What if Britain became a US state

I say YES to a British state!!

If for no other reason than to get Doctor Who on the TV when it first airs!!

A new tea based tax system would be put in place that would more than cover all our expenses. The brits would be pissed when we hit them with taxation without representation, thus beginning another revolution.

Nah, that's all wrong. If we want to siphon off money from there to here, there's just one way to do it: an orthodonture tax. Less symbolic, to be sure, but you've gotta figure that if there's one thing they need more than tea . . .

Oh, come on, you KNOW you want to see Crips and Bloods get sporadic bitchslaps from angry, militant Irishmen who know and love the virtues of guerrila warfare. (As opposed to, and thence contrasted against, gorilla warfare.)

No way, your logic is flawed. It's obvious from the fact that the dental technology has been available for decades and yet the brits still haven't adapted to using it, that your system would never work. We could raise the taxes on fish based foods I suppose, but I still think Tea is the way to go.

if we let britain become a us state?

we'd have to find all those old 'u's we tossed away in 1776, and give them back for them to use again...

I get the distinct impression that if put to a vote, a majority of Englishmen might decide against being part of the UK, much less some even larger organisation.

but...but... i've a whole bag of 'u's with their name on it...

I don't think they would be able to handle real freedom, they would probably end up like Iraq.

If Britain becomes part of the US I'm moving to France.

^Substitute Italy, in my case...

That still doesn't address the fact that the main government would be a presidential style system though does it.

Let's see...

The US had a more recent civil war.

The US has a higher percentage of its population in prison.

Oh wait, I forgot the fact you guys can carry guns, yup, that obviously means that you are more free.

You could have your first Madam President (or Ma'am President )!

Which was fought for many reasons, but not least among them because a lot of people wanted to be free; and another, more specific group of people deriving substantial progress toward being free.

Which position they found themselves in after freely choosing to commit crimes.

It does, certainly. Although I'm more of the mind that that situation is a case of a cause and effect reciprocating each other.

We're more free, therefore we retain the right to bear arms.

We bear arms, therefore we retain greater freedom.

Well, from what we see in the U.S. regularly from the PC Police, "Liberal" is very nearly the antithesis of "free."

Not. Really.

Another misunderstanding of the word 'Liberal'. Read the prescription meds thread? There are all sorts of drugs that we're trusted to buy over the counter that Americans have to see a doctor and get a prescription for. Nobody bats an eye if a female boob gets shown on TV. Two ways in which I'm glad we're more liberal than the US.

Yeah, easier drugs and more televised titty sounds great. But I judge Liberalism by the 'switch', not by the 'bait.'

EDIT: I swear to God, I did not make that rhyme deliberately.

Because Starbucks don't already have a huge presence in the UK???

Another problem if the UK joined with the US.

I would then have access to weapons

What's your point? Everyone has a reason to go to war, it's not like countries wake up one morning and go "let's go kill a few thousand people for no reason"

The US has some of the highest percentages of people incarcerated for crimes such as drug use (not selling or production, just use). How is that not restricting peoples freedom?

Or you just bear arms because guns are an integral part of American culture and become virtually worshipped. Hey, more power to you but the majority of Western countries where guns have been restricted it's because the majority of the people wanted it.

At least we could teach them how to make decent tea. Good old sweet tea with ice and sugar.

The reason in this case being that people wanted freedom from something, and were free to fight for what they wanted. Sounds pretty... Idunno... free.

How is it not restricting freedom to prosecute for theft, rape or murder? All things which, by the way, result from or are committed in furtherance of drug use. I do make an exception for marijuana, because people high on pot are generally too stupid and apathetic to accomplish much of anything... at all.

Sure, that must be it. The effect generated the cause in this instance.

Really? I seem to recall a certain English politician who, when shown that his constituency favored personal firearms ownership, became briefly famous by quipping, "The people have spoken... the bastards." Let's just say I don't trust the system in this regard; no one chooses to be at the mercy of his neighbor.

Ho, hum...

Might there be another quote by the good Mr. Pound which clarifies further his position against the will of the people? One which you've conveniently omitted? Not only might there be, there is.

Same source.

Tell me how "tongue-in-cheek" that one is.

Totally. If you knew anything about our media, you'd know why.

I know enough to get the joke. And while I recognize that both quotes are meant to be humorous, the sentiment driving the humor of both is the same, which says to me that it really is how he feels, though he finds clever ways to express it. He's cracking jokes, but he's not joking.

What would be the difference?