Thread: Should Blue States Join Canada?

Originally Posted by donnie

sorry i dont see how your going to get 49% of michigan to secede, but you can take the counties of each state that voted for kerry, if you did you would DRAMATICALY drop the crime rate in the US do you know that the top 25 most dangerous city in the US all voted for kerry? and only 3 of the safest top 10 voted for kerry. wonder what it means?

I don't see the relevence of crime rate in the current context, we are tralking about whar makes a state a blue state and the answer is if majority of the people vote Demcrat then the state is a blue state.
In absense of any set standard for secession I will have to go by a majority rule, does not matter how slim the majority is.

wrong answer #1

"knowing what we know now," would he have voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq.

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority," said Kerry. "I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Kerry's speech to the Democratic Leadership Council on July 29, 2002. "I agree completely with this administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq," Kerry says. He calls Saddam a "renegade" who has betrayed the terms of his 1991 cease-fire.

kerry agreed with the war, just not its implementation..

All the quotes your are referring to precede the most recent one which was "Iraq war was wrong war at the wrong time"

wrong answer #2

i specificaly said that kerry believed abortion was wrong, prove i am wrong, dont just say i am.

"It's a tragic day in the lives of everybody when abortion is looked on as an alternative to birth control or as an alternative to having a child. I think that's wrong," Kerry declared in the interview.

In fact, Kerry went so far as to say he is "opposed to abortion" because it makes "common sense" to do so.

"I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide," he commented.

again they disagree on delivery, but not the concept.

So you have been wrong on two counts so far

I think you did not pay attention to what I wrote. I wrote despite his personal belief his position was pro-choice in policy sense. He did not believe in imposing his personal catholic view on others. This was the main reason Catholic bishop had asked catholics to not vote for Kerry. Maybe the reason he lost the election.

Bush on the other hand is anti-choice person.

but you didnt, and you still said i was wrong, i wasnt, if you would like to correct yourself, i wont stop you.

I said you were wrong on the first two counts and I gave my reasons for that, mainly that Bush never said that it was wrong war at the wrong time and Kerry did. Also Bush is personally a anti-choice person, but Kerry supports Democratic party party pro-choice stand.

Woman's right to choose is a bedrock principle of Democratic party, Republican party stand is anti-choice.

nope i disagree, sorry but i think that the majority of america lies just left and just right of center, with a comparitivly few religious zealots on the right, and special interest groups on the left.

Actually the division is more like 33% on right, 33% in the middle and 33% on left.

Originally Posted by donnie

no they dont

Then you are not aware of the two refrendums Quebec had for seceding, both failed. But the second one was very cose. Criteria was majority of votes.

Blue states buzz over secession


By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Secession, which didn't work very well when it was tried once before, is suddenly red hot in the blue states. In certain precincts, anyway.
One popular map circulating on the Internet shows the 19 blue states won by Sen. John Kerry — Washington, Oregon, California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Maryland and the Northeastern states — conjoined with Canada to form the "United States of Canada." The 31 red states carried by Mr. Bush are depicted as a separate nation dubbed "Jesusland."

The idea isn't just a joke; one top Democrat says, "The segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government."
"Some would say, 'Oh, poor Alabama. It's cut off from the wealth infusion that it gets from New York and California,' " said Lawrence O'Donnell, a veteran Democratic insider and now senior political analyst at MSNBC. "But the more this political condition goes on at the presidential level of the red and blue states, the more you're testing the inclination of the blue states to say, 'So what?' "
Mr. O'Donnell raised the subject of secession on "The McLaughlin Group" during the weekend. "Ninety percent of the red states are welfare-client states of the federal government," said Mr. O'Donnell, who was an aide to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat.
In a telephone interview, Mr. O'Donnell said the red states that went to Mr. Bush "collect more from the federal government than they send in. New York and California, Connecticut — the states that are blue are all the states that are paying for the bulk of everything this government does, from ... Social Security to everything else, and the people in those states don't like what this government is doing."
The Internet has exploded with talk of a blue-state confederacy, including one screed circulating by e-mail that features a map of a new country called "American Coastopia" and proposes lopping off the Northeast, the West Coast and the upper Midwest to form a new country, away from the "rednecks in Oklahoma" and the "homophobic knuckle-draggers in Wyoming."
"We were all going to move to various other countries, but then we thought — why should WE move?" the anonymous message asks. "We hold our noses as we fly over you. We are sickened by the way you treat people that are different from you. The rest of the world despises America, and we don't want to be lumped in with you anymore."
The secession movement has already spawned commercial opportunism. One Web site is selling T-shirts that read "I seceded."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2753-5113r.htm

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

Then you are not aware of the two refrendums Quebec had for for seceding, both failed. But the second one was very cose. Criteria was majority of votes.

Just so that we're clear. In both cases, the referendum was provincial, not federal. That is, it was not binding on Ottawa and has no legal standing within Confederation. All the referendum would do is to give La Ville de Quebec the right to start negotiation. In other words, it is far from certain that Quebec would have gotten its sovergnity association.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

All the quotes your are referring to precede the most recent one which was "Iraq war was wrong war at the wrong time"

a flip-flop then? sorry, but he would have gone to war, he said so, your saying that now that the war is this far into it he wouldnt have gone? BULL.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

I think you did not pay attention to what I wrote. I wrote despite his personal belief his position was pro-choice in policy sense.

no you didnt pay attention to what i wrote, i said kerry was against abortion, you said i was wrong, im not. you can put his personal beliefs aside but i didnt when i made my statment, they both have the same beliefs, just different convictions.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

He did not believe in imposing his personal catholic view on others.

at the federal level, didnt seem to have a problem with it on the state level. doesnt mater my point was they both believe it is wrong, and they do, you can make a DIFFERENT point about conviction, but that doesnt make my point wrong.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

Woman's right to choose is a bedrock principle of Democratic party, Republican party stand is anti-choice.

ive had this aurgument before and its not that black and white, sorry to inform you of this, but many many democrats feel that partial birth about is wrong and should be illegal.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

Actually the division is more like 33% on right, 33% in the middle and 33% on left.

really? can you back it up? cause i cant believe for 1 second that 33% of america is on the very far left of the spectrum.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

Then you are not aware of the two refrendums Quebec had for seceding, both failed. But the second one was very cose. Criteria was majority of votes.

your wrong, sorry, that was not the criteria. if quebec had gotten 51% of the vote the court would have struck down thier question. (which they did without the 51%) then they would have had to get permission from the other provinces, and if any one group of people (including the indiginous, who have never voted for secesion) dont want to secede, then you would have a quagmire, there are so many loophole the canadian courts wouldnt let bloc out of any of them, plus the wording used on the referendom the last time around was decieving. read the clearity act, it gives no avenue for secesion. if 51% of quebec vote to secede all they would have is a popular vote, no secesion.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

There is no such thing as a peaceful war. And , if my appraisal of the liberal belief systems is accurate, nor would any secession effort on their part assume a passive methodology.

I didn't mean a peaceful war, I ment a peaceful secession. I ment if there was to be a secession I don't think we would fight and kill over it. Secession will be peaceful this time.

How do you define "religious fundamentalism"?

Most conservatives are not concerned with the meshing of a religious philosophy with a governing style. Rather, they are concerned with the eraser-like effort that is being given to the religious tenets that help found this country. While liberals may live in denial of history, no reasonable person can deny the influence of faith upon the United States of America's creation and continuing prosperous nature. It is part of our strength. It was a "given" by our Founding Fathers (the same way a President would never allow himself to be the recipient of oral sex in the White House Oval Ofiice without resigning , upon discovery, with a measure of dignity).

I would rather devote myself to the context of a cautionary religious philosophy that had helped guide, mold, and futher democracy in this country than I would in adhering to the hate-filled, anti-Christian philosophy that has gripped so many Democrats.

You don't believe there has been a rise in religious fundamentalism? Have you heard the leaders of the "Born again" christians? I heard them say on TV that Bush won because of them and it was payback time. Bush needed to oblige them by encating a number of religious agendas, such as increase funding for faith based charities, appoint conservative judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, allow prayer in school, allow ten commandments to be displayed on official properties, and many more similar demands.
We are a secular state and we should not give in to rising religious fundamentalism in this country. We must keep church and state seperate. Why should govt. pay money to faith based charities?

[QUOTE=NeoLiberal]You don't believe there has been a rise in religious fundamentalism? Have you heard the leaders of the "Born again" christians? I heard them say on TV that Bush won because of them and it was payback time. Bush needed to oblige them encating a number of religious agendas,

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

such as increase funding for faith based charities,

wont happen

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

appoint conservative judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade,

this will happen, but it could just as easily be said that its a human cause not just religious.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

allow prayer in school,

wont happen, they will leave god in the pledge though, negating the liberal eraser.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

allow ten commandments to be displayed on official properties, and many more similar demands.

this was always allowed, it was the liberal left that had the eraser on this issue.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

We are a secular state and we should not give in to rising religious fundamentalism in this country.

there is no rising fundemetalism, these were just christian people, that all of a sudden saw this big liberal eraser coming around and getting rid of stuff thats been our foundation for 200 years, you cant mess with bedrocks of society and not expect to wake the horse's

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

We must keep church and state seperate.

"keep" dont you mean start seperating church and state? cause they have always been married, take a look at your dollar bill. if you want to wake a sleeping giant in this country then take god out of the pledge, and off our money. this country has never been secular, if you want to make it so, expect resitance.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

Why should govt. pay money to faith based charities?

they shouldnt, it would probably do allot better than what we do now, but it wouldnt be prudent.

Originally Posted by donnie

i give it 8 years and canada would be americanized, because as much as we disagree, we still like our process, canadians dont want that, believe me.

but what about the alberta, wouldnt they want to go south of the border?

Just noticed that, good point. Isn't it said Alberta has more in common with Texas then with Ontario? 30+ years of uinterupted Tory govts.

Also, i don't think it'd work period. Even the majority of democrats are conservative by Canadian standards. California has over 400 people on death row. That's America's "most progressive state" for you. Not to mention California voters confirmed their commitment to our tough three strikes laws. Calfiornia's also voted to eliminate affirmative action and racial perference and deny social services to illegal immigrants. Even the majority of California's voters rejected gay marriage. I may not agree with some of these things, but this the reality of it. It wouldn't work.