Page 1 of 1

Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:10 am
by chesya
I'm glad we're not discussing divisive politics any more. In the UK an unbelievable division has opened up between leavers and remainers regarding the EU. Really destructive arguments break out really easily and it's only a matter of time before serious violence breaks out. I don't see why not we can't discuss left field issues. When I lived in France it became increasing difficult to distinguish between British, Irish, North Americans, Australians, South Africans. We have similar jokes, the same slang, and other deep cultural proclivities. Even 10% of African Americans are descended from Edward III (echt) such are our ties.

Scotland and Ireland wish to stay in the EU, England and Wales might be up for it. Wales has only 2 million population, but has a separate identity and it's own language spoken by a third of the people and would have its own state. England has a Population of 55 million. It should be divided as Northumbria (Northern England), Mercia (midlands) and Wessex (South England), (15 million each) with London which is is highly distinctive with a population of 8 million being a separate state. 5 new states adding 15% brut GDP to the US.

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:19 pm
by Elana
Or they could consider their strength of the 19th century and become the bountiful 2nd British Empire :D

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:45 pm
by chesya
Elana wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:19 pm
Or they could consider their strength of the 19th century and become the bountiful 2nd British Empire :D
I think an awful lot of English people actually think that and that the EU is a German plot!

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:49 pm
by Elana
Oh no, were we too obvious?

But the french said they wouldn't tell anyone that it was all just a charade to keep England down :P

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:55 pm
by Prof Sai
Sure. If we can have Texas and Hawaii, I don't see why England wouldn't work.

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:35 pm
by Bobascher
I would cry “Monroe Doctrine!” However since WW2 we have pissed away that tenant of American foreign policy

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:24 am
by Dr.Minimizer
Dear England,
First let us get finished integrating Alberta and Greenland, then we'll get back to you.
Signed, Uncle Sam
:)

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:55 am
by Prof Sai
Would that mean we'd get Australia too?

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:24 am
by Nicodemus
Elana wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:19 pm
Or they could consider their strength of the 19th century and become the bountiful 2nd British Empire :D
Hear hear!

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:03 am
by Josh the Cyborg
Seeing as America is modeled after the Roman Republic and a little bit off some writing in the book of Samuel(1&2), I just wonder when will United States of America the Republic fall and America the Empire/Neo Rome rise. This was not a subtle thing back then the founding fathers even used Roman names as Pen names when writing.

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:04 am
by Elana
But it already has reached the state of decadent rome.
(Where they thinks themselves at cultural arts, but no longer create new art, but just remakes of old masterpieces)

It will be pulled apart by some barbarians soon :D :P

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:35 pm
by Josh the Cyborg
Even after the Barbarians split it in two, both halves still survived 300 to 500 years afterward. Fact is there is an on going debate on if Rome truly fell or just evolved into a concept, because of how many countries started with the belief that they themselves what remained of Rome, or that they were Rome’s successor. Also even back in the republic days Rome was both Cocky and decadent, The days of Triumph celebrations are an example of that.(Not to mention our modern depiction of the Hebrew God Yahweh is the Roman Interpretation the one God of Sol Invictus, who is all the Roman and Greek gods wrapped into the Hebrew God.(and you probably know by now, not to get me started on religion, or the mess that is all modern Religions, also I’m not using God and gods in some sort of reverence, just Capital G refers to one god and lower case refers to plural))

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:26 pm
by chesya
Josh the Cyborg wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:03 am
Seeing as America is modeled after the Roman Republic and a little bit off some writing in the book of Samuel(1&2), I just wonder when will United States of America the Republic fall and America the Empire/Neo Rome rise. This was not a subtle thing back then the founding fathers even used Roman names as Pen names when writing.
It seems to me that the US was modelled on the ideology of the more leftest groups, such as the Levellers in the English Revolution. These include assemblies based on a relative broad qualification suffrage, distributed power, no personification of the state in a monarchy or similar institution, no standing armies. These stand in direct opposition to the institutions of 560 years the Roman Empire after the Gracchi. During most of this time electors were confined to a privileged group within the patrician caste, power was high centralised in Rome and later Constantinople, then both, the Dictators, Consuls, Priceps, then Emporers personified the state as did the legions, forming a seamless bridge between the army and Roman identity and state. Witness in Tacitus Augustus' despair at the loss of the Varian legions. The Legions were him as they were the Roman citizenry.

The successor status of the USA to the Roman Republic/Empire lies in rhetoric and not in anything substantive. The classical education of the founding fathers is equally rooted in the Greek state craft of Aristotle as that of Cicero and Seneca, who despite their excellent work on governance were marginal to the heart of Roman political power. Capitol hill only superficially resembles the dome of St Peters. Close examination revealed it to be more a copy of St Pauls in London.

The part of America that won the war of independence was essentially ethnic English, the group that had dominated all the centres of power along the Eastern seaboard since the founding of Jamestown. George III intended to treat all of his subjects equally, whether they be English, Scots, Scots-Irish or native American. Indeed, one of the motives for the revolution was the 1763 royal proclamation, a line drawn across the Applachian and Alleghenies summits to protect native Americans from English settler encroachment. It's thought that up to quarter of the population of the 13 states mainly comprised of Scots and Scots-Irish upped sticks and founded Upper Canada, later Ontario. Ontarian English still has a Scots lilt.

Both the Constitution and even modern governance owes more to Englishman, Tom Paine, than any Roman influence. The Roman with greatest practical influence on the USA was Cincinnatus, the Roman general who after successfully leading the army, refused the crown and went back to his farm.

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:33 am
by Josh the Cyborg
chesya wrote:
Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:26 pm
Josh the Cyborg wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:03 am
Seeing as America is modeled after the Roman Republic and a little bit off some writing in the book of Samuel(1&2), I just wonder when will United States of America the Republic fall and America the Empire/Neo Rome rise. This was not a subtle thing back then the founding fathers even used Roman names as Pen names when writing.
It seems to me that the US was modelled on the ideology of the more leftest groups, such as the Levellers in the English Revolution. These include assemblies based on a relative broad qualification suffrage, distributed power, no personification of the state in a monarchy or similar institution, no standing armies. These stand in direct opposition to the institutions of 560 years the Roman Empire after the Gracchi. During most of this time electors were confined to a privileged group within the patrician caste, power was high centralised in Rome and later Constantinople, then both, the Dictators, Consuls, Priceps, then Emporers personified the state as did the legions, forming a seamless bridge between the army and Roman identity and state. Witness in Tacitus Augustus' despair at the loss of the Varian legions. The Legions were him as they were the Roman citizenry.

The successor status of the USA to the Roman Republic/Empire lies in rhetoric and not in anything substantive. The classical education of the founding fathers is equally rooted in the Greek state craft of Aristotle as that of Cicero and Seneca, who despite their excellent work on governance were marginal to the heart of Roman political power. Capitol hill only superficially resembles the dome of St Peters. Close examination revealed it to be more a copy of St Pauls in London.

The part of America that won the war of independence was essentially ethnic English, the group that had dominated all the centres of power along the Eastern seaboard since the founding of Jamestown. George III intended to treat all of his subjects equally, whether they be English, Scots, Scots-Irish or native American. Indeed, one of the motives for the revolution was the 1763 royal proclamation, a line drawn across the Applachian and Alleghenies summits to protect native Americans from English settler encroachment. It's thought that up to quarter of the population of the 13 states mainly comprised of Scots and Scots-Irish upped sticks and founded Upper Canada, later Ontario. Ontarian English still has a Scots lilt.

Both the Constitution and even modern governance owes more to Englishman, Tom Paine, than any Roman influence. The Roman with greatest practical influence on the USA was Cincinnatus, the Roman general who after successfully leading the army, refused the crown and went back to his farm.
Um how did I say anything that goes against that? I don’t want an Emperor, I prefer to continue governing myself, as it is written in the book of Samuel, that every man(mankind) is meant to be their own “king” and high priest. Also there were things that US government took from certain Native American tribes governing system, not that many though. One of which was the Supreme Court, difference the part of the Native tribe they took that from had their head of state exclusively made up of female chieftains, in that particular tribe. I forget it’s name. Also I knew that only Patricians could Vote, and the lower classes were only brought in when they needed a tie breaker. I was specifically referring to the way we conduct our legal system, the number of senate seats we have based off population and land. Also specifically how this was done in the short(compared to the empire) days of the Republic.

Also I personally think history constantly repeats and people refuse to learn from history, and I believe we’re in for a world wide collapse regardless of who is charge, I think the mess we’re in is to big to fix and even China will collapse into the same form advanced techno feudal states the rest of the world will fall into, maybe they’ll even be what signals the collapse, The only country I could see surviving the coming economic and social collapse is Russia. I don’t see this collapse being as bad as Rome’s was for the west, but, I do see no winners in coming times.

I know I have given off the air of right winger(actually it’s been on purpose to throw people off of my true political beliefs). I actually am a hard line moderate that refuses to budge either right or left with human nature and economics being the only concrete truths I hold to, because those and religion are the only things that remain constant and the same throughout every set of human historical record we have. This is why I scoff or chuckle when I here people talk about creating a new economic system, we have used the same system across 100’s different cultures for 8000 years.

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:45 pm
by JOE66
The United Kingdom has always had a hand in Europe. Always got involved. During the Napoleon War it was British fiance which enabled the rest of Europe to beat this military genius. Then both the two world wars, the Brits got involved. German invaded Belgium, and Britain declared war. Germany invaded Poland and Britain declared war. It's impossible not for the United Kingdom to be an active part of Europe. Give it a few years and Britain will vote to return to the EU.

Re: Should 'England' become states of the USA?

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:25 pm
by Little Sally
JOE66 wrote:
Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:45 pm
The United Kingdom has always had a hand in Europe. Always got involved. During the Napoleon War it was British fiance which enabled the rest of Europe to beat this military genius. Then both the two world wars, the Brits got involved. German invaded Belgium, and Britain declared war. Germany invaded Poland and Britain declared war. It's impossible not for the United Kingdom to be an active part of Europe. Give it a few years and Britain will vote to return to the EU.
I've always wanted to part of Texas myself, with Willie Nelson as our Prime Minister.

Is there room in that State for our little island please? :D