NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a great analysis of what would happen if the so-called Blue states (which in many cases are really a few very blue counties surrounded by lots of red counties, but go figure) went ahead and seceded from so-called Red America.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2629

Blue States Secession: One Southerner’s Perspective
November 22, 2004
By James Atticus Bowden

Liberals are talking about the Blue States seceding from the Union. There’s a map on the Internet of the Blue States joining Canada. This is too serious for idle talk from the chattering class. Secession, if followed by invasion, conquest, occupation and ultimately cultural cleansing, is a terrible thing. Trust me, Southerners know about this. We need to help these Liberal hotheads cool down.

First, are the root causes worthy of sundering the Great Experiment – Democracy in America? Apparently, the two most important reasons for secession are partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage. The Liberals are kidding, right? They can’t live in a society that bans infanticide – as every state did before the U.S. Supreme Court made up law, science and medicine in 1973. And, Liberals can’t survive where homosexuals can’t marry – as they never have, ever, from the tiniest tribe to the greatest (and most decadent) civilizations - until last year in the Netherlands? Ok, maybe we can’t make an argument against the sanctity of life and marriage just to keep the Liberals from leaving.

Second, there are serious survival issues of National Defense. The Red States would probably keep the nukes, since the Blue States would find them so environmentally offensive. I reckon the Red States, with 150 to 200 million people, are the same size of the whole U.S. from WW II through most of the Cold War (WW III). We can field large enough Armed Services since the South, Heartland and West are over-represented in today’s ranks. Red forces can keep women well away from combat – it’s a Southern thing about men protecting women and women nurturing families.

Third, will we lose WW IV? Blue States, like France and Germany, may not want to fight the Islamists anywhere we find their snake pits. Red States could lead the Coalition of the Willing, just as they provide the backbone today for U.S. will. Red States will never abandon Israel – it’s an Evangelical Christian thing about loving the Jews. So, fighting the Islamists for centuries appears not to be a problem.

But, certainly, there has to be some ruin. If the Blue States secede and join socialist, Criminalizing-Christian speech Canada, then they would be like Canada. That means we could ignore the Blue States totally, not care less about what they say or do, and make money trading with them – like Canada? This secession may not be a bad idea after all. Something must be terrible on the domestic front.

First, the Red States could live in a Federal Republic, like the Founders’ intended, with a Constitutionally-limited National Government – and an awesome military. The Blue States couldn’t impose their Liberal rule through a tyrannical judiciary. Today’s Judiciary would be abolished and rebuilt with strict Constitutional constructionist judges.

Second, the Red States could control illegal immigration without black-robed priest kings ruling away sovereignty from the bench. Hey, that means the Red States could control which Yankees move south? We could ban too many from contributing to urban sprawl and never, just never, stop telling us how it isn’t like ‘up North’? Our Judeo-Christian and Confederate heritage could be respected as history. End PC multiculturalism? Yi, Yi!

Third, the Blue States are ‘donor’ states to the Red in taxes that go into Federal programs. The Red States would have to live with fewer Federal programs, lower taxes and less Federal regulation. Possibly, the Red State governments would be poorer but individuals would be freer. Is that a bad thing? Every Southerner is descended from people who were dirt poor, values rich, and heroically strong after that last unpleasant attempt at secession. There are far worse things than being poor. Besides, truth is, the Capitalist Red economy would expand faster than Blue Socialism.

There has to be reason to beg the Blue States to stay. Surely, there’s something.

Hmmm, we will never be ruled by Hillary…makes you wonder.

Okay, just let the Blue States go. We can work out the borders. Big Red will need a corridor across California to San Diego for our Pacific port and fleet. Blue gets Washington, DC. Red gets the Pentagon. Maybe Arlington Cemetery will be an international zone, but Red will guard it. Blue gets the United Nations headquarters and debt. How about a coin toss for the name - United States of America - and for Old Glory as the flag? If Red loses, I know a design we can use with the Cross of St. Andrew.
Your call, Libs.

ya how about stop posting bullshit?

ya how about stop posting bullshit?
Hey, it's funny.

Now that's an unbiased source if I ever did see one.

Now that's an unbiased source if I ever did see one.
No less biased than democracynow.org or Moveon.org and I see those quoted here a lot.

This is mildly amusing. Who are they really hurt by leaving?

No less biased than democracynow.org or Moveon.org and I see those quoted here a lot.
Heh, Moveon is funny.

No less biased than democracynow.org or Moveon.org and I see those quoted here a lot.


well perhaps if we all agraed to stop posting from bullshit sits perahps we can all benfite

Now that's an unbiased source if I ever did see one.
It is obviously an editorial, pure speculation, and not meant to be used as a factual basis for any arguement. :rolleyes:

As always, the sane side of the US is keeping the insane side in check, and preventing it from becoming its own power.

We did it in the Civil War for a reason.

well perhaps if we all agraed to stop posting from bullshit sits perahps we can all benfite
We'd also benefit from spelling lessons, but go figure.

I really don't feel like arguing about this now, but it is one of the least funny, poorly written, inarticulate attempts at political commentary I've ever seen. At some point, I'll go through and write a comparable article from a left-leaning perspective addressing the flaws in this one. But until then, I'll leave it at this.

Here's a Michael Moore link:

9/11 (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/)

Are your liberal sensibilities soothed now?

We'd also benefit from spelling lessons, but go figure.


Im sorry I have a brain problem that impeads my spelling I try hard but I have to use my brain to post, unlike some peaple here.

What is the "Heartland" of America?

It's also old news that is irrelevant in today's discourse.

I would also note that the "small blue counties surrounded by red counties" idea is as bogus as "red states" and "blue states." There is a mix of both Republicans and Democrats in every state as well as in every county and in every city, town and village.

Y'know what? All of these points have been pored over in detail. To list them all again is to kick a dead horse.

So is posting outdated political hackery, of course.

I see some lib versus conservative, some north versus south, some Christian versus nonChristian, some USA versus Canada, some Us versus Them, some My God Has A Bigger Dick Than Your God. Is this what its about next? "Blue" versus "Red?"

It's pretty bad when modern politics can be easily summed up with the Dr Seuess classic, the [if you can name the title you get a cookie]

Liberals are talking about the Blue States seceding from the Union.
No they aren't. I think the rest of the argument falls flat after that.

I really don't feel like arguing about this now, but it is one of the least funny, poorly written, inarticulate attempts at political commentary I've ever seen. At some point, I'll go through and write a comparable article from a left-leaning perspective addressing the flaws in this one. But until then, I'll leave it at this.
Instead of making any sort of intelligent comment, you defer to some mythical article you will write, admitting it will be left-leaning biased, and whine and complain because it does not reflect your viewpoint. Yet so many liberals complain that those who do not agree with them just aren't "open-minded" enough.

Im sorry I have a brain problem that impeads my spelling I try hard but I have to use my brain to post, unlike some peaple here.
A little advice: if posting here (NS) drains your brainpower, you might want to consider other forms of entertainment...you see, NS for me is just a nice way to get liberals to show their true colors (i.e., their bigotry, their intolerance for dissenting points of view, their belief that only they are right when history keeps showing they're wrong, etc)

I must agree that this is Blue/Red arguement is old and outdated, though I did enjoy the article. But it is so much fun to irritate the other side :D

A little advice: if posting here (NS) drains your brainpower, you might want to consider other forms of entertainment...you see, NS for me is just a nice way to get liberals to show their true colors (i.e., their bigotry, their intolerance for dissenting points of view, their belief that only they are right when history keeps showing they're wrong, etc)


I think its funny your talking down to me about Brainpower after posting that little gem of an artical

okay, so if I'm reading this right this guy is saying:

Liberals want to leave America over two issues (not, not really)
Conservatives could and would invade the new states of canada
Only southern conservatives have values
only southern conservatives would fight - while making references to WWII which FDR (a dem) led.


I could write something like this and porbably be more credible while I was at it.

By the way all those 'blue states' that are a few blue counties surrounded by lots of red counties? Guess where the majority of the people in those states live. Yes, in the Blue counties. That's why they go blue. The red counties tend to be rural, lots of land, not many people. The blue counties tend to be rural, lots of people, small state.

I really don't feel like arguing about this now, but it is one of the least funny, poorly written, inarticulate attempts at political commentary I've ever seen. At some point, I'll go through and write a comparable article from a left-leaning perspective addressing the flaws in this one. But until then, I'll leave it at this.
Not funny?
Come on! I'm about as far left as you can get, and I think it's hilarious!

Then again, maybe that's because I think much of what the Democrats are doing is rather silly...

I must agree that this is Blue/Red arguement is old and outdated, though I did enjoy the article. But it is so much fun to irritate the other side :D

Yeah, fun until our petty divisiveness finally tears down democracy and the Western world collapses into anarchy and chaos. :sniper:

Yet so many liberals complain that those who do not agree with them just aren't "open-minded" enough.

Who? When? Where? How many constitutes "so many?" 30%? 30% of "liberals" say that, perhaps? Would you kindly quote them all and give me sources?

Instead of making any sort of intelligent comment, you defer to some mythical article you will write, admitting it will be left-leaning biased, and whine and complain because it does not reflect your viewpoint. Yet so many liberals complain that those who do not agree with them just aren't "open-minded" enough.
I think it has more to do with the blue states controlling nearly all of this country's manufacturing centers and finacial institutions. Its hard to have a good economy when your stock market just seceeded. Not to mention the entertainment and fashion industry.

Im sorry I have a brain problem that impeads my spelling I try hard but I have to use my brain to post, unlike some peaple here.
Does it impede your punctuation as well?

Does it impede your punctuation as well?


In fact it douse.

Yeah, fun until our petty divisiveness finally tears down democracy and the Western world collapses into anarchy and chaos. :sniper:
How does one "tear down democracy"? As long as some of us can keep our sense of humor, I don't think democracy is in danger. The USA has survived for 229 years, I don't think it is going to collapse anytime soon. My theory on the partisan nature of politics these days is simply that the power has shifted, and neither side has quite figured out what to do in the other role.

okay, so if I'm reading this right this guy is saying:

Liberals want to leave America over two issues (not, not really)
Conservatives could and would invade the new states of canada
Only southern conservatives have values
only southern conservatives would fight - while making references to WWII which FDR (a dem) led.


I could write something like this and porbably be more credible while I was at it.

By the way all those 'blue states' that are a few blue counties surrounded by lots of red counties? Guess where the majority of the people in those states live. Yes, in the Blue counties. That's why they go blue. The red counties tend to be rural, lots of land, not many people. The blue counties tend to be rural, lots of people, small state.
Where are the nukes? Red states. Where are most of the soldiers? Red states. What's the President? A red stater.

Who? When? Where? How many constitutes "so many?" 30%? 30% of "liberals" say that, perhaps? Would you kindly quote them all and give me sources?
My personal experience. As well as one of the accepted definitions of liberal being more open to change, whereas conservatives have been defined as more traditionalist and less willing to change.

How does one "tear down democracy"?

Meh, it's inevitable. Just wait and watch!

As long as some of us can keep our sense of humor, I don't think democracy is in danger. The USA has survived for 229 years, I don't think it is going to collapse anytime soon.

Hubris. Sense of humor didn't save the Roman Empire. Nor did it's previous endurance of years.

My theory on the partisan nature of politics these days is simply that the power has shifted, and neither side has quite figured out what to do in the other role.

Ordinarily I'd agree, but I think technology and the 'global village' and other changes, including the pace of change and the nature of those changes, change all that. (Wow, did I say change a lot? I guess I'm of the opinion that now is unlike all other times and historical precedents can't provide for the existence of variables like, say the internet.)

My personal experience. As well as one of the accepted definitions of liberal being more open to change...
Judging ~50 million Americans based on your personal experience with a select few is, I think, bad.

whereas conservatives have been defined as more traditionalist and less willing to change.
That's what conservatism is, man. Read some Burke. It's based on taking things slow. Not always a bad idea, either.

It's also old news that is irrelevant in today's discourse.And yet, day after day NS is overrun by teenaged libs arguing one way or another about the sundry evils committed by the GOP and conservatives. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I would also note that the "small blue counties surrounded by red counties" idea is as bogus as "red states" and "blue states." There is a mix of both Republicans and Democrats in every state as well as in every county and in every city, town and village.Take a look at the maps of California and New York (just two examples) after the 2004 election. In both cases you will see a majority of the counties in each state are colored red or some variation, with a few counties colored blue. In fact, look at this map (http://www.themandate2004.com/images/Img8.gif) and tell me this isn't true.

It doesn't truly matter to me, but you lefties are so defensive about it!

A little advice: if posting here (NS) drains your brainpower, you might want to consider other forms of entertainment...you see, NS for me is just a nice way to get liberals to show their true colors (i.e., their bigotry, their intolerance for dissenting points of view, their belief that only they are right when history keeps showing they're wrong, etc)

Give the guy a break. If the guy has dyslexia, no amount of crap from you is going to help him spell correctly. If the brain is wired wrong, it's wired wrong.

Disagree with the content of his arguement all you like, but once someone has apologized for their poor spelling and explained the cause, be it dyslexia or a native tongue other than English, cut them some slack about the spelling.

Give the guy a break. If the guy has dyslexia, no amount of crap from you is going to help him spell correctly. If the brain is wired wrong, it's wired wrong.

Disagree with the content of his arguement all you like, but once someone has apologized for their poor spelling and explained the cause, be it dyslexia or a native tongue other than English, cut them some slack about the spelling.
Dsylexics can spell appropriately if they proofread. Just not initially. If they say otherwise they're lying.

Take a look at the maps of California and New York (just two examples) after the 2004 election. In both cases you will see a majority of the counties in each state are colored red or some variation, with a few counties colored blue. In fact, look at this map and tell me this isn't true.

Try this map (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png) for accuracy, gipper.

Judging ~50 million Americans based on your personal experience with a select few is, I think, bad.


That's what conservatism is, man. Read some Burke. It's based on taking things slow. Not always a bad idea, either.
Personal experience including personally reading liberal articles, web sites, watching liberal media, etc. The media in general have portrayed that view of liberals to me. Though I admit I should not use broad generalizations about a group of people without more concrete evidence to back it up. Something I truly despise, as many in this forum, from personal experience, paint conservatives as idiotic, homophobic, racist, and unreasonably violent.

And, note that I do not believe that everyone who voted for John Kerry is liberal. When I say liberal, I mean that percentage of the population who proudly proclaim they are liberal, which, last I heard on NPR, was about 15% of the voters.

Who's talking about secession? You can't be serious, no credible liberal is talking seriously about secession. Everybody already knows secession doesn't work.

I think it's funny how conservatives now refer to themselves as "reds." In fact, I find it hilarious.

Also, about the "blue states" actually being blue counties surrounded by red counties. There's a reason for that, it's called population density. The reasons the states go blue is because those few blue counties are where all the people are. Most people in California live in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles area. More people live in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Alameda counties than in Modoc, Placer and Shasta. Consequently, the fact that more counties are red is irrelevant, as the fact is that more people in the actual state are "blue." Fucking duh.

I don't even know why I said all that, because it should be painfully obvious.

Dsylexics can spell appropriately if they proofread. Just not initially. If they say otherwise they're lying.

I call bullshit. I have two dyslexic sisters, dyslexic friends, and have been trained to help dyslexics improve their literacy skills.

Proofreading isn't the problem. (Although admittedly a spell checker can help somewhat.) Generally, they need to learn words word-by-word, not letter by letter. It's a concept thing. Of course, that doesn't work for everyone, and dyslexics usually need special help from a teacher to learn how to look at the words this way - and lord knows, most schools can't afford to spend that much time with one kid.

I call bullshit. I have two dyslexic sisters, dyslexic friends, and have been trained to help dyslexics improve their literacy skills.

Proofreading isn't the problem. (Although admittedly a spell checker can help somewhat.) Generally, they need to learn words word-by-word, not letter by letter. It's a concept thing. Of course, that doesn't work for everyone, and dyslexics usually need special help from a teacher to learn how to look at the words this way - and lord knows, most schools can't afford to spend that much time with one kid.
A dsylexic can look at a word and tell it is spelled wrong. Unless something is staggeringly wrong with their brain to the point of aphasia, dsylexics can spell as well as anyone. My grandma and brother are dsylexic, and both of them spell as well or better than I do. It just takes them longer.

Personal experience including personally reading liberal articles, web sites, watching liberal media, etc.
It's a bad thing to judge a group by it's extremists. I do not, for example, think you would want conservatives judged by the example set by the likes of Fred Phelps (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=400239), USA Next or any other right wing crazies. Same as I, as a lefty [generally speaking] would not want to be judged by the vitriol sometimes spewed forth by MoveOn.org.

Besides, the 24-hour networks - MSNBC, CNN, FOX - know that talking-head arguments are what gets ratings. And who argues more than a couple of crazies? Of course the media is going to represent a bunch of unreasonable fellows in an even more unreasonable setting [hard to make your case when you have to scream over the guy you're talking to].

The media in general have portrayed that view of liberals to me. Though I admit I should not use broad generalizations about a group of people without more concrete evidence to back it up.
Now, I know you don't believe everything the media tells or shows you. Televison != Truth.

Something I truly despise, as many in this forum, from personal experience, paint conservatives as idiotic, homophobic, racist, and unreasonably violent.
That's wrong. But willfully painting liberals, as a whole, as you have is wrong as well. Morally speaking. My opinion, anyway.

Where are the nukes? Red states. Where are most of the soldiers? Red states. What's the President? A red stater.

So you would be for bombing the blue states then.

I see we have a winner.

So you would be for bombing the blue states then.

I see we have a winner.
Hey, in our hypothetical scenario, they started it.

It's a bad thing to judge a group by it's extremists. I do not, for example, think you would want conservatives judged by the example set by the likes of Fred Phelps (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=400239), USA Next or any other right wing crazies. Same as I, as a lefty [generally speaking] would not want to be judged by the vitriol sometimes spewed forth by MoveOn.org.

Besides, the 24-hour networks - MSNBC, CNN, FOX - know that talking-head arguments are what gets ratings. And who argues more than a couple of crazies? Of course the media is going to represent a bunch of unreasonable fellows in an even more unreasonable setting [hard to make your case when you have to scream over the guy you're talking to].


Now, I know you don't believe everything the media tells or shows you. Televison != Truth.


That's wrong. But willfully painting liberals, as a whole, as you have is wrong as well. Morally speaking. My opinion, anyway.
True. I'm just cranky and lashing out at those least able to defend themselves (no self-respecting liberal would ever have a gun) (yes, another generalization) ;)

Hey, in our hypothetical scenario, they started it.

uh-huh. But they did so without using arms. You're using arms to force something from happening that's allowable by the very same ideals the United States was built on.

uh-huh. But they did so without using arms. You're using arms to force something from happening that's allowable by the very same ideals the United States was built on.
Actually, I believe the Civil War settled the question as to whether or not that is allowing. No one has the right to sucede.

Who's talking about secession? You can't be serious, no credible liberal is talking seriously about secession. Everybody already knows secession doesn't work.

I think it's funny how conservatives now refer to themselves as "reds." In fact, I find it hilarious.

Also, about the "blue states" actually being blue counties surrounded by red counties. There's a reason for that, it's called population density. The reasons the states go blue is because those few blue counties are where all the people are. Most people in California live in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles area. More people live in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Alameda counties than in Modoc, Placer and Shasta. Consequently, the fact that more counties are red is irrelevant, as the fact is that more people in the actual state are "blue." Fucking duh.

I don't even know why I said all that, because it should be painfully obvious.I started to post something similar, but stopped and deleted it all.

It wasn't worth the effort.

Some things (and some people) never change, I'd have only ended up wishing I had the time I spent posting back.

Meh, it's inevitable. Just wait and watch!



Hubris. Sense of humor didn't save the Roman Empire. Nor did it's previous endurance of years.



Ordinarily I'd agree, but I think technology and the 'global village' and other changes, including the pace of change and the nature of those changes, change all that. (Wow, did I say change a lot? I guess I'm of the opinion that now is unlike all other times and historical precedents can't provide for the existence of variables like, say the internet.)
"it's inevitable" is not a valid arguement for predicting the fall of democracy in the USA. Neither is hubris. What systems of government are broken, or even broken beyond fixing? What states have recently engaged in border skirmishes? Has our economy tanked? Are citizens calling to arms against their brothers (at least no more than usual, lol)?

Actually, I believe the Civil War settled the question as to whether or not that is allowing. No one has the right to sucede.
A persistent rumor here in Texas, and it may just be one of those urban legends, is that since Texas was its own country, when it agreed to become a state in the USA, it alone retained the right to secede if it so desired. I could be wrong on this, however. Keruvalia might know the truth on that one.

Actually, I believe the Civil War settled the question as to whether or not that is allowing. No one has the right to sucede.


okay, lets step back into history for a moment. John Locke - wrote the Second Treatise on Civil Government. States: if government interferes with the people in an unjust fashion, then the people have the right to overthrow the government.


The civil war was abe lincoln refusing to give up the south because of the land, labor, and capitol it provided.

So according to the philisophical base of the United States, yes, actually we can sucede. And then the remaining federal government really shouldn't (I would say couldn't but history would disprove me) do anything about it.

EDIT: Arizona also suceded but the government withheld roads funding until it came back.

A dsylexic can look at a word and tell it is spelled wrong. Unless something is staggeringly wrong with their brain to the point of aphasia, dsylexics can spell as well as anyone. My grandma and brother are dsylexic, and both of them spell as well or better than I do. It just takes them longer.

Yes, dyslexics can spell as well as anyone, if they have been taught ways to handle language that work with the way their brain is wired. For example, some dyslexics can't concentrate on a page because the words literally move when they look at them. Asking them to proofread is just plain hell, because the damn words don't hold still. But if you give them blue or yellow lenses to look through, their brain can handle the focus, and they have a chance to learn to spell. Other dyslexics, like one of my sisters literally can't tell that a letter has been reversed - the b's and d's or g's, p's, and q's for example. To her 'dog' and 'bop' look exactly the same, and there is nothing she can do about it, despite all the literacy help she has received.

If your brother and grandmother have learned to deal with their dyslexia on their own - kudos to them. But they obviously don't have a very severe form.

okay, lets step back into history for a moment. John Locke - wrote the Second Treatise on Civil Government. States: if government interferes with the people in an unjust fashion, then the people have the right to overthrow the government.


The civil war was abe lincoln refusing to give up the south because of the land, labor, and capitol it provided.

So according to the philisophical base of the United States, yes, actually we can sucede. And then the remaining federal government really shouldn't (I would say couldn't but history would disprove me) do anything about it.
John Locke is obsolete. Slavery is obsolete. Just because an idea was good 300 years ago, doesn't make it good today.

"it's inevitable" is not a valid arguement for predicting the fall of democracy in the USA.

No, just a statement of fact. Consider: in 6 billion years the sun goes nova. Inevitability. However I think it (the fall) will come much sooner than that.

Neither is hubris.

That was just in response to your statement to the effect of, the USA has lasted this long, there's no reason it can't last forever. A very hubris sort of implication.

What systems of government are broken, or even broken beyond fixing? What states have recently engaged in border skirmishes? Has our economy tanked? Are citizens calling to arms against their brothers (at least no more than usual, lol)?

None (or all), non, no, not really. But that doesn't mean democracy is immortal, or the USA isn't as doomed to the forces of change, chaos and history as every other state/civilization/human cancer!

Yes, dyslexics can spell as well as anyone, if they have been taught ways to handle language that work with the way their brain is wired. For example, some dyslexics can't concentrate on a page because the words literally move when they look at them. Asking them to proofread is just plain hell, because the damn words don't hold still. But if you give them blue or yellow lenses to look through, their brain can handle the focus, and they have a chance to learn to spell. Other dyslexics, like one of my sisters literally can't tell that a letter has been reversed - the b's and d's or g's, p's, and q's for example. To her 'dog' and 'bop' look exactly the same, and there is nothing she can do about it, despite all the literacy help she has received.

If your brother and grandmother have learned to deal with their dyslexia on their own - kudos to them. But they obviously don't have a very severe form.
Most of what you're describing isn't dsylexia, it's aphasia. Dsylexia is confusing word and letter order, not being unable to create them.

A persistent rumor here in Texas, and it may just be one of those urban legends, is that since Texas was its own country, when it agreed to become a state in the USA, it alone retained the right to secede if it so desired. I could be wrong on this, however. Keruvalia might know the truth on that one.
The 13 colonies were technically countries. The right to sucede is one thing they gave up when they joined the Union. The U.S. is a federation of small nations, not one nation divided into states for convenience.

Got off my butt and found the answer:

Texas (http://www.answers.com/topic/republic-of-texas)

Got accepted as a state under some unique terms, but has no more right to secede than any other state. Does uniquely have the right to subdivide into up to 5 states, though. Though that seems to conflict with the constitution:
Article IV, Section 3:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. "

Got off my butt and found the answer:

Texas (http://www.answers.com/topic/republic-of-texas)

Got accepted as a state under some unique terms, but has no more right to secede than any other state. Does uniquely have the right to subdivide into up to 5 states, though. Though that seems to conflict with the constitution:
Article IV, Section 3:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. "

That also seems to contradict with Maine and West Virginia being states.

That also seems to contradict with Maine and West Virginia being states.
Read the last clause.

No, just a statement of fact. Consider: in 6 billion years the sun goes nova. Inevitability. However I think it (the fall) will come much sooner than that.



That was just in response to your statement to the effect of, the USA has lasted this long, there's no reason it can't last forever. A very hubris sort of implication.



None (or all), non, no, not really. But that doesn't mean democracy is immortal, or the USA isn't as doomed to the forces of change, chaos and history as every other state/civilization/human cancer!
I did not say the US would last forever, as you did not say the US would inevitably fall within a period somewhat shorter than 6 billion years (you seemed to imply the much nearer future). You are parsing words here. Either your statement meant "Democracy will fall in the very near future, as evidenced by the state of partisan politics", or you meant " Democracy will fall sometime in the next 6 billion years", which is self-evident to most folks on this forum, and thus should not have needed saying.

Read the last clause.

Hmm, apparently I suck. Oops.

I did not say the US would last forever, as you did not say the US would inevitably fall within a period somewhat shorter than 6 billion years (you seemed to imply the much nearer future). You are parsing words here. Either your statement meant "Democracy will fall in the very near future, as evidenced by the state of partisan politics", or you meant " Democracy will fall sometime in the next 6 billion years", which is self-evident to most folks on this forum, and thus should not have needed saying.

Neither! My statement meant democracy will fall in the near future, not necessarily near enough for you to LITERALLY "wait and see" as I said. But the process is ongoing; it's not quite 'evidenced' by the current state of affairs, but being in fact continually created every year.

Now, if you want to get really into this and have arguments and back-up statements and definitions and logic... too bad, I don't. It was just a simple statement.

That also seems to contradict with Maine and West Virginia being states.
Were they subdivided as well? Interesting . . .
Also, an intriguing thought. If Texas could be split up into 5 states, and the lines were strategically drawn, whichever party is currently in power, right now the Repubs, could gain a potential extra 8 seats in the Senate . . . (wild speculation) :cool:

Were they subdivided as well? Interesting . . .
Also, an intriguing thought. If Texas could be split up into 5 states, and the lines were strategically drawn, whichever party is currently in power, right now the Repubs, could gain a potential extra 8 seats in the Senate . . . (wild speculation) :cool:


That's pretty interesting. I don't see that happening though, I really don't think it's any more likely than California being split into two states (as it should have been from the beginning). Not in the near future any way.

Read the last clause.
Correct - it looks like the conditions pulling Texas into the USA constitute the assent of Congress, it would just need to be approved by the Texas legislature.

That's pretty interesting. I don't see that happening though, I really don't think it's any more likely than California being split into two states (as it should have been from the beginning). Not in the near future any way.
Actually, it would be pretty hard to do, as Texas is fairly diverse, despite its 60+% votes for Bush. The metro areas, particularly Dallas, are fairly Democratic. And Austin! Also known as the liberal capital of the South.

Note: Article Four USC does not state anything about any state WITHDRAWING from the union. One of the major reasons for the reaction that the Confederacy got in 1861 was that THEY SHOT FIRST.

Technically, however, Chief Justice Chase declared as part of a ruling in 1869 (Texas v White) that the Union was indestructible, and that therfore no state that was in the Confederacy had ever LEFT the Union, though the intent at the time was to allow Texas its Reconstruction money. Suffice it to say, the action that the federal government takes regarding a secession, while SUPPOSED to be 'keep 'em in', can pretty much be anything desired by the Senate or Cabinet at the time - obviously there's not going to be as much bitching going on if no one decides to do anything about it as there would be if we ended up with Civil War II.

That being said, it's rather unlikely that the states would secede in such a haphazard arrangement as provided by the list of states that preferred Kerry over Bush. From a strategic or logistical standpoint, it's all wrong. Over land, the Great Lakes territories and New England would be impossible to defend, and the Pacific is more dependent on Rocky Mountain resources than anyone realizes.

A more logical secession breakdown (obviously not politically, but politics is the dumbest reason for secession ever), and one that stands a far greater chance of success, would be a West/East breakdown, with the Rocky Mountains as the new border (this would be a hell of an area to cross, especially after demo teams hit the road and rail crossing it). This sort of withdrawal would be hard to effect without heavy anti-air and coastal defenses, and especially without a good reason to do so, though.

Correct - it looks like the conditions pulling Texas into the USA constitute the assent of Congress, it would just need to be approved by the Texas legislature.
I don't know why this is a such a problem with our Constitution; if people would read the whole article/amendment we wouldn't have so many damn problems :)

Were they subdivided as well? Interesting . . .
Also, an intriguing thought. If Texas could be split up into 5 states, and the lines were strategically drawn, whichever party is currently in power, right now the Repubs, could gain a potential extra 8 seats in the Senate . . . (wild speculation) :cool:

Well Maine was originally part of Massachusetts, but was split off and brought into the union the same time Missouri was, in order to keep the balance between north and south back before the Civil War. Part of the Missouri Compromise. West Virginia was obviously part of Virginia, and was made up of western counties that did not want to secede from the union and join the confederacy, and was later admitted into the US.

Note: Article Four USC does not state anything about any state WITHDRAWING from the union. One of the major reasons for the reaction that the Confederacy got in 1861 was that THEY SHOT FIRST.

Technically, however, Chief Justice Chase declared as part of a ruling in 1869 (Texas v White) that the Union was indestructible, and that therfore no state that was in the Confederacy had ever LEFT the Union, though the intent at the time was to allow Texas its Reconstruction money. Suffice it to say, the action that the federal government takes regarding a secession, while SUPPOSED to be 'keep 'em in', can pretty much be anything desired by the Senate or Cabinet at the time - obviously there's not going to be as much bitching going on if no one decides to do anything about it as there would be if we ended up with Civil War II.

That being said, it's rather unlikely that the states would secede in such a haphazard arrangement as provided by the list of states that preferred Kerry over Bush. From a strategic or logistical standpoint, it's all wrong. Over land, the Great Lakes territories and New England would be impossible to defend, and the Pacific is more dependent on Rocky Mountain resources than anyone realizes.

A more logical secession breakdown (obviously not politically, but politics is the dumbest reason for secession ever), and one that stands a far greater chance of success, would be a West/East breakdown, with the Rocky Mountains as the new border (this would be a hell of an area to cross, especially after demo teams hit the road and rail crossing it). This sort of withdrawal would be hard to effect without heavy anti-air and coastal defenses, and especially without a good reason to do so, though.
Let me guess: lawyer or law student?

Here's a great analysis of what would happen if the so-called Blue states (which in many cases are really a few very blue counties surrounded by lots of red counties, but go figure) went ahead and seceded from so-called Red America.

Your call, Libs.

Where's the great analysis? When you find it, post it so I can read it. :rolleyes:

John Locke is obsolete. Slavery is obsolete. Just because an idea was good 300 years ago, doesn't make it good today.

And just because an idea is 300 years old does not make it obsolete today. Please support your statement with fact. I fail to see how Locke is obsolete; and slavery seems to be getting on just fine so far.

And just because an idea is 300 years old does not make it obsolete today. Please support your statement with fact. I fail to see how Locke is obsolete; and slavery seems to be getting on just fine so far.
Succession doesn't work in this day and age, you'd just create two crappy countries.

Succession doesn't work in this day and age, you'd just create two crappy countries.

Another statement that is unsupported beyond an "as-a-matter-of-fact" manner of speaking. Also, how does this invalidate everything else Locke wrote? And how is slavery obsolete when the slave trade is larger today than it has ever been?

Another statement that is unsupported beyond an "as-a-matter-of-fact" manner of speaking. Also, how does this invalidate everything else Locke wrote? And how is slavery obsolete when the slave trade is larger today than it has ever been?
Neither is no longer practical. You can't buy and sell humans in civilized society. You can't just pack up your toys and call yourself New Texas because you're mad about an election.

Let me guess: lawyer or law student?

Geographic Information Systems, actually. The subject of secession became something of personal interest when I started conceiving ideas for a space epic thingy that's been bouncing around my head for close to four years (since 9/11, ironically), and given that I've seen enough mangling of science, sociology and common sense in science fiction and fantasy to make a junkyard of bad plot the size of one of Niven's ringworlds, I'm making damn sure to make it make sense.

The fact that I have a thing for alternate history assignments (Thanks Dr Jaffe!) didn't help one bit.

And yes, I still have the "Gutenberg gets whacked by rogue mafia dons", "the Russian representativists that helped in the Revolution decide to go guerrilla rather than flee to America after the Communists apply communism to the Russian government", and "Jack Tenney becomes a folk music legend rather than a California state assemblyman and student of Joseph McCarthy" AH papers on file in three different places in my system and at least two in print, if anyone's interested.

Here's a great analysis of what would happen if the so-called Blue states (which in many cases are really a few very blue counties surrounded by lots of red counties, but go figure) went ahead and seceded from so-called Red America.
Blue States Secession: One Southerner’s Perspective
November 22, 2004
By James Atticus Bowden

First, are the root causes worthy of sundering the Great Experiment – Democracy in America? Apparently, the two most important reasons for secession are partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage. The Liberals are kidding, right? They can’t live in a society that bans infanticide – as every state did before the U.S. Supreme Court made up law, science and medicine in 1973. And, Liberals can’t survive where homosexuals can’t marry – as they never have, ever, from the tiniest tribe to the greatest (and most decadent) civilizations - until last year in the Netherlands? Ok, maybe we can’t make an argument against the sanctity of life and marriage just to keep the Liberals from leaving.

Actually the motivation here is that the conservatives have given up on democracy. We'd like to get away from you so that we can have it back.

Second, there are serious survival issues of National Defense. The Red States would probably keep the nukes, since the Blue States would find them so environmentally offensive. I reckon the Red States, with 150 to 200 million people, are the same size of the whole U.S. from WW II through most of the Cold War (WW III). We can field large enough Armed Services since the South, Heartland and West are over-represented in today’s ranks. Red forces can keep women well away from combat – it’s a Southern thing about men protecting women and women nurturing families.

Problem is that Blue states make the most money, I'll be getting back to that later, but for now I'll just point out that you can't field an army without money.

Third, will we lose WW IV? Blue States, like France and Germany, may not want to fight the Islamists anywhere we find their snake pits. Red States could lead the Coalition of the Willing, just as they provide the backbone today for U.S. will. Red States will never abandon Israel – it’s an Evangelical Christian thing about loving the Jews. So, fighting the Islamists for centuries appears not to be a problem.

Um, you know that Jews make a big part of the liberal left right? Most of the Anti semitism in the country comes from the part of the South where people think that the KKK is a maligned, socially concious organization.

But, certainly, there has to be some ruin. If the Blue States secede and join socialist, Criminalizing-Christian speech Canada, then they would be like Canada. That means we could ignore the Blue States totally, not care less about what they say or do, and make money trading with them – like Canada? This secession may not be a bad idea after all. Something must be terrible on the domestic front.

Yes, you'd be free to abandon our moderating influence and indulge in your own brand new gilded age. You'd usher in your private great depression and we'd laugh at you.

First, the Red States could live in a Federal Republic, like the Founders’ intended, with a Constitutionally-limited National Government – and an awesome military. The Blue States couldn’t impose their Liberal rule through a tyrannical judiciary. Today’s Judiciary would be abolished and rebuilt with strict Constitutional constructionist judges.

So you say, but have you noticed that the Federal government grew under Republicans Reagen, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr, and shrunk under Clinton? Conservatives that Red Staters vote for don't actually want a weak federal government, they just talk about it and you suckers fall for it every time like a perticularly stupid version of Pavlov's dog.

Second, the Red States could control illegal immigration without black-robed priest kings ruling away sovereignty from the bench. Hey, that means the Red States could control which Yankees move south? We could ban too many from contributing to urban sprawl and never, just never, stop telling us how it isn’t like ‘up North’? Our Judeo-Christian and Confederate heritage could be respected as history. End PC multiculturalism? Yi, Yi!

Yes, the well educated business people who also concentrate themselves in the urban parts of the Red states. Even Texas. In other words, the money would leave.

Third, the Blue States are ‘donor’ states to the Red in taxes that go into Federal programs. The Red States would have to live with fewer Federal programs, lower taxes and less Federal regulation. Possibly, the Red State governments would be poorer but individuals would be freer. Is that a bad thing? Every Southerner is descended from people who were dirt poor, values rich, and heroically strong after that last unpleasant attempt at secession. There are far worse things than being poor. Besides, truth is, the Capitalist Red economy would expand faster than Blue Socialism.

For individuals, there are worse things than being poor. For countries being poor means being dead. At least if there isn't a rich country who finds your existence convenient. I don't think your confederacy would be very likely to be viewed as "convenient" by the civilized world.

Red states gain more money from federal programs than they pay in taxes. Blue states are just the opposite. And we're kind enough to let you leeches suck away at our teat anyway. Without you draining our coffers and bitching about how we like to steal your money we'll be free to fund a modern state without your regressive feudalist politics. Canada is one of the richest countries in the world now, if they combined with the most money-making parts of the US (the Blue states) we'd be an economic power house.

Cut off from trade, because you're such isolationists and would want to protect your corn farms and auto mechanics from the dangers of Mexican labor and Canadian drugs, your economy would crumble. A country without an economy is a country that won't exist much longer.

There has to be reason to beg the Blue States to stay. Surely, there’s something.

We don't trust you with the nuclear launch codes. You evangelical yahoos would blow us all up just so that you could laugh about it in heaven.

Hmmm, we will never be ruled by Hillary…makes you wonder.

Okay, just let the Blue States go. We can work out the borders. Big Red will need a corridor across California to San Diego for our Pacific port and fleet. Blue gets Washington, DC. Red gets the Pentagon. Maybe Arlington Cemetery will be an international zone, but Red will guard it. Blue gets the United Nations headquarters and debt. How about a coin toss for the name - United States of America - and for Old Glory as the flag? If Red loses, I know a design we can use with the Cross of St. Andrew.

Sorry, state lines stand unless you want to do this with a war. If you want foreign trade (which you won't) you have the Gulf of Mexico.


Your call, Libs.

I'd love to. I really would.

I've posted about it before here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=371662&highlight=kerry+speech) .

If you want ocean access, try buying off part of Mexico. Texas going through California is like saying "Let's let the Neo-Nazis set up a small state in Isreal".

Except that Californians are better known for blowing the hell out of people.

Actually, it would be pretty hard to do, as Texas is fairly diverse, despite its 60+% votes for Bush. The metro areas, particularly Dallas, are fairly Democratic. And Austin! Also known as the liberal capital of the South.

True that.

People tend to forget that it was, nationwide, nearly 50/50.

That means, on average, each state is around 50/50.

Try this map (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png) for accuracy, gipper.

and this one to mitigate the visually misleading effects of montana and such

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycart3070small.png

of course, the whole thing is silly - they've got the lot of you squabbling over which puppet party of the elite is best based on a couple superficial differences between them.

If you want ocean access, try buying off part of Mexico. Texas going through California is like saying "Let's let the Neo-Nazis set up a small state in Isreal".

Except that Californians are better known for blowing the hell out of people.

Consider that California is either first or second (I forget which) in having a ban on .50 caliber weapons, and that Israeli males of age are required to tote around combat-grade autofirearms as part of that nation's defense program. Israel's the type to start a war over it. California's got a history of more stopping the process from ever happening and being done with it. In such a case, they would probably be making a mess of the newly added ribbon of Texas territory in the way, or some other action or set of actions such that it would be cheaper to route the transports across Panama than to dock them in San Diego (or wherever) and send them overland.

and this one to mitigate the visually misleading effects of montana and such

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycart3070small.png

of course, the whole thing is silly - they've got the lot of you squabbling over which puppet party of the elite is best based on a couple superficial differences between them.

I love that map! It really takes the edge off the peyote.

I don't subscribe to the Republicrat-deriding viewpoint. For example, I think Kerry would be a better president than Bush, and that the differences between the two would be fundamental.

-Stuff-

1) LA

2) Central Valley

3) True enough

Ah, Incenjucarania*, I see now why you suspect Californians of being prone to violence. Problem is, most of that is random violence directed at other Californians, and nothing so coherent as to be applicable to anything's defense.

*Yeah, I typed it out. Let me know if you're okay with me just abbreviating it to Incen or something next time.

(Incen's fine. The name's just a really cheap combination of "Incen" and "Jucar")

And I merely meant reputation, as was my initial post. Isreal has nukes, after all.

We also have a large number of militants in the hills.

Add to that the fact that California and Texas have been at odds for years... not really much chance of Texas getting a free port through here. Now, they may well pay out the arse for access...

And yet, day after day NS is overrun by teenaged libs arguing one way or another about the sundry evils committed by the GOP and conservatives. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Take a look at the maps of California and New York (just two examples) after the 2004 election. In both cases you will see a majority of the counties in each state are colored red or some variation, with a few counties colored blue. In fact, look at this map (http://www.themandate2004.com/images/Img8.gif) and tell me this isn't true.

It doesn't truly matter to me, but you lefties are so defensive about it!
I think you have the wrong map? It is more like purple?
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50_small.gif

Originally Posted by Panhandlia
And yet, day after day NS is overrun by teenaged libs arguing one way or another about the sundry evils committed by the GOP and conservatives. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Take a look at the maps of California and New York (just two examples) after the 2004 election. In both cases you will see a majority of the counties in each state are colored red or some variation, with a few counties colored blue. In fact, look at this map and tell me this isn't true.

It doesn't truly matter to me, but you lefties are so defensive about it!?
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50_small.gif

This is where i point out once again that the populous zones belong too the libs. I know its a recurring theme. This is wher ei point out how funny the conservatives are. Voting on national defense they fear terrorist attacks and yet the areas most likely to be attacked vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

Both maps have a fundamental problem - they center on PURPLE.

And guess what color is really hard to replicate by just about anything, especially monitors?

That's right, purple.

It would have been best if they had used something like white (which makes a clear delineation between red and blue) or green (the color which the human eye can most easily differentiate).

I prefer the 'deforemed' map, by the way, on the grounds that it's weighted for population. Now in an election, which is more important - area or population?

That's right.

Here's a great analysis of what would happen if the so-called Blue states (which in many cases are really a few very blue counties surrounded by lots of red counties, but go figure) went ahead and seceded from so-called Red America.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2629


Your call, Libs.
Were you hoping to win the hearts and minds of the libs with this post? Or perhaps you were hoping to cause an even greater divide?

You need to take some "uniter" pointers from Bush?

I prefer the 'deforemed' map, by the way, on the grounds that it's weighted for population. Now in an election, which is more important - area or population?

That's right.

i really like the deformed one because the area bias of the county map is utterly ridiculous. for example, if you compare them side by side you can immediately see that the block of solid red (these maps have a non-linear color scale, with counties that voted 70%+ one way are just colored red or blue) that makes up over a third of the land area of the country shrinks down to a tiny little line shaped sort of like a 7.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymap3070small.png http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycart3070small.png

Hey, here's a question: How come Jeb Bowden Whoever is talking about state secession for the bulk of his little satire, but then winds up saying that naturally they'll need to keep San Diego for fleet access? Why, if the Red States have no holdouts on the pacific, would they have a fleet in the Pacific?

And since when is San Diego a state? If we're playing by those rules, Austin and the few parts of Texas that don't suck get to come with us. As do the predominantly Blue urban areas. Which means the remaining Red suburbs and boondocks will have two possible fulltime occupations in the new world order: 1) growing crops so that they'll have something to trade for the manufactured goods or 2) spending eight hours a day at the customs checkpoints as they try to commute from their Red suburbs to their Blue offices.

Where are the nukes? Red states. Where are most of the soldiers? Red states. What's the President? A red stater.

Actually, a large number of soldiers come out of New York, New Jersey, Pensyvania and California - Blue states.

There is, after all, a reason why California has lost more of it's sons and daughters in Iraq than any other state. Because they contribute more.

That article read like Jesussaves with better spelling and grammar.

The succession of the blue states was a joke. Don't take everything you here as truth, bright guy.

and this one to mitigate the visually misleading effects of montana and such

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycart3070small.png


You know what reminds me of?

A smurf partial-birth abortion.

I loved the article! Let the blue states go!

I see some lib versus conservative, some north versus south, some Christian versus nonChristian, some USA versus Canada, some Us versus Them, some My God Has A Bigger Dick Than Your God. Is this what its about next? "Blue" versus "Red?"

It's pretty bad when modern politics can be easily summed up with the Dr Seuess classic, the [if you can name the title you get a cookie]

One fish
Two Fish
Red Fish
Blue fish?

A persistent rumor here in Texas, and it may just be one of those urban legends, is that since Texas was its own country, when it agreed to become a state in the USA, it alone retained the right to secede if it so desired. I could be wrong on this, however. Keruvalia might know the truth on that one.

1) Texas did secede from from the Union and Joined the Confederacy

2) Texas was on the losing side of the Civil War

3) Don't know if they still retain it or not but I'll take a stab and say not!

One fish
Two Fish
Red Fish
Blue fish?

Shut up man. You don't know the FIRST THING about Two Fish. We'll kick your pathetic and evil one-fish ass!

That also seems to contradict with Maine and West Virginia being states.

Maine? Became a state in 1820 thanks to the Missouri Compromise of 1820!

West Virginia? Split from Virginia because they wanted to stay in the Union. Really became a border state in the Civil War.

This does mean that "Red vs. Blue" is the greatest political satire of our era. If Swift had an Xbox, I'm sure Halo would have been his medium of choice as well. "Master Chief's Travels" would have set Britain aflame.

After reading this, I can assure you, Panhandlia, even VoteEarly is more rooted in reality than this Southern man.

Why are you trying to cast yourself as the Republican version of Skapedroe?

Liberals are talking about the Blue States seceding from the Union. There’s a map on the Internet of the Blue States joining Canada. This is too serious for idle talk from the chattering class.
1. No, they're not.

2. It's a joke made by some internet guy.

3. No, it's not serious.

Criminalizing-Christian speech CanadaCome on, those Christians deserve it. ;)

Besides, truth is, the Capitalist Red economy would expand faster than Blue Socialism.Sorry James, you're a f***ing idiot if you think that Blue States are socialist.

Shut up man. You don't know the FIRST THING about Two Fish. We'll kick your pathetic and evil one-fish ass!

But was I right? Do I get my cookie?

you see, NS for me is just a nice way to get liberals to show their true colors (i.e., their bigotry, their intolerance for dissenting points of view, their belief that only they are right when history keeps showing they're wrong, etc)
Since you're in a partisan mood, care to explain why liberals are bigoted, intolerant, and self-righteous?

I think it's funny how conservatives now refer to themselves as "reds." In fact, I find it hilarious.
Yes! Don't they know that red is the colour of choice for socialist and communist parties worldwide?

John Locke is obsolete. Slavery is obsolete. Just because an idea was good 300 years ago, doesn't make it good today.
The Bible is 2000 years old. Will you accept that its ideas may be obsolete? No? Didn't think so!

But was I right? Do I get my cookie?

Oh, I forgot about that entirely.

Well, no. It was like, the Bread n Butter wars or something like that. The Buttered Toast Wars? Something like that.

You still get a cookie.

As a member of the chattering class, I can vouch for the outright socialism of New York. Why, just ten minutes ago, I was walking down the street and I saw a hot dog cart. So I says, "I'm hungry but I got no money."

The hot dog vendor says, "To each according to need, comrade. You like mustard?"

Then he threw the commie power salute.

Oh, I forgot about that entirely.

Well, no. It was like, the Bread n Butter wars or something like that. The Buttered Toast Wars? Something like that.

You still get a cookie.

I guess I didn't hear about that dr. Seus book because I have most if not all of them.

Thanks for the cookie though :)

As a member of the chattering class, I can vouch for the outright socialism of New York. Why, just ten minutes ago, I was walking down the street and I saw a hot dog cart. So I says, "I'm hungry but I got no money."

The hot dog vendor says, "To each according to need, comrade. You like mustard?"

Then he threw the commie power salute.

*calls up the CIA and the FBI*

:D

Since you're in a partisan mood, care to explain why liberals are bigoted, intolerant, and self-righteous?
Because partisan hackery is a valid debating style [/sarcasm]

I like how they are glad to see the Blue states go. Good luck without California, the economic giant.

Because partisan hackery is a valid debating style [/sarcasm]

BOTH sides do partisan hackery in a debate so maybe it isn't sarcasm after all! :D

I like how they are glad to see the Blue states go. Good luck without California, the economic giant.

We have Texas :D

I guess I didn't hear about that dr. Seus book because I have most if not all of them.

Thanks for the cookie though :)

Ah! Found it.

http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/books/15/0881034215.jpg

Maine? Became a state in 1820 thanks to the Missouri Compromise of 1820!

West Virginia? Split from Virginia because they wanted to stay in the Union. Really became a border state in the Civil War.

I know. I said that later on. What's your point?

Ah! Found it.

http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/books/15/0881034215.jpg

Oh YEA!!! I remember that book now! Geez, how could I have forgotten it!

Thanks :)

I know. I said that later on. What's your point?

I posted it before I saw the response! Geez!!!

Can we all just get along? :fluffle:

A pretty laughable theory. I do think Blue deserves better than a Red country. After all, it was a Red president that forced the whole country into Iraq. But there are just some things that aren't quite right.

The anti-Liberalism is laughable. By someone else's standard, America was founded on the principles of Liberalism (ever wondered why Liberty sounds similar?). And Bush would be a Conservative. And by standards of some West-Europeans, those two are both right-wing borderliners. Simply put: what are you argueing about? Actually, I thought that in the Republican model of 'the states decide for themselves' there would be no need for discussion between Red and Blue. If New York where to allow gay marriage what was Texas gonna do abou it? If all New Yorkers where Texans maybe there would be room for discussion but a fact is: all fifty states are self-governing, represented by one man under one flag. If one man where to control all the states, arguements like these occur where one state doesn't like another's interference 'cause they got the president and they are pushing them around. It's high time these states got some indipendence.

Then, why should Blue bother giving land to Red where their influence is minimal at best? What if they refused? And why are the chances at succes measured so much by military force? Are Reds really just a bunch of Jingoists morons? And what makes you even think Red would have a stronger economy? A fact is: Blue states like New York and California are the most important economic trading areas and many industries lie there as well. I think the only thing Red would get from their independence is poverty. And then this guy assumes Blue will accept to take the state deficit? Firstly: A Red president caused the deficit. Secondly: The Blue would create their own nation which would start from a clean sheet. Unless they join Canada, in which case their future is set. And actually, I think Blue and Canada are perfect for each other anyway.

Ah but who are we kidding? The USA is not breaking up that much for now, which is a shame for I could really do with a little bit of world change right now.

We have Texas :D

Good luck with that.

John Locke is obsolete. Slavery is obsolete. Just because an idea was good 300 years ago, doesn't make it good today.
So the constitution is now a bad idea. Natural law is a bad idea, laissez-faire economics is a bad idea (I still think it is), the magna carta - bad idea, Jesus Christ- bad idea, every major decision made more than 300 years ago is today a bad idea.

The only people I ever see talking about secession are conservatives accusing liberals of wanting to secede.

It's silly.

The only people I ever see talking about secession are conservatives accusing liberals of wanting to secede.

It's silly.

Very silly

Very silly
agreed.



Hooray for useless posts

I had a glance through the archives of this "Atticus" guy. He is a total right-wing extremist. He is also a hateful man.

I had a glance through the archives of this "Atticus" guy. He is a total right-wing extremist. He is also a hateful man.
I also checked the archives and can echo your sentiments. Panhandlia supports this guy, or at least supports his articles?

World War IV Strategy
February 21, 2005
By James Atticus Bowden (http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2771)

WW IV is one Uber Superpower defending against Islamist Totalitarianism. The difference from WW III is the enemy. The great strategic situation is like Rome after the fall of Carthage. The U.S. must worry about internal civil wars and external barbarians beyond the borders of our civilization. Imperial responsibilities without Imperial ambitions should be met with a Centurion Strategy.

Contain Muslims in the Islamic world. Kill Islamists where you find them. Engage Muslims worldwide with ideas about capitalism, democracy and either Christianity or Pagan Human Secularism. The war is over ideas.

Scary huh?

I also checked the archives and can echo your sentiments. Panhandlia supports this guy, or at least supports his articles?

World War IV Strategy
February 21, 2005
By James Atticus Bowden (http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2771)

WW IV is one Uber Superpower defending against Islamist Totalitarianism. The difference from WW III is the enemy. The great strategic situation is like Rome after the fall of Carthage. The U.S. must worry about internal civil wars and external barbarians beyond the borders of our civilization. Imperial responsibilities without Imperial ambitions should be met with a Centurion Strategy.

Contain Muslims in the Islamic world. Kill Islamists where you find them. Engage Muslims worldwide with ideas about capitalism, democracy and either Christianity or Pagan Human Secularism. The war is over ideas.

Scary huh?

Very scary! I agree with you on this one CH!

I say we all move to West Korea!

someone back on one of the first pages said that they would write something as biased, in the other direction, as the original article.

is this what you wanted?


www.fuckthesouth.com

I wrote something on this thread a while ago, amounting to "This article strikes me as if it was written by a goat but I won't tell you why until some indefinite point in the future." Now would be that indefinite point.

So, here we go, paragraph by paragraph:

1. "Liberals are talking about the Blue States seceding from the Union. There’s a map on the Internet of the Blue States joining Canada. This is too serious for idle talk from the chattering class. Secession, if followed by invasion, conquest, occupation and ultimately cultural cleansing, is a terrible thing. Trust me, Southerners know about this. We need to help these Liberal hotheads cool down."
1R. From the get go, this guy isn't very smart. Being one of those liberals who has "discussed" seceding, it was a joke. At the time, reasonably funny too. "Too serious for idle talk?" Where is this guy getting his information? Oh, and if eliminating slavery and attempting to promote equality in society is "cultural cleansing," then I'm all for it.

2. "First, are the root causes worthy of sundering the Great Experiment – Democracy in America? Apparently, the two most important reasons for secession are partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage. The Liberals are kidding, right? They can’t live in a society that bans infanticide – as every state did before the U.S. Supreme Court made up law, science and medicine in 1973. And, Liberals can’t survive where homosexuals can’t marry – as they never have, ever, from the tiniest tribe to the greatest (and most decadent) civilizations - until last year in the Netherlands? Ok, maybe we can’t make an argument against the sanctity of life and marriage just to keep the Liberals from leaving."
2R. Erm, no. Actually, most liberals are motivated by care for other people, and the majority of that manifests itself in economic policy - thus the desire for restribution of wealth. However, speaking as one of those people who can't live in a society where people are denied equal rights, I'll have a go. Infanticide, he's correct, was illegal. And still is today. A person before the law is someone who has already been born, based on sound scientific and moral theory (results of clinical research, theories of autonomy). And if someone makes a "screw the law, it's God that counts" argument - I'll point ot the line above about the importance of democracy - something that becomes moot when we place religion above the law. Rolling with that, I'd like to point to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abrigde the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and since a privilege is a " special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste" (American Heritage Dictionary), I'd say that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. This isn't the place to go into great depth on abortion or gay marriage, so I'll leave it there.

3. "Second, there are serious survival issues of National Defense. The Red States would probably keep the nukes, since the Blue States would find them so environmentally offensive. I reckon the Red States, with 150 to 200 million people, are the same size of the whole U.S. from WW II through most of the Cold War (WW III). We can field large enough Armed Services since the South, Heartland and West are over-represented in today’s ranks. Red forces can keep women well away from combat – it’s a Southern thing about men protecting women and women nurturing families."
3R. Woah there. Nuke command is in Washington DC, the bluest of blue places in this country (90-9 percent for Kerry), so it looks like we've still got control over the nukes - and it's not ones that already exist that are dangerous, it's testing new, unnecessary ones. The rest of this stuff about the military, not very important, as both sides have enough people to take care of themselves. And the thing about protecting women, well, it fits more with the Southern tradition of oppressing groups that threaten traditional power structures than anything else.

4. "Third, will we lose WW IV? Blue States, like France and Germany, may not want to fight the Islamists anywhere we find their snake pits. Red States could lead the Coalition of the Willing, just as they provide the backbone today for U.S. will. Red States will never abandon Israel – it’s an Evangelical Christian thing about loving the Jews. So, fighting the Islamists for centuries appears not to be a problem."
4R. Erm, right now, we don't have the military to invade anywhere else right now. We're having enough trouble in Iraq as is. The best thing to do would be to get other countries to help us out with this whole terrorism thing - and one side's all of a lot better than the other one; namely, the one that doesn't have one of the worst diplomats in American history as its preferred president (Coalition of the Willing. Yes, Britain, 3 dollars from Saudi Arabia, and the Republic of Palau. Great coalition).

5. "But, certainly, there has to be some ruin. If the Blue States secede and join socialist, Criminalizing-Christian speech Canada, then they would be like Canada. That means we could ignore the Blue States totally, not care less about what they say or do, and make money trading with them – like Canada? This secession may not be a bad idea after all. Something must be terrible on the domestic front."

5R. I wouldn't say we'd be like Canada in this sense, given that all of the current US' financial, capitalist centers are in blue states. Enjoy!

6. "First, the Red States could live in a Federal Republic, like the Founders’ intended, with a Constitutionally-limited National Government – and an awesome military. The Blue States couldn’t impose their Liberal rule through a tyrannical judiciary. Today’s Judiciary would be abolished and rebuilt with strict Constitutional constructionist judges."
6R. We are living right now with what the Framers intended - a government whose shape is determined by the will of the people. I'll also remind you that there are 5 conservative judges on the bench and 4 liberal ones; hardly a moveon.org party.

7. "Second, the Red States could control illegal immigration without black-robed priest kings ruling away sovereignty from the bench. Hey, that means the Red States could control which Yankees move south? We could ban too many from contributing to urban sprawl and never, just never, stop telling us how it isn’t like ‘up North’? Our Judeo-Christian and Confederate heritage could be respected as history. End PC multiculturalism? Yi, Yi!"
7R. The judge stuff was above, and I also don't know how the North is to blame for problems in Southern cities. Furthermore, "PC multiculturalism" often is actually understanding where other people in this country come from and how the rest of the world functions, essentially teaching us what other people are like and how to interact successfully with them. I'd say that's a good thing.


8. "Third, the Blue States are ‘donor’ states to the Red in taxes that go into Federal programs. The Red States would have to live with fewer Federal programs, lower taxes and less Federal regulation. Possibly, the Red State governments would be poorer but individuals would be freer. Is that a bad thing? Every Southerner is descended from people who were dirt poor, values rich, and heroically strong after that last unpleasant attempt at secession. There are far worse things than being poor. Besides, truth is, the Capitalist Red economy would expand faster than Blue Socialism."
8R. I addressed the economic issue before. Oh, and not every Southerner was poor after the Civil War - I'm referring to the "Bourbon" caste.

9. "There has to be reason to beg the Blue States to stay. Surely, there’s something.

Hmmm, we will never be ruled by Hillary…makes you wonder.

Okay, just let the Blue States go. We can work out the borders. Big Red will need a corridor across California to San Diego for our Pacific port and fleet. Blue gets Washington, DC. Red gets the Pentagon. Maybe Arlington Cemetery will be an international zone, but Red will guard it. Blue gets the United Nations headquarters and debt. How about a coin toss for the name - United States of America - and for Old Glory as the flag? If Red loses, I know a design we can use with the Cross of St. Andrew."
9R. Given that last reference, I don't think there's going to be a coin toss about who gets what name.

This thread ---> :rolleyes:

Fuck the South. Fuck 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah, those are states we want to keep.

And now what do we get? We're the fucking Arrogant Northeast Liberal Elite? How about this for arrogant: the South is the Real America? The Authentic America. Really?

Cause we fucking founded this country, assholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about? All that bullshit about what you think they meant by the Second Amendment giving you the right to keep your assault weapons in the glove compartment because you didn't bother to read the first half of the fucking sentence? Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were? They were fucking blue-staters, dickhead. Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the fucking monuments are up here in our backyard?

No, No. Get the fuck out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell and fucking Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your real American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who do you think those fucking stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for fucking blue states. And it would be 10 if those Vermonters had gotten their fucking Subarus together and broken off from New York a little earlier. Get it? We started this shit, so don't get all uppity about how real you are you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh I've been a state for almost a hundred years" dickheads. Fuck off.

Arrogant? You wanna talk about us Northeasterners being fucking arrogant? What's more American than arrogance? Hmmm? Maybe horsies? I don't think so. Arrogance is the fucking cornerstone of what it means to be American. And I wouldn't be so fucking arrogant if I wasn't paying for your fucking bridges, bitch.

All those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your fucking Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a fucking swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it’s a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fucking orange juice.

The next dickwad who says, "It’s your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get the most federal fucking dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go on, guess. That’s right, motherfucker, they're red states. And eight of the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? It’s too easy, asshole, they’re blue states. It’s not your money, assholes, it’s fucking our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy your own fucking stop signs, assholes.

Let’s talk about those values for a fucking minute. You and your Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values over you fucking Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? It’s fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that’s right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think that’s just some aberration? How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states, asshole, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to fucking guess? 10 of the top 10 are fucking red-ass we're-so-fucking-moral states. And while Nevada is the worst, the Bible Belt is doing its fucking part.

But two guys making out is going to fucking ruin marriage for you? Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you little bastards. Oh, but that's ok because you go to church, right? I mean you do, right? Cause we fucking get to hear about it every goddamn year at election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday morning and sing, and then you're fucking towers of moral superiority. Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us fucking Northerners don't talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning, hmmm? Ever think of that, you self-righteous assholes? No, you're too busy erecting giant stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in buildings paid for by the fucking Northeast Liberal Elite. And who has the highest murder rates in the nation? It ain't us up here in the North, assholes.

Well this gravy train is fucking over. Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bullshit and shove it up your ass.

And no, you can't have your fucking convention in New York next time. Fuck off.


if you would like to see the sources for various bits of information, go here: www.fuckthesouth.com and look for what you were curoius to know about.

Rant somewhere else.

EDIT: I'll buy you a plane ticket to Atlanta, and I will personally kick your ass.

Rant somewhere else.

EDIT: I'll buy you a plane ticket to Atlanta, and I will personally kick your ass.

Screw that! I'm from the North and I want to kick his ass! LOL

Hahaha....who wouldn't want to tear apart a bigot like that?

Hahaha....who wouldn't want to tear apart a bigot like that?

Another Bigot? :D

As for the South, yea they seceded but then they went and spoiled it by firing on Fort Sumter. From then on it was war. If they hadn't had fired, the History could've been very different.

As for Blue states, your drawing a line in a sand. There really isn't red or blue states according to half the maps I've seen.

Once the Southern states seceded, there was no way out of war. Whether at Ft. Sumter or somewhere else, a war was going to develop.

-snip-
Heh, the South is suddenly looking quite appealing right about now.... seriously, that conservative dude did bring up some good points.

i am rather unhappy about the fact that i had to sink to his level, but i feel that it was the only way i could make the original poster know that stupidity and complete lack of understanding go both ways.


if bigotry is all he understands, that's the only way i'm going to be able to get through to him that he is on the same level as everyone else

Very scary! I agree with you on this one CH!
Oh no!! Is there a blue moon? Maybe it is the full moon? Maybe there is hope for us yet? :cool:

Good Americans must rise up and put an end to the international scourge of Red State Terrorism

Good Americans must rise up and put an end to the international scourge of Red State Terrorism

Not going to happen. They know what happened the last time there was a secession. We'll make sure that type of bloodshed doesn't happen again.

Oh no!! Is there a blue moon? Maybe it is the full moon? Maybe there is hope for us yet? :cool:

There could be hope yet CH! I guess this proves there IS a God after :cool: :)

Good Americans must rise up and put an end to the international scourge of Red State Terrorism
Wow, that is just screaming of 1984 totalitarianism

Wow, that is just screaming of 1984 totalitarianism
I'm still all for telling those jingoist, right-wing "Christians" to shove a sock in it