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 we 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, Berkeley, 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, Oral Roberts 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 than 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.
>
>
>
>

stop posting the same shit over & over again, then maybe we'll give you some respect.

Probably not, though.

-- Modified on 7/6/2005 10:56:18 AM

because as soon as the left leaning states were to get together and vote Ted Kennedy as their President (or Hillary), they would immdeiately raise corporate taxes, banish the death penalty and outlaw guns. They would also institute much higher environmental requirements for energy producers.

Shortly thereafter, all the high achievers and corporations would leave the Blue Union fleeing tax opression. Your economy would soon collapse. You would be left with the welfare recipients and illegal aliens who would reside there instead of the Red states becuase you reward their kind of behavior, as well as the die hard left who would still be wondering what the hell went wrong.

You would have massive unemployment because all of the corporations had left and would have massive energy shortages because the "greens" would have put massive restrictions on any type of energy production.

Your crime rate would soar since criminals would be the only ones who had guns, and knew they could count on a liberal jury to "understand their plight" after they kicked this S**t out of your grandmother.

The biggest problem would truly come when you came crawling back to the Red States begging to be let back in. By this time the high achievers will have come to love their low tax burdens and freedom from government interference. My guess is the red states would say no, and we would wind up with a large flow of illegal immagrants from the Blue States sneaking into the Red States to seek work. So instead of Hispanics standing on the corner hoping to be picked up for day labor, it will be a bunch of guys and gals in Birkenstocks.

Pretty cool, I could have a Kenndy doing my lawn!!

California should be ticked off at the way they've treated themselves. Pseudo socialism at it's worst

History does repeat itself..

BK

because after we left we would take our great military, invade the red states and make them our bitches.

-- Modified on 7/7/2005 3:23:44 PM

and the Red (grey or south)states. got beat like a red headed step child.

Yeah you got the cotton and lots of churches. but that doesn't hold up to intelligence and industry.

I think this time though if you lose another civil war reconstruction may be a little tougher on the Red states.

But me once, shame on you, butn me twice shame on you.

Norad and most of the Nuclear silos are in the midwest, seems the Red states would get all the nukes.

Besides, with Hillary as your President, do you think the military would go with the Blue states. Gee, I seem to remember her husband writing something about "loathe the military"..

Also, my guess is they would like the opportunity to vote, gee,  which party was it that tried to throw out military ballots? Oh yeah, now I remember...

One other point, last time I checked I believe the military vote breaks 80%+ to the Republican side.

Well, perhaps you could use the Boy Scouts. OH WAIT, you don't have a very good track record with them either...

Guess you're screwed  

The link is clearly there. Robert Reuben, a one time secretary of the treasury and obvious Bush Buddy, came to the Bush administration to plea on behalf of Enron to prevent a criminal investigation into the financial mess and like a true friend, Bush refused to intervene on their behalf.  I think I smell conspiracy!  Oh wait, Ruben was treasury secretary under which administration.... hmmmmm.  Oh well, it still must be a conspiracy anyway.

Reear Red States: ...

Actually, you will have all the blighted urban areas that account for your voter base.  By the time you tax your way to prosperity, all industries will have moved to the Red States.  If we factor out the voter fraud, you will lose a number of the states that you claim.  Once you bankrupt your populace and they see the opportunity from the Red States, they will realize that America's greatness does not lie in a government program, but rather the entrepreneurial spirit and risk takers in our culture.  They will naturally move to the Red States and within 10 years, you will be back to the Red states with your hands out.  No great society in history has ever taxed their way to prosperity.  
 As for the losses in Iraq, to put them in perspective, the insurgencies in Chicago(598) ,LA (515), and New York(597) alone resulted in over 1,500 murders a year. 16,000 people murdered in the United States per year.  Perhaps we should stop throwing money away on fighting that insurgency and pull out of Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Time for some accountability, how much money has been spent on the war on poverty (hint: The cost estimate for the great society programs was estimated to be $17billion to wipe out poverty when the programs were proposed back in the 60s) and demographically, the population looks no different than it did before the war.  Time to admit the mistakes and set a timetable for withdrawal.

but either way we would pull our boys out of Iraq and yours would be stuck way over there.

Second, the hayseeds would not be able to figure out how to fire a nuke.

And third, we would not use Boy Scouts, that is what Republicans and Catholic priests do.

Witless's first official act was to punish California for voting for Gore, by  23 points. He gave Enron, duke Power, etc free rein over the electricity markets causing the state to go several billion dollars in debt when Enron and pals manipulated the markets.

Comparing Repubicans to child molesters, what a class act you are.

I find it funny that the left tries to paint the right as mean spirited, but when it comes right down to it, it is the left that has to resort to this type of crap. Get into a heated debate, and the left soon drops any type of logic and talks about how mean spirited the right is or just results to calling the right names (how childish).

The really sad part is this whole thread isn't even a serious dabate, and you still feel like you have to get in the gutter.

Grow up...

run dry (should take a month), then have the Red States soldiers change sides for a decent meal.

The blue states would do just marvelously.  New York and California's economy seem to do just fine under what you purporte to be socialism, and no, I don't think it's the Red States keeping them from insanity: quite the opposite.  

I might coachmeister's post funny, if I didn't think it might really happen within 20 years.  These regionalized cultural differences are not going away, especially if the culture war continues to heat up.  

And the ironic thing is, you're posting on a board that most red states governments would shut down.  

-- Modified on 7/9/2005 9:59:07 AM

We would pay better because we would not be pissing all of our money away on Social programs for folks too lazy to help themselves.

If you haven't noticed, the one thing conservatives DO like the government to fund is the military, whereas the ONLY thing the liberals do not like to fund is the military.

Besides, I do not believe the military will so easily forgive the left's attempts to throw out their ballots...

for the Republicans, it is the religious right. I have never understood how many on the right want to legislate morality. One look at Islamic hard liners shows how well that works.

I'm more of a Libertarian myself.

On the other hand, the left has Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Hillary and others who HATE GWB so much they are pretty much blinded by it. They put partisan politics before the good of the country, and worry about detainee right who have no protection unbder the geneva convention. They automatically assume that anyone who is successful cheated to get where they are, and are all for minority rights, except if that minority happens to be conservative.

But rest easy. We are in no danger of breaking apart. The squeaky wheel always gets the most grease and that is why these are the voices you always hear. Most Americans are busy just trying to live their lives and realize thet 95% of all of this static is just BS. Just mention this as a real idea and you would get drummed out of town.

Or are you just going to blame all the liberal minded progressives who want to see fewer guns manufactuered and distributed in the US?
Before you and your fellow cogs in the right wing hate machine start railing on me, bear in mind I strongly support the Second Amendment. I do not, however, support the unrestricted use, manufacture, and sale of mass murder assault weapons for public consumption, and I FULLY support registration of any and all firearm sales.
Meanwhile, if George Warmonger Bush can spend $220 BILLION dollars to fight a war in Iraq that is draining the US of people and dollars, why the fuck can't he spend 10% of that amount at home where it might be put to some better use than lining the pockets of his cronies? It takes only 4 months to throw away $17 billion in Iraq. Less if you include all the unaccounted for monies illegally finding their way into the pockets of preferred subcontractors fleecing the American people.
Your statement about demographics is quite erroneous by the way. The demographics of the population of all three cities cited by you have changed dramatically since the original war on poverty programs were established. And its not just due to the mass immigration from south of the border either. As more and more of our hard earned tax dollars arer being illegitimately siphoned off by the government... of which the democrats have been just as guilty as the republicans, this leaves less and less for the cities to maintain and improve infrastructure. Among other things.
But I'll wait for you to sling some of that right wing detritus before I continue any further. I suspect some of the talking point shills are chomping at the bit to make some distracting personal insults to defray the dialog away from the issues at hand.

in order to make their points. You would think that if they really believed their own BS they would come up with honest arguments. Regarding your bogus "insurgency" numbers, why don't you throw in the fact that the 1,700+ soldiers killed in Iraq are out of a total of 140,000. While the murder rates in large cities are terrible, I believe we would need to have roughly 3,000,000 murders a year in the U.S. to have the equivalent death rate.

once you get them down, you can do almost anythig with them

The mathematical trick you point out reminds me of one I see in Washington all the time pulled by the Dems.

Example: The Budget for a program is 30M, and budgeted to go to 40M next year. In order to try to cut deficit spending, the Republicans decide to raise it to 35M instead of 40M. Here come the Dems, swearing the spending for the Program has been cut. Pretty neat huh!!!

The real point of the numbers is that this is a WAR.  The anti-war zealots are throwing around casualty numbers as proof that it is going badly. If you are being intellectually honest, you need to seriously look at these numbers versus other wars that we have fought.  It would seem that many on the left want it both ways, on one hand they want to confer Geneva Convention protections to terrorists who are expressly not covered by the Geneva convention's definition of a combatant when it suits their purpose. In the next breath, they want the same legal due process for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay even though it would be a radical departure from past practice for POWs or terrorists.  The left criticizes the conduct of Operation Iraqi freedom and yet, has offered no alternatives.  For anyone on the left who thinks that I have this wrong, please enlighten me on the alternative plan.  Perhaps it is just not getting coverage in the media as it should.  But if you propose pulling out of Iraq and cutting losses, at least answer the follow on second and third effects of such a policy.  For example, how should potential enemies of the United States view such a policy decision. Is it likely that they will interpret the message that the United States has not got the fortitude to engage in a protracted war?"  If so, what are the implications for future conflicts.
   The reality is that this war is going well.  The Iraqis are building a representative republic and it is gaining support, even among the Sunnis.  The insurgent attacks which have been at a higher pace have been increasingly foreign terrorists rather than Sunni Iraqis.  That is a good thing as it will serve to drive a wedge between the local population and the terrorists (note I did not refer to them as insurgents as that indicates indiginous Iraqi resistance).
     It is a sad conclusion that either the majority of the left winganti-war "leaders" in this country either do not understand the scope and depth of this new type of enemy, or, they are putting their own power ahead of US National interests. The combination of their positions on the various issues involving the war on Terror lead to one of the two conclusions. Both are equally dangerous.

None of what I said was a lie.  If the arguments that conservatives are merely lies and hate speech, then why has the Democratic party lost the majority in both houses of Congress nationally and been on the losing ground in the last several elections.  Also, why has the democratic side been engaged in widespread voter fraud (see Ohio and Wisconsin as recent examples).  The reality is that many of the Democratic party faithful are not as liberal as the party has become.  That is why you will see liberal candidates running as "moderates" or conservatives counter to their voting records because they are so far left of the mainstream, they could never get elected if they ran on what they truly believe.

there is roughly a 3% annual inflation rate as well as a rise in population that effects the price of programs as well as other factors. The Budget Office generally tries to project how much it would cost to keep existing benefits into the future, so yeah, anything less than promised is a cut. Try living on your salary from 5 years ago and tell me if everything is still the same.

A vastly disproportionate share of them come from the Red States.

someone who's world view does not mesh with reality. You say that these prisoners are terrorists--if that were the case why have so many (and more soon) being released with no fanfare back to their home countries after 2 to 3 years captivity and a little torture?

Your point about providing an alternative to the Iraq War is specious at best. First of all the Dems have no power, especially regarding foriegn policy, so laying out a plan that will be ignored is a waste of time. Secondly, Iraq was no threat, had no WMD and no link to 9/11 and had less ties to Al Qaeda than Buffalo, N.Y. We should not have gone in there in the first place. Why should we trust the guy who screwed it up in the first place to fix it--especially since he will not acknowledge any mistakes to date? Now all that being said, the alternative is simple. Abandon the permanent bases that we are building there, call in the U.N. and declare that we have no claims to Iraq and insert a multi-National force to provide security.

Finally, what the current mess has signaled to the world is that we are not as strong as we projected ourselves to be. Unless we are going to blow a country back to the Stone Age, we have very few military choices. And considering our dependance on those oil-rich nations, bombing them back to the Stone Age is not an option. Other countries have learned that our leaders will lie, will disregard the Geneva Conventions and will sell them out at the drop of a hat.

Now before you say anything, be aware that there is already another leaked British memo out there outlining the U.S.'s plan to pull out next year, so leave yourself a little wiggle room for when Bush does a 180 on you.

Also I will repeat something because it bears repeating to the Hannity clones out there--IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

original post.  You're talking as though it's the Red States that are talking of secession.  You're just mad because now we run the country.  Y'all.

I'll look forward to your reviews on those Boy Scouts.

just wanted to point out your weakness at the art of exchanging ideas. Just suprised you made it soo easy.

Shouldn't be suprised though, pretty much par for the course from the left, more, how does the left put it, OH YEAH, "hate" speach

Reality?  Which is it then, are they armed combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention? or are they terrorists?  If they are armed combatants covered by the Geneva convention, it is quite permissible to intern them for the duration of hostilities.  Unfortunatley, that means that they do not need to be tried in a civilian court as no charges need be filed.
 On the other hand, if, they are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they are guerrilla fighters or terrorists, they are entitled to no protection under the provisions of the Geneva Convention.  IF they are Taliban regular soldiers, they have those protections, if they are the Al Qaeda terrorists (and I am assuming that in your reality, you DO Consider Al Qaeda terrorists, if not, then I guess I am just not in touch) they have no protections under the Geneva Convention. I would submit to you that one  of the key points in the convention is that combatants must abide by the laws of war, not a strong point for either the Taliban or Al Qaeda. They can be tried by military tribunal.  In any case, the argument from the left that they are being held illegally and are entitled to "due process" to face charges is ludicrous and a specious argument at best.
  As for your contention that "we have shown the world that we are not as strong as we used to be..."  I concur only in that the will of the left in this country is what is weak.  To presume that "blowing a country back to the stone age" is the only course of military action is really superficial and frankly not in touch with any reality.  Try reading a little history of any counterinsurgency operation that has been successful and it demands time, patience and a level of restraint.  It also requires action against outside supporters of insurgencies to cut external support.  
 To your point about the "Other countries have learned that our leaders will lie, will disregard the Geneva Conventions and will sell them out at the drop of a hat."   If that is your reality, you are truly foolish.  France, with about as much horse power in international relations as West Virginia (no disrespect to West Virginia intended), Germany, and Russia all were on the take in that little UN "Oil for Food program" scandal. They blocked US efforts to remove Hussain through the United Nations.  It is not unreasonable to conclude that it is their devious and corrupt activity that resulted in the necessity of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  It is beyond rational that you would put the trust in the United Nations for this operation.  The second fallacy  in your argument is that you believe that the US should be replaced by a multinational force under the United Nations. How many troops do you think France, Germany, Russia would send to Iraq?  The reality is that the muscle behind the UN is the United States. It always has been, and probably always will be.
You seem to confuse acting in our own national interests and "selling out" as you call it.  Ironic choice of terminology when you look at the money trail from Saddam to key politicians in France, Germany, and Russia.  It is far more mature to realize that our interests are not necessarily the same as our European "some time" allies.  We need to act accordingly.   France is trying to become the leader of the European Union and set itself up as a counterweight to the US.  Their current foreign policy is more that of a rival, not an ally.  The Russians have much in common with the US in terms of interest, however, they had the largest investment in supporting Iraq.  The Germans currently have a largely anti-US socialist government.  The only permanent bases we should abandon are the ones in Germany as we are no longer needed.

I frankly am happy that you hold the view that you do.  It is exactly that mentality that has cost the Democratic party (in reality the American Socialist Party) to lose recent elections.  Until reality steps in, you will remain outside of the American mainstream.

hoping that you would notice it, but unfortunately that was foolish on my part. First of all, I suppose that you will be protesting all of the "terrorists" that the Bush Administration is releasing without charge. Second, this is Bush's & the Republicans war--the Dems were not and are not in power so passing the buck on this one is not going to fly. Third, U.S. corporations were deeply involved in the Oil For Food Program morass--so yes, we steal money too. Fourth, Iraq was no threat to the United States. Bush & Condi & Colin Powell said so prior to taking office. I guess they were asleep at the wheel on Iraq like they were against Al Qaeda during those leisurely 9 months prior to 9/11. Finally, I am currently in the majority in this country of people who believe that Chimpy screwed up and we should not have invaded in the first place. So you are the extremist now.

Since you have called me a Socialist, I can return the favor and assume that the main reason you appear to have problems with the Germans is because they are not Nazis anymore.

since this tactic is used for all budget concerns, not just COLA adjustments.

Main reason I can't be Republican: I don't think you can.  I think people like me have a better chance of controlling the demons you name.  

As for getting "drummed out of town," yes, for now, it's just on the internet and taboo in person.  The grumbling is mostly through comedy.   But it's on people's minds.

Well now.  Guess I struck a nerve huh? If you support a tax code that takes from those according to their means and gives to those according to their needs, I guess you are right, I would call that socialism.  

This war is not limited in scope to Osama Bin Laden.  If you think it should be, you will never win and will only be reacting to attack after attack.  
  Take your shots at the Bush administration but if you are honest you will also acknowledge that 256 days into his administration, his first budget was not in effect, his administration was hamstrung by policies of his predecessor, specifically rules prohibiting the sharing of information between the CIA and the FBI.  Human intelligence budgets and policies that have been detrimental to our ability to identify and preempt these threats go all the way back to Frank Church's day.  That is not buck passing, that is a statement of fact.  
  I note that you did not engage any of the points regarding the Geneva Convention because when emotion is taken out of the equation, your arguments lack any substance.  Same goes for your proposal for Iraq. That is not passing a buck, it is merely an intellectually honest response to your criticisms.  Remember though, that if it is all Bush's fault, it will also be to his credit.  
   As for the memo leaked, why would that surprise you and why would you presume that it vindicates your point.  To the contrary, in a majority of the country, there is a relatively small amount of terrorist activity.  The Sunni triangle around Baghdad, Fallujah, and Tikrit are the most active terrorist areas.  It is right to remove troops that are not needed from the area.  That will only subvert public support for the terrorists as the US plays a smaller role.  As the Iraqi Security forces grow in number, strength and training, the US will increasingly play a much smaller role. But that timetable should not be dictated by the aging baby boomers on the left who are recapturing their "Viet Nam protester" glory days. Good military judgement and the Iraqi government will determine when our help is no longer needed.

As for the Oil for Food program, you say American Corporations were on the take on that, interesting assertion, but tell me which corporations and which politicians are in the audit trail of the pay offs?  I must have missed that in the papers.  Now before you go off on a tangent and start with the "Cheney's Halliburton has been the no bid contractor in Iraq and it is a vast right wing conspiracy" spiel, consider who won the contracts during the Clinton administration for Bosnia. You guessed it. Halliburton. Why?  Because they are the only ones who can handle a project on that scale.  They have no competitors.  
  As for your being in the mainstream, lets see what happens during the next election cycle. To date, your claim of being in the mainstream has not been the case. In fact, your positions and those from the socialist wing of the Democratic party only demonstrate that you are quite willing to put the Democratic goal of re-attaing power ahead of national security and US National interests.  Your opposition are strangely reminiscent of the opposition to the deployment of Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces in Europe in the early 1980s.  Your side was wrong then, and it is now.