I have an idea: Why don't the Blue states join Canada?

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

I have an idea: Why don't the Blue states join Canada?

Post by PeterD » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:51 pm

Hi,

I think this would be a win-win situation for all parties concerned, including the Red states. Here me out...

The Blue states in becoming Canadian provinces would receive free healthcare from cradle-to-grave, affordable college education, and NO MORE WARS, among the many benefits.

Canada, in turn, will have acces to a warm year-round climate (i.e.,California -- Hi, Jeff!), an educated, liberal populace, and many other goodies which fail to come to mind as I am rushing this post because supper is almost ready.

The Red States, until they come to their senses and they, too, join Canada, can do whatever they fancy: pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, guns (and more guns) for all its citizens (young and old), mandatory school prayers, whatever their hearts fancy -- no ACLU to worry about.

It's just a thought. :)


~PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:01 am

Would they have to adopt Canadian accents?
phpbb

User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Post by Turpissimus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:10 am

Oddly, you're not the first person to come up with this idea...

Image
phpbb

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:14 am

haha great stuff! That one's definitely approved by the only heterosexual bisceop around! (me)
phpbb

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:18 am

Get that new constitution ready.

Episcopus wrote:haha great stuff! That one's definitely approved by the only heterosexual bisceop around! (me)
I'm sure the altar-boys are glad to hear it.
phpbb

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:20 am

Lol. I wish the blue states would join Canada. You guys can kill all the kids you want, then you can go and harvest their organs for all the stem cells you need.

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:23 am

That picture is great.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:24 am

An important question is, where does the tax revenue mainly come from, the red states or the blue ones?
phpbb

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:26 am

Alaska is left out. :cry: :lol:

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:27 am

classicalclarinet wrote:Alaska is left out. :cry: :lol:
No medicine for you.
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:32 am

Many of the blue states had many counties that were actually red (see the county map put out by the USA Today). Does Canada want the entire state with the red counties or just the blue counties? Califormia, for example, was almost entirely red. Only the counties with the large cities were blue.

Just curious

Rhuiden

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:35 am

Yeah, only CITIES were blue. It's pretty striking, like Dems are sitting in New York all forted-up. :P

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:37 am

Eureka wrote:An important question is, where does the tax revenue mainly come from, the red states or the blue ones?
A very good question. Most of the taxpayers live in the red states. The blue states are where most of the tax money is spent. I am liking this plan more and more.

Rhuiden

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:38 am

Darn baby-killing city slickers taking all of New York and California.(That was a joke, kind of.)

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:41 am

Rhuiden wrote:
Eureka wrote:An important question is, where does the tax revenue mainly come from, the red states or the blue ones?
A very good question. Most of the taxpayers live in the red states. The blue states are where most of the tax money is spent. I am liking this plan more and more.
Most of the taxpayers live in the red states, but they are the poorer states. Perhaps more federal taxes are collected in the blue states.

Also, are you sure more federal tax money is spent in blue states?
phpbb

User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Post by Turpissimus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:42 am

Many of the blue states had many counties that were actually red (see the county map put out by the USA Today). Does Canada want the entire state with the red counties or just the blue counties? Califormia, for example, was almost entirely red. Only the counties with the large cities were blue.
This one....

Image
phpbb

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:44 am

Many of the blue states had many counties that were actually red (see the county map put out by the USA Today). Does Canada want the entire state with the red counties or just the blue counties? Califormia, for example, was almost entirely red. Only the counties with the large cities were blue.
Nice. It's a red country all-right. Too bad these big cities can almost control the whole country.
Last edited by EmptyMan on Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:46 am

Eureka wrote:Also, are you sure more federal tax money is spent in blue states?
We are talking about welfare, right? Most welfare is spent in urban areas.

Rhuiden

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:47 am

Also, are you sure more federal tax money is spent in blue states?
Ted Stevens. Ak (R). Chairman of Appropriations Committee (and Military Appropriations (sp?) Subcommittee)

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:47 am

EmptyMan wrote:Nice. It's a red country all-right. Too bad these big cities can almost control the whole country.
That's because the big cities have lots of people living in them. Trees and cows don't get to vote, only people.
phpbb

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:49 am

Rhuiden wrote:
Eureka wrote:Also, are you sure more federal tax money is spent in blue states?
We are talking about welfare, right? Most welfare is spent in urban areas.
Rhuiden
You sure about that? We got alot of poor here in the south.

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:49 am

Too bad these big cities can almost control the whole country.
Indeed, these blue counties may seem smaller in size, but they're equivalent in population.

User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Post by Turpissimus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:49 am

Nice. It's a red country all-right. Too bad these big cities can almost control the whole country.
Well, bear in mind that more people live there. Also, we would do well to remember that cities do not consume more tax money than they create. Yes, poverty and costly infrastructure do eat up cash, but the industries in a city produce tonnes of money. Even if you said that people who worked in a city and lived in suburbs should be stripped out of the equation, cities do produce more money than you might be inclined to think.

Sorry, I don't have a link to any evidence.
phpbb

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:51 am

Rhuiden wrote:
Eureka wrote:Also, are you sure more federal tax money is spent in blue states?
We are talking about welfare, right? Most welfare is spent in urban areas.
I'm really talking about any kind of non-millitary spending. Those massive farmers' subsidies would be spent mainly in red states.
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:55 am

Eureka wrote:
Rhuiden wrote:
Eureka wrote:Also, are you sure more federal tax money is spent in blue states?
We are talking about welfare, right? Most welfare is spent in urban areas.
I'm really talking about any kind of non-millitary spending. Those massive farmers' subsidies would be spent mainly in red states.
I really hate farmer subsidies. Here in Tennessee (as well as everywhere else I assume), farmers are actually paid to not grow certain crops. It is a travesty.

Rhuiden

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:02 am

Apparently, the solution to make the country more liberal is to put more rivers in. If you want to make it more conservative then you take away the rivers. Just look at the Mississippi area, it's an island of liberalism in the middle of the Bible Belt.

That map is really interesting...
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:03 am

Rhuiden wrote:I really hate farmer subsidies. Here in Tennessee (as well as everywhere else I assume), farmers are actually paid to not grow certain crops. It is a travesty.
Didn't the Romans do something similar? Leaving vast swathes of Italian farmland unused, and creating many jealous barbarians.
phpbb

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:04 am

I think that was rather class warfare than economic subtleties.

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:05 am

benissimus wrote:Apparently, the solution to make the country more liberal is to put more rivers in. If you want to make it more conservative then you take away the rivers. Just look at the Mississippi area, it's an island of liberalism in the middle of the Bible Belt.

That map is really interesting...
That's because big cities a built on rivers, and cities tend to be liberal.
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:06 am

Wow, things are moving fast and furious tonight.

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:08 am

It is only afternoon here. :)
I slept till 2:30 :P

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:48 am

benissimus wrote:Apparently, the solution to make the country more liberal is to put more rivers in. If you want to make it more conservative then you take away the rivers. Just look at the Mississippi area, it's an island of liberalism in the middle of the Bible Belt.

That map is really interesting...
Hmm... Out of the two counties I live by the one that is directly next to Savannah River got more votes in for Kerry. Strange.

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:55 am

Turpissimus wrote:
Califormia, for example, was almost entirely red. Only the counties with the large cities were blue.
This one....
Remember that even in Red counties there are Blue voters, and vice versa. Red country is not as red as it appears.

They only way to get a true picture would be to photograph the country from above, after painting the top of every voter's head blue or red. Ha ha.

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:57 am

But don't forget. It's fall and the NE would be all red. ;)

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:59 am

Eureka wrote:I'm really talking about any kind of non-millitary spending. Those massive farmers' subsidies would be spent mainly in red states.
Remember that Republicans have been in control the House of Representatives for many years, and all federal spending bills must originate in the House. So anyone with complaints about Federal spending knows where to address their petitions. Democrats don't even get invited to meetings anymore.

The disproporationate amount of federal money going to Red states is no accident.

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:02 am

classicalclarinet wrote:But don't forget. It's fall and the NE would be all red. ;)
You just gave me an idea. We will get all the snowbirds, people who migrate north during winter, to register to vote in the blue counties up north.

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:03 am

EmptyMan wrote:Nice. It's a red country all-right. Too bad these big cities can almost control the whole country.
The Republicans (that's the Red guys) control the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court, too.

In fact the Senate is specifically designed to give less-populous states more votes.

User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Post by EmptyMan » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:05 am

Democritus wrote:
EmptyMan wrote:Nice. It's a red country all-right. Too bad these big cities can almost control the whole country.
The Republicans (that's the Red guys) control the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court, too.

In fact the Senate is specifically designed to give less-populous states more votes.
The Republicans don't contoll anything yet, the Dems can filabuster anytime they want. And, btw, I said almost contol the country. Thank goodness.

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Re: I have an idea: Why don't the Blue states join Canada?

Post by Democritus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:13 am

PeterD wrote:Canada, in turn, will have acces to a warm year-round climate (i.e.,California -- Hi, Jeff!), an educated, liberal populace, and many other goodies which fail to come to mind ....
Could you please just take Arnold Schwarzenegger?

We can leave everything else as-is.

Thank you.

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:22 am

EmptyMan wrote:The Republicans don't contoll anything yet, the Dems can filabuster anytime they want. And, btw, I said almost contol the country. Thank goodness.
There is no filibustering in the House of Representatives. And filibustering can only rarely used in the Senate. Most bills are passed by simple majority.

Remember all that talk about "personal responsibility" ? The GOP has the power, so they have the responsibilty. No more whining like victims. They have been in control for some time now, and this week that control has become stronger. Whatever happens now is the Republicans' fault. Get used to it.

Post Reply