I VOTE YES ON CALEXIT!

[SomeGuy]

(01-30-2017, 02:57 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 02:33 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 02:02 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 06:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Red would be actual Red in the classic sense. This would demarcate the new line between NATO and anti Western fiends. Silver lining. Less to worry about vis a vis our terrible situation with land based ICBMs. Short range would work at least in this AoO.

Anti-Western Fiends?  Are you talking about nuking the red states?  WTF is wrong with you? 

Only if they attack first.

Again, what I purported was, states that join Canada stay in NATO. NATO haters stay in the Red Zone and welcome the New East Bloc and become axis.

Choose your side.

You mean the New East Bloc that doesn't exist?  Under the farcical notion that a bunch of states are going to secede from the Union, and join Canada (which is going to accept becoming a minority in the resulting new country because...?), and then the people of Jesus-Land, in the throws of anti-Western hatred are going to nuke it, requiring Liberal land to defend itself with short-range nuclear weapons?

Have you tried lithium?  Whatever you're using now clearly isn't working.

[Marypoza]

(01-30-2017, 03:07 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 02:57 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 02:33 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 02:02 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 06:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Red would be actual Red in the classic sense. This would demarcate the new line between NATO and anti Western fiends. Silver lining. Less to worry about vis a vis our terrible situation with land based ICBMs. Short range would work at least in this AoO.

Anti-Western Fiends?  Are you talking about nuking the red states?  WTF is wrong with you? 

Only if they attack first.

Again, what I purported was, states that join Canada stay in NATO. NATO haters stay in the Red Zone and welcome the New East Bloc and become axis.

Choose your side.

You mean the New East Bloc that doesn't exist?  Under the farcical notion that a bunch of states are going to secede from the Union, and join Canada (which is going to accept becoming a minority in the resulting new country because...?), and then the people of Jesus-Land, in the throws of anti-Western hatred are going to nuke it, requiring Liberal land to defend itself with short-range nuclear weapons?

Have you tried lithium?  Whatever you're using now clearly isn't working.

--   Dan l want a like button & a rofl button plz. Thanx in advance

[Marypoza]

(01-30-2017, 03:24 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a scenario I hadn't thought of. The new USA "reds" might still hang on to Trump's cuddling up to Putin. I have my doubts on that; we've a ways to go before this scenario develops. Maybe even the red states will have enough of a traitor president. I don't think they are NATO haters. They are lost in many deceptive and reactionary ideas, but most in the red zone consider themselves American patriots and tend to be militaristic.

You are likely  correct.

Still, when I see all of these "don't let the door hit you in the ass" comments in response to exploratory discussions such as Calexit I must at least examine certain what ifs.

-- well you're creative, l'll give you that 

[SomeGuy]

(01-30-2017, 03:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 03:07 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 02:57 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 02:33 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 02:02 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Red would be actual Red in the classic sense. This would demarcate the new line between NATO and anti Western fiends. Silver lining. Less to worry about vis a vis our terrible situation with land based ICBMs. Short range would work at least in this AoO.

Anti-Western Fiends?  Are you talking about nuking the red states?  WTF is wrong with you? 

Only if they attack first.

Again, what I purported was, states that join Canada stay in NATO. NATO haters stay in the Red Zone and welcome the New East Bloc and become axis.

Choose your side.

You mean the New East Bloc that doesn't exist?  Under the farcical notion that a bunch of states are going to secede from the Union, and join Canada (which is going to accept becoming a minority in the resulting new country because...?), and then the people of Jesus-Land, in the throws of anti-Western hatred are going to nuke it, requiring Liberal land to defend itself with short-range nuclear weapons?

Have you tried lithium?  Whatever you're using now clearly isn't working.

Sorry dude, no meds (other than vitamins and the odd Tylenol maybe once every 5 or 6 years) for me.

Just because you don't like discussing these sorts of scenarios there is no need to unjustifiably impugn my mental health.

Is it really unjustified, though?  You're talking about the need to nuke people who are still your fellow countrymen.  No mention was made of "well, if THEY attack" until I asked.  You just went straight to talking about using short range nukes.  That's pretty crazy.

What is with your fixation on Russia and China as, and I'm quoting you directly here, "anti-Western fiends"?  The Calexit thing is still speculative, I haven't seen equivalent secession talk in any of the other states listed on that map.  Let's say they did.  What makes you think that Canada would admit, what, a hundred million new people into their country?  California alone has a larger population than all of Canada, you don't think there would be any concerns there?  It's not like they couldn't have joined the US if they wanted to already, and that's basically what this would mean.  It would be less the annexation of a few states by Canada than it would be the annexation of Canada by a big chunk of the former United States.  What makes you think they would be up for it?  Has anyone actually discussed this with the Canadians yet, gotten their view of the issue?

And, most importantly, assuming there was an uncontested breakup of the United States (cause otherwise all of the above would be moot), why in God's name would the rump US then attack you, necessitating a nuclear response (which you would be getting from where, again?)?

It's not a discussion of a possible scenario, it's just you taking another opportunity to play out Red Dawn in your head, over and over and over again.

[SomeGuy]

Have you considered that you might be a Russian Agent?

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-28-2017, 06:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Uh... No.  Try this:


So how ya gonna divvy this up ?

[Eric the Green]

Majority rules in each state

[Marypoza]

(01-30-2017, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a scenario I hadn't thought of.

-- that's bcuz you're somewhat sane

[Marypoza]

(01-30-2017, 07:25 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Lithium alone wouldn't do it.

-- he needs a major chill pill

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-30-2017, 09:11 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 07:25 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Lithium alone wouldn't do it.

-- he needs a major chill pill

At your service.  Which one(s) ?







An old standby

[Marypoza]

(01-30-2017, 09:24 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 09:11 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 07:25 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Lithium alone wouldn't do it.

-- he needs a major chill pill

At your service.  Which one(s) ?







An old standby

-- well l was thinking valiums, but they may not be enough. Mixed with oxycodones mebbe?
Too bad they don't make ludes anymore

[Eric the Green]

(01-30-2017, 09:04 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 07:53 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 06:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Uh... No.  Try this:


So how ya gonna divvy this up ?

That's the ugly truth. It would be a free for all everywhere.

It would be wild. Of course it wouldn't go that far, Rags. But things like eastern CA separating off along with eastern portions of NV, OR and WA from the new Blue America could happen, or eastern PA separating off from western, or eastern WI and Northeast IL (chicagoland) joining Canada, or western VA joining, uh, West Virginia; etc. thoroughly possible.

We could see an independent Hawaii, and Native American lands becoming a potmarked nation unto itself; maybe New Mexico joining Old Mexico too. Who knows?

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-30-2017, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 09:04 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 07:53 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 06:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Uh... No.  Try this:


So how ya gonna divvy this up ?

That's the ugly truth. It would be a free for all everywhere.

It would be wild. Of course it wouldn't go that far, Rags. But things like eastern CA separating off along with eastern portions of NV, OR and WA from the new Blue America could happen, or eastern PA separating off from western, or eastern WI and Northeast IL (chicagoland) joining Canada, or western VA joining, uh, West Virginia; etc. thoroughly possible.

We could see an independent Hawaii, and Native American lands becoming a potmarked nation unto itself; maybe New Mexico joining Old Mexico too. Who knows?

1. Uh,   I just found out that Alberta may want to join Trumpland. 
So parts of Canada may want to switch.
2. Native American in Oklahoma are doing just fine. We have our "New buffaloes ,  casinos. No need to mess that up.
3. I agree with the Eastern parts of the Pacific states.
4. Hawaii?  Dunno.  May become a new China province.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-30-2017, 09:04 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 07:53 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 06:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Uh... No.  Try this:


So how ya gonna divvy this up ?

That's the ugly truth. It would be a free for all everywhere.

I see a lot of purple and red.

[Eric the Green]

But the blue is the majority by 2.86 million votes.

This whole idea would not be necessary if you guys grew up and dropped your Reaganomics and its associated dog whistles for white power and Christian fundamentalism. The Confederacy was no utopia, mate.

[Eric the Green]

It occurs to me that a red/blue American split might look a lot like the way congressional districts are already split now. A gerrymandered America.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-30-2017, 11:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But the blue is the majority by 2.86 million votes.

This whole idea would not be necessary if you guys grew up and dropped your Reaganomics and its associated dog whistles for white power and Christian fundamentalism. The Confederacy was no utopia, mate.

It's looks like the majority of the blues live along the west coast. Do we still need the west coast? Which side of the San Andreas fault are you and the majority of blues located? The right side or the wrong side as you and the blue survival as a majority are concerned.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-30-2017, 11:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It occurs to me that a red/blue American split might look a lot like the way congressional districts are already split now. A gerrymandered America.

Really, it's taken you this long to figure that out. Gee, I figured that out a long time ago own my own without any help from my friends.

[Eric the Green]

(01-31-2017, 12:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 11:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But the blue is the majority by 2.86 million votes.

This whole idea would not be necessary if you guys grew up and dropped your Reaganomics and its associated dog whistles for white power and Christian fundamentalism. The Confederacy was no utopia, mate.

It's looks like the majority of the blues live along the west coast. Do we still need the west coast? Which side of the San Andreas fault are you and the majority of blues located? The right side or the wrong side as you and the blue survival as a majority are concerned.

LOL Classic, no that won't quite work. The San Andreas verges out to sea on the left side (west side) of San Francisco. It's also west of San Jose. Then it goes back on land, but only in the Point Reyes Seashore area. I suppose there's a few fault lines to the east that could work tho.

Blues are usually stronger on the northeast coast than the west coast. This year because of Trump and his anti-Mexican hoopla, that shifted because of the large number of hispanics in the southwest, and a Rust Belt element in some of the eastern states.

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-31-2017, 12:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 11:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But the blue is the majority by 2.86 million votes.

This whole idea would not be necessary if you guys grew up and dropped your Reaganomics and its associated dog whistles for white power and Christian fundamentalism. The Confederacy was no utopia, mate.

It's looks like the majority of the blues live along the west coast. Do we still need the west coast? Which side of the San Andreas fault are you and the majority of blues located? The right side or the wrong side as you and the blue survival as a majority are concerned.

Oh, that's easy.   The San Andreas Fault does indeed do a good match of being a red/blue divide.  So the Pacific plate is blue and the North American plate is mostly red.  That can be a problem though.  It's hard to build a wall next to a seismically active area.

Speaking of walls, we have a hypocrite.  Mark Fuckerberg is it.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/technolo...index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/.../82940466/