Thread: Should Blue States Join Canada?

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

Election is not decided by how much of land mass is red or blue, it is decided by majority of votes. Land mass don't vote in the election, people do. That means if Democrats won California then whole of California is blue, not just the coast.

I hope you guys can understand this point.

i understand, what i understand is that you have a ton of land owners, who own more of that state property living in the red areas, i would like to see how your going to move them off of it. believe me they will ignore you, and continue as normal. all that land is represented in congress, and at the moment its mostly red, you will never get consensous.

you cannot secede.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

That should give you a fairly good idea who is subsidising who.

you cant see the forest throught the trees, alaska get flooded with money not to drill for oil, to keep wildlife preservse, they are paid not to out roduce you. ame with farm country.

new mexico gets money so they can drop bombs on it, test nuclear energy, you plan on doing that in new jersey instead? for every tax dollar that goes into a state its there because evryone voted on it, so states got stuck with the crap stuff like new mexico, besides you got all that money pooring into secret ufo sites.

virgina has the pentagon and many other military and federal buildings.

all this cost money, tax money, you act like the money being taken out is welfare. look at where the money is spent before dredge up subsidizing.

Originally Posted by Ironduke

There are plenty of "red" voters in those "blue counties". I challenge you to show me on blue state that voted 100% Democrat. Coloring counties may be meaningless as far as electoral votes go, but they give us a far more accurate picture of where Democratic and Republican voters reside than maps of the states.

They would only if you colored the counties proportionally with red and blue depending on how the votes turned out. For example if a county voted 60% Republican and 40% Democrat then color 60% of the county as red and 40% as blue, instead of entirey it entirely red.

That will be a more accurate map showing where Democrats and Republican voters reside and you won't be able to say that in California Democrats live only on the coast. The map will show that they live everywhere but are concentrated on the coast.

Moderators, lock this thread.

Two Canadians with absolutlely no knowlege of American Law and History have no rights nor privledge to talk about American secession.

And I am a Canadian who say to these Canadians, you two have absolutely no clue about loyalty.

I am going to remind these two Canadians what it means to be Canadians!

A Pittance of Time - MPEG 6.5 MB

A Pittance of Time - MOV 5.9 MB

We're not Americans and they're not Canadians. We've bled for our country and they've bled for theirs. Those Honours will never be your excuse to destroy our countries.

Your words, Mr. Pyken

To bring up a little past history into this LIGHTHEARTED, JOKING THREAD (Just making sure you all keep this in mind), as recently as 1995, the province of Quebec held a referendum to determine whether it would seperate from the rest of Canada. Had a majority vote been determined in favour of seperation, Quebec would politically be it's own country. This is the second of such referendums. Now I don't pretend to be an expert on American policies on seperation of states, but I imagine it would be possible to seperate if they so chose.

Where in that did you state that Canadians are willing to fight, bled, and die for our unity?

Do not correct me when your ally NeoLiberal quote your name wrong!

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

Pykin is a Canadian, he knows better. Here is what he wrote in his last post about Quebec secession;

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

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.

Sorry it took so long to respond. The fatigue from my work schedule does not always bend a knee to my desire to post responses.

I am of two minds on the possibility of secession on the part of liberal states within our Republic. The first is that it simply isn't going to happen. While it may appear attractive to liberals in those states, they would quickly find that lack of a gravy train to subsidize their whims to be a frightening prospect. While they may rant and rave about the "freedom" such an act would bring them, reality would quickly set in. These are people, in spite of their bravado and bluster, are too scared to live and too afraid to die.

Second, I have little doubt that the United States would be better off for any successful dissolution effort on their part. As such, part of me hopes they would succeed.

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?

And why should all of us pay "government money" to fund liberals' version of morality? My real contention isn't that there should be funding for faith-based charities, but, rather, that there should be no funding at all. It's not my job to support someone else's children, or to pay for their abortions, or to... a myriad of other liberal assertions as to "social" justice.

Interesting how you have no problem in supporting those judges who helped enact Roe v. Wade, but object to those who would define the standard in opposition to your own opinion. Just another example of the liberal mantra: "What's ours is ours, and what's yours is negotiable." As I said, liberals only embrace the democratic process when the decisions derived from it are in agreement with their personal opinions.

You want a truly secular state--one without moral judgments and postering? Then try supporting the concept of self-reliance for ALL American citizens. LIberals are terrified over such a prospect.

Apres moi, le déluge, Mr LaCroix?

No one is afraid of making its citizens self reliant. However, it is an impossibility.