Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/07/puerto-ricans-opt-for-statehood-in-referendum/
So... what do you think Dakkanauts?

I think it'd be great to have a new state in the union.

Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).

I'm for PR joining.

Also, parts of Canada as we're running low on wood. We'll call it North Texas. But not Quebec. feth those guys.

I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.

 kronk wrote:
I'm for PR joining.

Also, parts of Canada as we're running low on wood. We'll call it North Texas. But not Quebec. feth those guys.

You forgot the syrup... they have a STRATEGIC.RESERVE.OF.MAPLE.SYRUP! If that's not a reason to "encourage" them to join the union... I don't know what is. Can Haliburton get involved?

 whembly wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/07/puerto-ricans-opt-for-statehood-in-referendum/
So... what do you think Dakkanauts?

I think it'd be great to have a new state in the union.

Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).

Split California before splitting Indiana.

Those sal-cal bastards can keep their LA to themselves.

 AustonT wrote:
I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.

This here is a PERFECT opportunity for the Republican to "woo" the latinos and bring them into the Union.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/07/puerto-ricans-opt-for-statehood-in-referendum/
So... what do you think Dakkanauts?

I think it'd be great to have a new state in the union.

Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).

Split California before splitting Indiana.

Those sal-cal bastards can keep their LA to themselves.

Did Prop B pass? I thought it was still contested? If it did pass... then expect the adult industry to move (NV or AZ).

 whembly wrote:

Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).

Illinois splitting? Wouldn't that just be Chicago and Rest-of-Illinois?

CA should definitly be split.

Damn LA is sucking all the money and water.

 kronk wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).

Illinois splitting? Wouldn't that just be Chicago and Rest-of-Illinois?

Pretty much... I first thought, I thought it was the southern district wanting this (Chicago Overlording the south). But, it's actually the Northern district (Chicago) because they believe there's a disportionate tax revenue/expenditures between the North and South.

whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.

This here is a PERFECT opportunity for the Republican to "woo" the latinos and bring them into the Union.

Dropping a long lost 40 year old case for abortion would woo women too, which one do you expect them to go for first?

kronk wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).

Illinois splitting? Wouldn't that just be Chicago and Rest-of-Illinois?

Every time I hear about a state splitting I have to stifle a yawn.
Illinois isn't splitting, NYC isn't going to become independent, Arizona and California are as likely to split as I am to become a dyed in the wool Marxist historian. Which to be clear is never going to happen.

 AustonT wrote:

whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.

This here is a PERFECT opportunity for the Republican to "woo" the latinos and bring them into the Union.

Dropping a long lost 40 year old case for abortion would woo women too, which one do you expect them to go for first?

Amnesty first... abortion last... 'just saying.

kronk wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).

Illinois splitting? Wouldn't that just be Chicago and Rest-of-Illinois?

Every time I hear about a state splitting I have to stifle a yawn.
Illinois isn't splitting, NYC isn't going to become independent, Arizona and California are as likely to split as I am to become a dyed in the wool Marxist historian. Which to be clear is never going to happen.

Wow. I've seen these votes come and go my entire life, and never thought this would happen. I hope Congress adds them.

WTF would the star pattern on the flag look like?

Thats ok, we'll just annex Mexico at the same time. We can get 5 states out of mexico, and PR will make it 6.

 kronk wrote:
WTF would the star pattern on the flag look like?

Honestly I expect the round one.

Yes, back to the round flag

I thought the 51st position was reserved for us.

 whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.

This here is a PERFECT opportunity for the Republican to "woo" the latinos and bring them into the Union.

Dropping a long lost 40 year old case for abortion would woo women too, which one do you expect them to go for first?

Amnesty first... abortion last... 'just saying.

Sorry when did we start talking about amnesty?

 George Spiggott wrote:
I thought the 51st position was reserved for us.

Now why would you say that?

 George Spiggott wrote:
I thought the 51st position was reserved for us.

nah, we've saved #76 for you.

Soon as we are done with north and south america we will come for you.

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.

This here is a PERFECT opportunity for the Republican to "woo" the latinos and bring them into the Union.

Dropping a long lost 40 year old case for abortion would woo women too, which one do you expect them to go for first?

Amnesty first... abortion last... 'just saying.

Sorry when did we start talking about amnesty?

I was being sorta snarky... (getting threads mixed up).

I was just saying that this is a good opportunity to change the Republican party to be more inclusive and the hispanics generally mesh up well with the moderate Republicans.

So... Republicans enthusiastically voting for PR's statehood is a step in the right direction.

Just like a bi-partisan Amnesty bill (Not current iteration of Dream Act), would go along way to wooing the hispanics.

 whembly wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:
I thought the 51st position was reserved for us.

Now why would you say that?

Psshh we're gonna break you guys up into the states of Scotland, Wales, and England....57,58,and 60

Of course we're gonna imposes taxes of tea on you first....during the military occupation

It's just not realistic which is the point I was trying to convey. It would take RADICAL internal reforms to get there. Like the kind of reforms the Whigs had before they became the Republicans.

 Huffy wrote:
Psshh we're gonna break you guys up into the states of Scotland, Wales, and England....57,58,and 60

Of course we're gonna imposes taxes of tea on you first....during the military occupation

Do hurry up old chap. Lest you become a Chinese province first.

A tax on tea indeed! I thought you had rules against cruel and unusual punishments.

Wewt! about time. I knew it couldn't be far when they spanked us at basketball in the Olympics, the local papers read "Is it Too late to make Puerto Rico a State?"...after all how long could we endure that shame?!

Huffy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:
I thought the 51st position was reserved for us.

Now why would you say that?

Psshh we're gonna break you guys up into the states of Scotland, Wales, and England....57,58,and 60

Of course we're gonna imposes taxes of tea on you first....during the military occupation

You forgot the sugar tax.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Huffy wrote:
Psshh we're gonna break you guys up into the states of Scotland, Wales, and England....57,58,and 60

Of course we're gonna imposes taxes of tea on you first....during the military occupation

Do hurry up old chap. Lest you become a Chinese province first.

A tax on tea indeed! I thought you had rules against cruel and unusual punishments.

Maybe, but the Tax will not be in $. It will be in extraditing Justin Bieber and Snooki to the british isles as part of the occupation. We will keep the Royal Family on the condition that Harry marry Snooki(who will be forcibly divorced)

 AustonT wrote:
It's just not realistic which is the point I was trying to convey. It would take RADICAL internal reforms to get there. Like the kind of reforms the Whigs had before they became the Republicans.

You talking about the "splitting of the states"? Or the idea that Republicans be more inclusive?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Huffy wrote:
Psshh we're gonna break you guys up into the states of Scotland, Wales, and England....57,58,and 60

Of course we're gonna imposes taxes of tea on you first....during the military occupation

Do hurry up old chap. Lest you become a Chinese province first.

A tax on tea indeed! I thought you had rules against cruel and unusual punishments.

Maybe, but the Tax will not be in $. It will be in extraditing Justin Bieber and Snooki to the british isles as part of the occupation. We will keep the Royal Family on the condition that Harry marry Snooki(who will be forcibly divorced)

Agreed as long as the English accent is outlawed....it grates on my ears something fierce.

But anyways what do you guys think the chances of PR becoming a state are? Like in terms of getting through Congress?

I think it will pass.

To be honest the biggest obstical there was to this happening was PR itself.