I have an idea: Why don't the Blue states join Canada?
-
- 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?
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
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
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Romford
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
- Location: East Tennessee
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
Just curious
Rhuiden
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
- Location: East Tennessee
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
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.Rhuiden wrote: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.Eureka wrote:An important question is, where does the tax revenue mainly come from, the red states or the blue ones?
Also, are you sure more federal tax money is spent in blue states?
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Romford
This one....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.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
- Location: Augusta, Georgia
Nice. It's a red country all-right. Too bad these big cities can almost control the whole country.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.
Last edited by EmptyMan on Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
- Location: Augusta, Georgia
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Romford
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.Nice. It's a red country all-right. Too bad these big cities can almost control the whole country.
Sorry, I don't have a link to any evidence.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
- Location: East Tennessee
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.Eureka wrote:I'm really talking about any kind of non-millitary spending. Those massive farmers' subsidies would be spent mainly in red states.Rhuiden wrote:We are talking about welfare, right? Most welfare is spent in urban areas.Eureka wrote:Also, are you sure more federal tax money is spent in blue states?
Rhuiden
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
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 map is really interesting...
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Didn't the Romans do something similar? Leaving vast swathes of Italian farmland unused, and creating many jealous barbarians.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.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
That's because big cities a built on rivers, and cities tend to be liberal.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...
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
- Location: Augusta, Georgia
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.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...
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: California
Remember that even in Red counties there are Blue voters, and vice versa. Red country is not as red as it appears.Turpissimus wrote:This one....Califormia, for example, was almost entirely red. Only the counties with the large cities were blue.
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.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: California
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.Eureka wrote:I'm really talking about any kind of non-millitary spending. Those massive farmers' subsidies would be spent mainly in red states.
The disproporationate amount of federal money going to Red states is no accident.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
- Location: Augusta, Georgia
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: California
The Republicans (that's the Red guys) control the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court, too.EmptyMan wrote:Nice. It's a red country all-right. Too bad these big cities can almost control the whole country.
In fact the Senate is specifically designed to give less-populous states more votes.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
- Location: Augusta, Georgia
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 wrote:The Republicans (that's the Red guys) control the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court, too.EmptyMan wrote:Nice. It's a red country all-right. Too bad these big cities can almost control the whole country.
In fact the Senate is specifically designed to give less-populous states more votes.
-
- 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?
Could you please just take Arnold Schwarzenegger?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 ....
We can leave everything else as-is.
Thank you.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: California
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.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.
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.