I have been saying the same thing for quite sometime. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
…
[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]blake2616 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]blake2616 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Unfortunately, Lincoln pretty much ensured a divorce will never happen.[/quote]
And it’s written into the Constitution that if part of the country attempts to leave the remaining part can pursue with force…[/quote]
Orly?!
Since the constitution is such a small document you can show me where it says this…?[/quote]
Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation
[/quote]
If it is no longer a member of the Union it is not bound by the Constitution.
And anyway a piece of paper is not going to stop a pissed off and well armed mob.[/quote]
But the several hundred thousand soldiers who are sworn to protect and uphold that document might be able to convince that mob otherwise.
[/quote]
I’m going with this. And originally my quote was supported by the idea of Lincoln to keep the Union together. I’m not really factoring in whether or not it would be feasible.
[quote]blake2616 wrote:
[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]blake2616 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]blake2616 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Unfortunately, Lincoln pretty much ensured a divorce will never happen.[/quote]
And it’s written into the Constitution that if part of the country attempts to leave the remaining part can pursue with force…[/quote]
Orly?!
Since the constitution is such a small document you can show me where it says this…?[/quote]
Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation
[/quote]
If it is no longer a member of the Union it is not bound by the Constitution.
And anyway a piece of paper is not going to stop a pissed off and well armed mob.[/quote]
But the several hundred thousand soldiers who are sworn to protect and uphold that document might be able to convince that mob otherwise.
[/quote]
I’m going with this. And originally my quote was supported by the idea of Lincoln to keep the Union together. I’m not really factoring in whether or not it would be feasible. [/quote]
You would be surprised to know how many of the Soldiers you speak of share the same opinion as the well armed mob.
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Good luck propping up those social programs without anyone to pay for them.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I have been saying the same thing for quite sometime. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass. [/quote]
Rosie,
That is a funny map, and I am glad you blessed us with the name you bestowed upon us. United States of Canada is the best you can come up with. How about United Socialist Soviet Republics?
When the USSR gets into the fiscal pickle that California is already in where would the redistribution of wealth come from? I would guess the rich in California would move to Texas, as we will see from the Census that is being delt with right now. The poor from the Jesusland would move to United States of Canada so they can get that great healthcare.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Sounds like a deal!
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Good luck propping up those social programs without anyone to pay for them.[/quote]
Ahhh… we are pretty much saying the same thing. There are many, many third world southern states that are on welfare in their trailer parks… and it’s paid for by those of us in the northeast that make all the money and pay all the taxes.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Good luck propping up those social programs without anyone to pay for them.[/quote]
- The U.S. is a third world country without the aforementioned cities.
- The fact of the matter is that southern states consume WAY more in federal money than they pay out in tax dollars. Southern States are Welfare Queen states.
- Texas is wealthy enough to scrape together an existence but it would be overrun by illegals and your xenophobic paradise would be ruined.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Sounds like a deal!
[/quote]
Hell no, you have to take places like DC too.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Good luck propping up those social programs without anyone to pay for them.[/quote]
- The U.S. is a third world country without the aforementioned cities.
- The fact of the matter is that southern states consume WAY more in federal money than they pay out in tax dollars. Southern States are Welfare Queen states.
- Texas is wealthy enough to scrape together an existence but it would be overrun by illegals and your xenophobic paradise would be ruined. [/quote]
When all of the people with money leave all of those cities you mentioned so it’s government quits stealing from them, those “third world countries” will no longer be.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Good luck propping up those social programs without anyone to pay for them.[/quote]
Ahhh… we are pretty much saying the same thing. There are many, many third world southern states that are on welfare in their trailer parks… and it’s paid for by those of us in the northeast that make all the money and pay all the taxes.
[/quote]
See my post above.
Not to mention, all of those welfare dwellers in the southern states will have 2 choices. Buck up, get a job and pay for their own shit, or move to one of your cities - further bankrupting them.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Sounds like a deal!
[/quote]
Hell no, you have to take places like DC too.[/quote]
Yea no deal without giving away that liberal utopia.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Good luck propping up those social programs without anyone to pay for them.[/quote]
Ahhh… we are pretty much saying the same thing. There are many, many third world southern states that are on welfare in their trailer parks… and it’s paid for by those of us in the northeast that make all the money and pay all the taxes.
[/quote]
See my post above.
Not to mention, all of those welfare dwellers in the southern states will have 2 choices. Buck up, get a job and pay for their own shit, or move to one of your cities - further bankrupting them.[/quote]
Come on now I think you’re asking just a bit too much. After all there are generations that have been supported by our tax dollars. Do you really think that they can just go out and get a job? No way, it would take decades of rehab. Just mention the word work and most of them start shaking.
“Where’s ma check, I want ma check obama is giving us money”
No really we’ve reached the end unless November bears the results that I think it will.
Washington and Jefferson would truly roll over in their graves if they were aware of the nonsense that has become our federal government.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Good luck propping up those social programs without anyone to pay for them.[/quote]
Ahhh… we are pretty much saying the same thing. There are many, many third world southern states that are on welfare in their trailer parks… and it’s paid for by those of us in the northeast that make all the money and pay all the taxes.
[/quote]
See my post above.
Not to mention, all of those welfare dwellers in the southern states will have 2 choices. Buck up, get a job and pay for their own shit, or move to one of your cities - further bankrupting them.[/quote]
Come on now I think you’re asking just a bit too much. After all there are generations that have been supported by our tax dollars. Do you really think that they can just go out and get a job? No way, it would take decades of rehab. Just mention the word work and most of them start shaking.
“Where’s ma check, I want ma check obama is giving us money”
No really we’ve reached the end unless November bears the results that I think it will.
Washington and Jefferson would truly roll over in their graves if they were aware of the nonsense that has become our federal government.
[/quote]
you will revolt in November if Dems retain control of Congress?
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Hope you like the taste of boiled leather.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Good luck propping up those social programs without anyone to pay for them.[/quote]
- The U.S. is a third world country without the aforementioned cities.
- The fact of the matter is that southern states consume WAY more in federal money than they pay out in tax dollars. Southern States are Welfare Queen states.
- Texas is wealthy enough to scrape together an existence but it would be overrun by illegals and your xenophobic paradise would be ruined. [/quote]
When all of the people with money leave all of those cities you mentioned so it’s government quits stealing from them, those “third world countries” will no longer be.[/quote]
Isn’t that what happened when the Socialists of Russia closed the border with the West. Isn’t this what happened when Castro took control of Cuba. I think when people have a choice of Welfare/Socialist state, or Freedom to do with your money as you see fit, People are going to choose the later. It has happened throughout History.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Good luck propping up those social programs without anyone to pay for them.[/quote]
- The U.S. is a third world country without the aforementioned cities.
- The fact of the matter is that southern states consume WAY more in federal money than they pay out in tax dollars. Southern States are Welfare Queen states.
- Texas is wealthy enough to scrape together an existence but it would be overrun by illegals and your xenophobic paradise would be ruined. [/quote]
When all of the people with money leave all of those cities you mentioned so it’s government quits stealing from them, those “third world countries” will no longer be.[/quote]
Isn’t that what happened when the Socialists of Russia closed the border with the West. Isn’t this what happened when Castro took control of Cuba. I think when people have a choice of Welfare/Socialist state, or Freedom to do with your money as you see fit, People are going to choose the later. It has happened throughout History.[/quote]
The problem is many people in the US believe it’s possible to do both (I don’t know how they’ve reached that conclusion, either).
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
We’re keeping New York City, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, and joining Canada. Good luck with your third world southern states. [/quote]
Good luck propping up those social programs without anyone to pay for them.[/quote]
- The U.S. is a third world country without the aforementioned cities.
- The fact of the matter is that southern states consume WAY more in federal money than they pay out in tax dollars. Southern States are Welfare Queen states.
- Texas is wealthy enough to scrape together an existence but it would be overrun by illegals and your xenophobic paradise would be ruined. [/quote]
When all of the people with money leave all of those cities you mentioned so it’s government quits stealing from them, those “third world countries” will no longer be.[/quote]
Isn’t that what happened when the Socialists of Russia closed the border with the West. Isn’t this what happened when Castro took control of Cuba. I think when people have a choice of Welfare/Socialist state, or Freedom to do with your money as you see fit, People are going to choose the later. It has happened throughout History.[/quote]
The problem is many people in the US believe it’s possible to do both (I don’t know how they’ve reached that conclusion, either).[/quote]
I think the people of the United States of Canada/USSR has come to the conclusion that it’s possible to do both.