship we have with the central government," says Peter Garritano, a square-jawed 54-year-old Subaru sales manager who is running for lieutenant governor. "We know it's scary to leave the abusive nest. It's a comfort zone in its own way. But we think we'll do better leaving."
An independent Vermont, the group believes, would expolit its already highly developed local small-scale agriculture, its "locavore" farm exchanges, with a tax structure reformed to incentivize small business and industry (and to make life difficult for large out-of-state corporations). By 2020, they foresee Vermont producing at least 75% of its own electricity and heat, using wind-, solar-, biomass- and hydro-power. They want to establish a Bank of Vermont owned by the people of Vermont — freed from the arbitrary controls of central bankers — as well as a local alternative currency, with Vermont pension and operating funds invested not in Wall Street but in locally owned financial institutions. "We favor devolution of political power from the state back to local communities, making the governing structure for towns, schools, hospitals and social services much like that of small, decentralized states like Switzerland," declares the group's "21st Century Statement of Principles."
Seven secessionist candidates declared for seats in the state senate. Among them is Robert Wagner, 46, an economist who is also a computing consultant with Oracle Inc. Wagner, who homesteads with his wife and six-year-old son in the Green Mountains, says that current U.S. law enables multinational corporations to abuse Vermont as a "resource colony." Citing a 2008 study by the University of Vermont, Wagner says the state stands to gain over $1 billion a year in revenue by taxing equitably the corporate behemoths that exploit Vermont's "commons," which includes everything from the state's groundwater, surface water, wildlife and forests, to the public spectrum of the airwaves. According to the UVM study, for example, Coca-Cola, Nestle and Perrier and other refreshment manufacturers avoid $671 million in taxes for the environmental damage incurred by their siphoning of state groundwater.
But what about that comfort zone of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, plus the infrastructure currently funded by the federal government, including bridges, roads and particularly the interstate highways? One analysis by a researcher at the University of Vermont found that the state only gets 75 cents back for every dollar it hands over to the federal center. The secessionists say they'd prefer to save their money and keep it at home. "Not only would an independent Vermont survive," says Naylor, "It would thrive, because it would free up entrepreneurial forces heretofore held in abeyance. We're not preaching economic isolationism. We want to confront the empire, and that doesn't mean just owning a Prius and keeping a root garden.
The North will raise again...
Something about those small states warps the mind. Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massatchusetts. All retarded.
I would love to see this bluff called; let them go. How far do they think a GNP based on maple syrup, ice cream, bad folk rock bands and stinky hippies will get them?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ac6v.com%2Fimages%2FUnion.JPG&hash=298d3414072a495996efb3a3bd6776a3664a0965)
No need to worry, US Army Necromancers have broken into Grant's Tomb.
Ugh, wrong state. What we really need is a couple of Southern states seceding.
I, for one, welcome their seccession but only if they make Bernie Sanders their Emperor for Life!
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2010, 12:47:50 PM
Ugh, wrong state. What we really need is a couple of Southern states seceding.
All secessionists, whether Lettowite or BB wannabe, require a visit from Zombie Grant, Zombie Sherman, Zombie Sheridan and Zombie Thomas.
Quote from: Viking on January 31, 2010, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2010, 12:47:50 PM
Ugh, wrong state. What we really need is a couple of Southern states seceding.
All secessionists, whether Lettowite or BB wannabe, require a visit from Zombie Grant, Zombie Sherman, Zombie Sheridan and Zombie Thomas.
:huh:
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2010, 02:06:13 PM
:huh:
BB = normal non-insane canadian
it's a compliment.
Edit: but then again I'm basically saying you are less insane than Neil.. so I'm pretty much master of the obvious...
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2010, 12:47:50 PM
Ugh, wrong state. What we really need is a couple of Southern states seceding.
I wouldn't complain if the U.S. went back to its original 13. Or maybe pre-Louisiana Purchase.
To quote Jim Morrison, "The west is the best." ;)
Quote from: Viking on January 31, 2010, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2010, 12:47:50 PM
Ugh, wrong state. What we really need is a couple of Southern states seceding.
All secessionists, whether Lettowite or BB wannabe, require a visit from Zombie Grant, Zombie Sherman, Zombie Sheridan and Zombie Thomas.
A lot of good it did us last time. The point is that we need to reduce their influence in the government, so letting a couple of them go, at least temporarily until we bring civilization to the rest of the Southern states, is a good thing.
If you just want a more liberal Congress, annexing a couple Canadian provinces is the way to go.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 31, 2010, 04:21:20 PM
If you just want a more liberal Congress, annexing a couple Canadian provinces is the way to go.
That didn't work out well either.
Anyway, this is a moot point, we're due to break up into six parts in half a year.
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2010, 04:38:37 PM
Anyway, this is a moot point, we're due to break up into six parts in half a year.
:P
I forgot about that.
Anyway, best of luck to them.
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2010, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 31, 2010, 04:21:20 PM
If you just want a more liberal Congress, annexing a couple Canadian provinces is the way to go.
That didn't work out well either.
Did we win the war of 1812 when I wasn't looking? :huh:
I think that is his point little Timmay.
Anyway, why annex crap to get rational Congress makeup when you can get rid of crap to achieve the same goal?
Quote from: katmai on January 31, 2010, 06:46:19 PM
I think that is his point little Timmay.
Well his point would be wrong, we never managed to annex any Canadian provinces. Hell there weren't any "Canadian" provinces to annex back then.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 31, 2010, 06:54:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 31, 2010, 06:46:19 PM
I think that is his point little Timmay.
Well his point would be wrong, we never managed to annex any Canadian provinces. Hell there weren't any "Canadian" provinces to annex back then.
:rolleyes:
While you could say there weren't any Canadian "provinces", you fail at history by putting the quotes around "Canadian".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada
Silly Limeys, when lower Canada is above Upper Canada. :lol:
:P
Quote from: katmai on January 31, 2010, 06:58:00 PM
Silly Limeys, when lower Canada is above Upper Canada. :lol:
:P
Silly beaner, for not knowing that Upper and Lower refer to being upstream and downstream of the St. Lawrence River. :lol:
:P
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2010, 06:59:24 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 31, 2010, 06:58:00 PM
Silly Limeys, when lower Canada is above Upper Canada. :lol:
:P
Silly beaner, for not knowing that Upper and Lower refer to being upstream and downstream of the St. Lawrence River. :lol:
:P
All we know is how to cross them!
Quote from: katmai on January 31, 2010, 07:00:26 PM
All we know is how to cross them!
I knew it!!!
All your claims of "the border crossed us" were lies!!!
Hey Beeb, you gonna watch the end of Quest when it hits town? :P
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2010, 06:56:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 31, 2010, 06:54:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 31, 2010, 06:46:19 PM
I think that is his point little Timmay.
Well his point would be wrong, we never managed to annex any Canadian provinces. Hell there weren't any "Canadian" provinces to annex back then.
:rolleyes:
While you could say there weren't any Canadian "provinces", you fail at history by putting the quotes around "Canadian".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada
They were British colonies, not Canadian.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 31, 2010, 07:08:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2010, 06:56:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 31, 2010, 06:54:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 31, 2010, 06:46:19 PM
I think that is his point little Timmay.
Well his point would be wrong, we never managed to annex any Canadian provinces. Hell there weren't any "Canadian" provinces to annex back then.
:rolleyes:
While you could say there weren't any Canadian "provinces", you fail at history by putting the quotes around "Canadian".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada
They were British colonies, not Canadian.
So it would be wrong to call the 13 colonies "American" colonies? :rolleyes: It would be wrong to call the Carolinas, the Carolinas?
I told you the mistake was using the word "province", not the word "Canadian", SINCE THE COLONIES WERE CALLED UPPER AND LOWER CANADA!
Carpet bomb them.
Preemptively.
Quote from: katmai on January 31, 2010, 07:03:12 PM
Hey Beeb, you gonna watch the end of Quest when it hits town? :P
I dunno. We always go to watch the start since it's much more predictable, but the end - you never know when they're coming in.
One day I want to bring our dogsto the start of the Quest - show 'em what working dogs lives are like. :menace:
Love the avatar BOB. Spinal Tap album cover?
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2010, 07:24:08 PM
One day I want to bring our dogsto the start of the Quest - show 'em what working dogs lives are like. :menace:
Since the ceremonial start of the Iditarod runs past about block and half from my house, planning to do just that with Gretta.
Vermont supplies all drugs to New Hampshire. Vermont seceding would make New Hampshire more miserable than it already is. I get by in life knowing that, despite NH being down there on the shitty places to live chart, its better than a number of other places in the union such as Arkansas. Without that knowledge I don't know what would happen.
Going to school in NH? :huh:
Kwangtiger, how you been!?
Needless to say I'm fully behind my Vermonter brothers and sisters on this issue. FREE VERMONT!
Quote from: katmai, jimmy olsen on January 31, 2010, 07:35:46 PM
Going to school in NH? :huh:
Kwangtiger, how you been!?
All I can say is that living in NH has not been kind to the Mexican blood inside; permanently covered fields of snow being a far cry from the searing heat of Tijuana's unairconditioned donkey shows.
Quote from: KwangTiger on January 31, 2010, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: katmai, jimmy olsen on January 31, 2010, 07:35:46 PM
Going to school in NH? :huh:
Kwangtiger, how you been!?
All I can say is that living in NH has not been kind to the Mexican blood inside; permanently covered fields of snow being a far cry from the searing heat of Tijuana's unairconditioned donkey shows.
Said to the wetback living in Alaska :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2010, 07:41:10 PM
FREE VERMONT!
....with the purchase of any state of equal or greater value.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2010, 07:24:19 PM
Love the avatar BOB. Spinal Tap album cover?
No, I made it myself. I = artistically inclined. :showoff:
Quote from: grumbler
....with the purchase of any state of equal or greater value.
So... New Hampshire?
These secessionists have been talking this up for many years now. I wonder how big the movement really is though, or should I say how small? Actually, given how much the Federal government wants to continually control more, regardless of party in power, maybe I shouldn't be surprised that Vermonters want to secede, but I think it's more that they want to do their own thing than what the Feds are getting wrong.
Wait Vermont? Does every state have these crazy people in it? The Republic of Texas weirdos have been a blight over here for 150 years.
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2010, 02:07:44 PM
Wait Vermont? Does every state have these crazy people in it? The Republic of Texas weirdos have been a blight over here for 150 years.
During the 60s some students at my alma mater formed the Keweenaw Liberation Front. If they had succeeded they would have formed the only nation on earth whose currency was backed by smelt.