Dear Red States:

We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly:

You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely, Author Unknown in New California.

sorry pal, you can have the twin cities, but the rest of Minnesota will stand against you.  We'll take the 99% of the water, 75% of the golf courses, you can have "Little Frisco", the metrodome, Randy Moss's "Posse" that he ditched and his used jock straps & crack pipes.  We'll take the Mississippi, Lake Superior, the Boundry Waters and you can have Loring Park.

Oh, and you can have all of the pot, you will need it.

Isn't this Red vs Blue thing getting a little old???

LOSE!!!

-- Modified on 6/28/2005 11:13:28 PM

How about a real response to the Wankers post? Or is it just too painful to acknowledge the validity of the statement?
Oh wait, never mind, I forgot. When the truth is at hand, distraction and obfuscation shall make it "right".

Thank you very much for coming, good night.

You are both smoking more than pot, if you think the Clintons don't deserve as much bashing as W does!

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Let's look county by county, and see how much you get to keep!

-- Modified on 6/28/2005 10:33:54 PM

Nice map. BTW, most of those red counties in the West and Midwest have a lot more farm animals than they do voters.  Here's some perspective on your map:  the 45 Democrats in the Senate represent more Americans than the 55 Republicans.

How People Have Scored (out of 4,623,524)
----------------------
Centrist 30.12 %
----------------------
Right (Conservative) 7.49 %
----------------------
Libertarian 34.89 %
----------------------
Left (Liberal) 18.86 %
----------------------
Statist (Big Government) 8.63 %

From the looks of your map, it seems the primary heavily populated areas tend to go Blue, while the thinly (or empty) populated areas go Red. Nonetheless, your effort is completely out of context.

How about just responding to the Wankers original post instead of more obfuscation and misdirection and attempting to change the subject?

You infer a valid response is unwarranted. I say to you your original response was a blatant attempt at deferring the focus from the original post to mask your unwillingness to acknowledge the realities in Wank's comments. Despite the best efforts of the conservative/GOP/right wing hatemongers, you couldn't destroy the publics adulation and approval of Bill Clinton. He left office with close to a 70% approval rating. You had your chance for eight years, and failed miserably.

What's next? More pointless Clinton bashing? Some boilerplate right wing hate machine propaganda? Or maybe just a personal attack directed at this aging Hippie Hobbyist?

BTW - According to the quiz, I'm a  Libertarian. What-ever.

-- Modified on 6/29/2005 9:46:16 AM

Yes, Bush won in landslide if electoral votes were measured in square mileage won....

It's important to remember that one little blue dot in southern CA. has more people than 12 entire red states....Final popular vote count was 51-48%, which is far closer than the map projects from first glance...

-- Modified on 6/29/2005 1:21:22 PM

...at least in some parts of the United States.

Seriously, life is pretty hard lately on both urban conservatives and rural liberals.  And don't think that rural liberals will appreciate it if they are expected to become refugees in Haight and Ashbury.

If California secedes, water and electricity WILL be cut off by surrounding states.  And that's not including the balkanization of California itself, where northern California, southern California, and eastern California would be at odds with each other.  Not all slave states seceded; it's unlikely that most blue states would follow California.  Maybe New England.  Maybe Hawaii.  But Oregon and Washington won't, and New York (or at least upstate New York) won't either.  California would be alone in the West, and divided with itself as well.

California or "blue state" secession would play into the hands of the worst of the worst conservative Republicans, and such sentiments alone make it all the more difficult to defeat the machine of Karl Rove.

I don't have time to enter this fray at the moment, however I would like to interject one point to all you partisans on both sides of the aisle. "Hillary bashing" is not neccessarily the same as "Clinton bashing"

I have nothing against Bill Clinton (he lied about a blow job BFD). Hillary, on the other hand is the eptome of what's wrong with the left, I won't list the reasons, either you already agree with me or I'll never be able to convince you anyhow.

Just my $.02 You partisans can go back to bashing each other now.

You think you'll have all that tasty food. Here's the real story.

Total Acres planted and harveted.
Red States = 229,416,000 Acres
Blue States = 77,629,000 Acres

Remember now. Your'e 48% of the population. Let's see how long you last eating fruit, nuts, avacados and artichokes.

Source: Crop Production 2003 Summary: Released January 12, 2004, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Eighty-five percent of all venture capital. I think not.

From Forbes 2004 richest 400 Americans:
Blue States:
253 people worth 579,055 billion.
Or 58.6% of the total (Not "quite" close to 85%), but only 2,289 billion per person on average.

Red States:
136 people worth 409,220 billion.
Or 41.4% of the total, but 3,009 billion per person on average. That's 31% more productive, more entrepenurial, or (oops) more lucky in your terms.

Note: It doesn't add up to 400 people because I left out the 11 weenies that live outside the country. They are probably "blue" staters but we can't count them.

The formation of life on Earth by pure evolution.....

IS A THEORY.

Even most Red Staters believe in evolution. You just can't come close to proving that it created life.

why can't you win an election?

Well, that speaks for itself

that proves you have absolutely no idea what a scientific theory means. For your information, gravity is a scientific theory as well. Since you do not appear to put much stock in theories, I expect to see you floating off into space some time soon.

Gravity is not a theory. Gravitational, weak, electromagnetic and strong forces all exist. They are forces that are measureable, "provable" and quntifiable. The exact source of the gravitational force or whether it is simply a curvature of space is not yet 100% known and agreed upon by the community of physicists.

There is no conclusive proof that evolution "created" life. There are many many "jumps" in species and geni that evolution cannot explain. I am not denying that evolution exists, but due to a lack of evidance it remains a theory.

Evolution is in no way an explantion of how life was created. Thus you are arguing aginst something that is a wrong assumption by you.

Evolution is about the origin of SPeCIES, not life.

that evolution does not describe how life was created, but....
just as there are "pure" creationists that don't want to hear anything of evolution, there are also "pure" evolutionists that don't want to hear anything of creationism.

The pure evolutionist believes that that evolution can describe EVERYTHING about how life began, and how all species began.

My personal "beliefs" involve a combination of the two. There is certainly an abundance of evidence that shows/proves species evolving, even into new species. But there is still a huge amount of both missing evidence, and more important, contradictory evidence in certain "jumps" or "rather instananeous in perspective of normal evolutionary time frames".

That is why in intellectually honest scientific circles it is still called a theory. It can't explain many many things, but that not imply that it is not real.

There are many many religious people, evangelical included, that "believe" in evolution. They also recognize its limitations.

Evolutionists do not address in any manner the origin of life.  And neither do so called pure evolutionists.  Actually I have never heard of that word.


The gaps in the fossil record you mention does not contradict the principle of evolution. A fossile record of EVERY intermediate species is not needed to prove that adapation is the mechanism for evolution.  Wether it entails gradualism or punctuated equilibirum is moot.

Evolution is properly referred to as a principle just like Gravity is. You no longer refer to Gravity as a theory.

I said that some of the evoluitonary evidence was contrdictory.

Post a couple of evolutionary pieces of evidence that are contradictory.

religion makes people jump through intellectual hoops to keep hold of there arcane beliefs.