If the blue states secede

I am having a debate with a bunch of freepers who jokingly, or not, would not mind that DC, NYC, LA, Berkley, San Francisco and Hollywood be nuked (after the idiotic comments of CA congressman Dana Rohrabacher).

My point is that these are the seats of the economic engine and innovation of the country. That I don't see any of them moving to Alabama, as an example.

And one of them is saying that, hey, California is losing many people who move to red states.

Sure the do, cheaper to live there then in California and cheaper labor - if one is a business owner. But there is a reason, or reasons, why blue states are donors and red ones are recipients.

Would like to get some of your opinions and hard data - if you have.

Thanks

Loving thy enemy only works to a point. Sometimes it's just better cut the losses and to leave them alone (turning the other cheek).

I'm detecting a theme here...

:yoiks: Just like their giggling murdering Leader! :wow: Who'da thunk? :rofl: :scared: :hide:

The Red Ink will swell so high that the entire country will break up as the national bankruptcy ensues. Nothing can be done to stop it.

so PLEASE Blue staters, do not SECEDE, that would make life TOTALLY SUCK!

to prove to them that they need at least the blue pockets of NYC, LA, San Francisco and Hollywood to continue the economic engine of this country, and especially of California, running.

This is why it would be nice to have real data to support what I know is true.

but, just the thought of living in an all RED country frightens the hell out of me! :hi:

after a while.
The Red States wont have anything going for them. Plus, I'm sure South Florida and some other places that are close would join us too.

South Florida would secede from the rest of the state so there would be an island of blue in what is not the state's most populous region, which includes Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Monroe counties.

Or maybe their Aruba or Hawaii? where blue staters come on vacation...!!! That would be great for me - Our litttle blue island would have legal swingers clubs, gays would be allowed to get married and we would legalize it!!! Oh, and we will have gambling too.

You think he'd live with the right wingers?

Think he'd get along with bush? It was pharisees like bushites that wanted him killed and if he came back they'd be doing it again.

He's the perfect liberal.

The problems IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a "North vs. South" issue. The problem is rural vs. urban. And there simply is more urban areas in the North and the west coast.

Many, many, many larger cities in the South vote blue (even if, as is the case in my area, the county votes red, turning the whole county, including the "blue" city, to red on these maps). My CITY is blue, but it's surrounded by blood red.

Once and for all, it's an urban vs. rural issue. What our job should be is to educate those in the rural areas who have less access to any news or information other than the corporate media and their daily commutes into the city for work that are filled up with Reich-wing radio (there's little Air America in rural area in the South, sad to say).

Course I'd have to move. I can do it!

I think there is a problem, though.

I think out here in the west, we heard and understood that message in CCD or sunday school - that "What-so-ever-you-do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me" and we BELIEVED it.

I think they drank too many beers, shot too many deers (by the time they were 12) in most red states to understand.

The day California secedes, 20% of the GDP goes with it. Now, that is a fact.

But for California, Kansas goes BK - and I would pay to see it.

Joe

The blue states SHOULD secede ~ to Canada! I keep saying it to freepers every time they bring it up and they begin to sputter, lol. I tell them: We would take almost all the best institutions with us, we are the biggest tax payers, and we are also the most enlightened. So we would take it with us and more than enhance Canada. In exchange, we would gain national health care, get out of this dirty war, and actually have access to a decent education (sans stupid design crap). Most red states are not taking taxes, not paying them and their universities are full of the Bob Jones and Oral Roberts people. Let them stay and let them HAVE their hypocritical "christ6ian" values!

I say go for it, and you can tell your freeper friends many of us want to go!


Cat In Seattle

there is already a movement like that! Its called cascadia, I think there is a yahoo group devoted to it as well. http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/ The blue states are definately the economic engine of the country there is now doubt it that. even though they hate us they can't like without us, cheers

to these cromagnon-freepin-fundy-fascists.
To hell with them.. literally.

Considering that they are holding onto their own states by paper thin margins..
why don't we go on the offensive.. and take their damn states away. Fuck em !!!

Don't y'all wanna see more true blue across that map???

in California who enjoy the economic engine that it is, who have no intention of moving to Alabama or Mississippi - sorry DUers from these states - it would be nice to blow their arrogance with real numbers.

capita,than the blue states.I think the highest was Mississippi,which surprised me with my "Northeast elitist attitude".

Not looking for a flame war here,I saw it on TV sometime within the past month.

By the way,I'm in Massachusetts and I ain't budgin'(except maybe to Blue Hawaii).

I guess I have a problem with "per capita" numbers.

No, no flame war from me - just reality.

That whole state does not have the buying power to equal my city, let alone the state.

They can go screw themselves. They sure screwed us.

Joe

I thought it might have to do with churches and cost of living being lower.

I'd better get my facts straight before I post.(That will be my New Years Resolution)

Los Angeles, on its own, eclipses the entire population of Mississippi.

You see the problem??

Joe

to say,ranked 49.

Looks like most us the Northeast are cheap bastards.

offered through the local extension of the U.

When we were trained, we were told how many people expect to tithe 10% of whatever they have - even when they have nothing. That clergy are ill prepared to counsel their parishioners.

We were told to to direct these people to donate with cash equivalent: volunteer their time, making something with their hands... that they should not drive themselves into poverty or bankruptcy just to tithe what they do not have.

I think that this goes with the WWJD crowd.

so I could give more to charity. Unfortunately I don't.

that's why it sounds generous. Funny they suck up a lot of CA and MA/NY taxes

I don't have the link, but it's been all over the net.

I'll go fish.

Also, most blue states are net donor states, and most red states are net taker states, so the blues get screwed, too.

Ya'll can rationalize all you want but the South gives more of what we have to charity. And it is nt just the poor that gives, my wife and I make six figures and we gave 11% this past year.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005&orderby=generosity_index

but it contradicts everything else I've ever read on the subject, which makes me very skeptical.

It makes me wonder if they didn't do some fancy statistical maneuvering when they were making the report.

The blue states certainly support the red states through their tax dollars. The blue states generally pay more than they get back and the red states generally get back more than they pay.

NEW YORK--Democratic hand wringing is surrealy out of hand. No one is
criticizing the morally incongruous Kerry for running against a war he voted
for while insisting that he would have voted for it again. Party leaders
have yet to consider that NAFTA, signed into law under Clinton, may have
cost them high-unemployment Ohio. No, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, darling of
the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council, blames something else: the
perception "in the heartland" that Democrats are a "bicoastal cultural elite
that is condescending at best and contemptuous at worst to the values that
Americans hold in their daily lives."


Firstly, living in the sticks doesn't make you more American. Rural, urban
or suburban--they're irrelevant. San Francisco's predominantly gay Castro
district is every bit as red, white and blue as the Texas panhandle. But if
militant Christianist Republicans from inland backwaters believe that
secular liberal Democrats from the big coastal cities look upon them with
disdain, there's a reason. We do, and all the more so after this election.


I spent my childhood in fly-over country, in a decidedly Republican town in
southwest Ohio. It was a decent place to grow up, with well-funded public
schools and only the occasional marauding serial killer to worry about. The
only ethnic restaurant sold something called "Mandarin Chinese," Midwestese
for cold noodles slathered with sugary sauce. The county had three major
employers: the Air Force, Mead Paper, and National Cash Register--and NCR
was constantly laying people off. Folks were nice, but depressingly
closed-minded. "Well," they'd grimace when confronted with a new musical
genre or fashion trend, "that's different." My suburb was racially insular,
culturally bland and intellectually unstimulating. Its people were knee-jerk
conformists. Faced with the prospect of spending my life underemployed,
bored and soused, I did what anyone with a bit of ambition would do. I went
to college in a big city and stayed there.


Mine is a common story. Every day in America, hundreds of our most talented
young men and women flee the suburbs and rural communities for big cities,
especially those on the West and East Coasts. Their youthful vigor fuels
these metropolises--the cultural capitals of the blue states. These oases of
liberal thinking--New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland,
Boston--are homes to our best-educated people, most vibrant popular culture
and most innovative and productive businesses. There are exceptions--some
smart people move from cities to the countryside--but the best and brightest
gravitate to places where liberalism rules.


Maps showing Kerry's blue states appended to the "United States of Canada"
separated from Bush's red "Jesusland" are circulating by email. Though there
is a religious component to the election results, the biggest red-blue
divide is intellectual. "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" asked the
headline of the Daily Mirror in Great Britain, and the underlying assumption
is undeniable. By any objective standard, you had to be spectacularly stupid
to support Bush.


72 percent who cast votes for George W. Bush, according to a University of
Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge
Networks poll, believe that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass
destruction or active WMD programs. 75 percent think that a Saddam-Al Qaeda
link has been proven, and 20 percent say Saddam ordered 9/11. Of course,
none of this was true.


Kerry voters were less than half as idiotic: 26 percent of Democrats bought
into Bush-Cheney's WMD lies, and 30 percent into Saddam-Al Qaeda.


Would Bush's supporters have voted for him even if they had known he was a
serial liar? Perhaps their hatred of homosexuals and slutty abortion vixens
would have prompted them to make the same choice--an idiotic perversion of
priorities. As things stand, they cast their ballots relying on assumptions
that were demonstrably false.


Educational achievement doesn't necessarily equal intelligence. After all,
Bush holds a Harvard MBA. Still, it bears noting that Democrats are better
educated than Republicans. You are 25 percent more likely to hold a college
degree if you live in the Democratic northeast than in the red state south.
Blue state voters are 25 percent more likely, therefore, to understand the
historical and cultural ramifications of Bush's brand of
bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy.


Inland Americans face a bigger challenge than coastal "cultural elitists"
when it comes to finding high-quality news coverage. The best newspapers,
which routinely win prizes for their in-depth local and national reporting
and staffers overseas, line the coasts. So do the cable TV networks with the
broadest offerings and most independent radio stations. Bush Country makes
do with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity syndicated on one cookie-cutter AM
outlet after another. Citizens of the blue states read lackluster dailies
stuffed with generic stories cut and pasted from wire services. Given their
dismal access to high-quality media, it's a minor miracle that 40 percent of
Mississippians turned out for Kerry.


So our guy lost the election. Why shouldn't those of us on the coasts feel
superior? We eat better, travel more, dress better, watch cooler movies,
earn better salaries, meet more interesting people, listen to better music
and know more about what's going on in the world. If you voted for Bush, we
accept that we have to share the country with you. We're adjusting to the
possibility that there may be more of you than there are of us. But don't
demand our respect. You lost it on November 2

I assume it is not you since I see the tell-tale (news - web sites) of a yahoo story..

Please....don't make me move to a blue state. That doesn't solve the problem, but I will. Oh....try me. I will.

the cities of NY and LA and San Francisco, and Minneapolis-St. Paul are islands surrounded by selfish Republican exurbs.

Thankfully, the cities are heavily populated and can carry the states.

Cities are blue even in most red states, but blue countryside is rare everwhere. A challenge for those of us who are Democrats and not city people.

Northern California is blessed with blue countryside in all the places where the old hippies went back to the land.:smoke:
The Central Valley is pretty red (and freerepublic is there), but not red enough to get enough signatures for their latest
attempt to ban gay marriage (fell 200,000 signatures short :-)). Gropenator's propositions weren't only defeated in the big cities,
they went down in a lot of rural areas as well.

Vermont and Massachusetts are blue almost everywhere, because they are much smaller states that managed to induce most of their red people to move to New Hampshire.

Where would YOU draw the lines? This link has many large maps & explanatory notes.

www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

You could confiscate the property of the Ungroovy who happened to live in the Blue Areas & force them to leave. Or send them to Re-education Camps. But how will you provide good jobs & affordable homes to those exiled from the Red Areas? Do consider that not all of them are out-of-work programmers from Austin. Lots of them will lack education, job training & the preferred low levels of melanin. And how will isolated islands of grooviness sustain themselves? Would Northwestern California & Southwestern California really get along?

Also consider that most of us live in a Purple Country, have pretty good lives, and are not ready to give up.

The dividing of states into red and blue is just silly. Take "blue" California for example. In 2004, chimpy got 45 percent of the votes: over 5.5 million people. That's way more "red" voters than there are in any so-called "red" state. Or look at "red" Texas, where John Kerry got 2.6 million votes -- more than Kerry got in "blue" Massachusetts and Vermont combined. Yes we're talking absolute numbers, but the point is that there are lots of "blue" voters in red states and "red" voters in blue states.

onenote

http://www.retrovsmetro.org

instead of red vs blue states, metropolitan vs rural......

These "let's secede" posts are completely ridiculous. The results of an election are NOT something to break up the Union over. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died in such a contest 145 years ago.

Some of you may say it was about ending slavery or states rights (more valid than the first) but it was truly about not letting the South secede just because an election turned out a way it didn't like.

Today, if the election was stolen or president Bush committed impeachable offenses then we pull together not as Southerns, Northerners, Republicans or Democrats. We pull together as Americans and weather the storm and right the wrongs.

Just think about the carnage the Civil War wrought and that should be enough to make your stomach churn. Anyone who truly believes in any sort of secession bullshit is nothing short of foolish and anyone who even jokes about nuking American cities full of LIBERALS is sickening.

Always, always think before you speak of such things.

for political gain.
PS:California would be much better off alone

First, some fundies want to take South Carolina out of the Union with them. Now, it's all the blue states.

I've said this before and here goes...we can't secede. There's no place to hide from these people. We've got to show the ones still capable of learning what their government is all about and beat 'em here. If we don't, there's no place you will be able to go to get away from "Freedom."

It was just part of a debate that I had with a freep "joking" about nuking San Francisco, Berkley and Hollywood, in addition to DC, NYC and LA. I was trying to prove to him and his buds that if the blue states or cities were not part of the union, that there won't be much economy left for the red states.

it's just that I have developed this allergic reactions to posts with the word secession in the title. Sorry I sneezed on you.;-)

At least as far as California is concerned. California is first in the nation in agricultural production. That's an irrefutable, down-to-earth, nitty-gritty fact. If you want some hard data to hit them with, look for some stats on that. Sure, the blue states provide most of the innovative ideas and hold the major cultural centers, and those ARE important things, but your smug freeper buddies probably think they could live without that. They DO, however, have to eat. What they probably don't realize is that California alone does more to feed them and their children than any other state. Without Califonia's fertile San Joaquin Valley, the rest of the nation would suffer a severe food shortage. So, hit 'em in a place they can understand... right in their soft bellies. I'd tell these idiots: Go ahead. Nuke California... and starve. Like it or not, they need us. We're all in this together.

What did that pompus ass Rohrabacher say?

Rp

"(I)f a nuclear weapon goes off in Washington, D.C., or New York or Los Angeles, it'll burn the Constitution as it does. So I'm very happy we have a president that's going to wiretap people's communication with people overseas to make sure that they're not plotting to blow up one of our cities."

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

R-Huntington Beach, when asked on CNN if there might be constitutional issues with current electronic eavesdropping practices

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/article_915366.php and scroll down

Let's leave the Union TODAY!

Soon enough the Red states will come to us on hands and knees begging for a handout to pay for their wars and deficits. We'll just sit back and enjoy a better standard of living -- one marked by peace, freedom, lower taxes, and no deficits!


SECESSION TODAY!

They did it once before, remember? :evilgrin: