 | | Re: La belle province —David Koudys
|
| | | (...) <snip> (...) Doesn't Texas every once in a while talk about being 'separate' or is that just a figment of my imagination... Just wondering... Dave K (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: La belle province —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Nope. They're the only (?? (1) ) state that joined by treaty after being an independent republic rather than being an original founder (that ratified the constitution as the means of joining) or a state formed from unorganised territory that (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: La belle province —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) K, my misremembery--I thought I read somewhere about a decade ago that there were some Texans talking about forming a 'separatist' movement... (...) That is, until, as some Canadians talk about, Canada becomes the 51st state. Is Puerto Rico (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: La belle province —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Whoops! I meant "nope" as in "nope, you're not misremembering", sorry about that. Texans talk about separatism more often than most, for sure. (...) More like 51st through 64th or whatever, one state for each province/territory I would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: La belle province —John Riley
|
| | | | (...) Puerto Rico occasionally holds referendums to decide whether to remain a territory (technically a commonwealth) or become a state. I found this on the web as an example: (URL) fairly sure PR would benefit greatly from becoming a state. In the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
