PDA

View Full Version : New Plan



Ross
11-09-2004, 12:58 PM
Here is the plan: Let Bush govern the red states, and
Kerry rule the blue. Since the deficit is a republican
creation, they can keep it, while Kerry's states will
revert to the Clinton-era budget surplus. The blue
states will be happy to retain the UN (which the reds
don't want), protect the coasts and re-open dialogue
with the rest of the world.

The republican capital can be in Topeka. Cheney can go
back home to Wyoming. Conservatives will be required
to migrate to Montana, Wyoming, and the other red
states where they can defend themselves against Canada
and Mexico. They will all be in the National Guard,
which will be run by the experts in Swift Boat
Veterans, and continue to be paid less than enlisted
troops for the same work, contributing to the good
work of their moral administration. Morally correct
assault rifles will be distributed to the public by
NRA Family Values, Inc., but will not require body
armor since they are all faith-based and, after all,
Bush told Pat Robertson there would be no casualties,
and as he said in his April press conference, he can't
think of any mistakes he's ever made.

The blue states get the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marines, whose Pentagon leaders didn't want to go to
Iraq as insisted by the administration. Colin Powell
is rumored to be leaving the administration, and the
blues will be glad to have him. The red states get to
finish up with Iraq since they started it, and they
assure us they're doing such a splendid job of winning
hearts and minds by demonstrating how democracy works
and how to run prisons over there. The blues, on the
other hand, will finish the job of finding Osama.

The Ten Commandments can be posted throughout the red
states, where each gas fill-up will begin with prayer,
but they can't subscribe to the NY Times or listen to
NPR. They can have Fox News and all of the textbooks
that have replaced the theory of evolution with
creation science and astrology. The blues will
continue with The West Wing and the reds can have Joan
of Arcadia and The Power of Prayer Hour. The reds will
practice abstinence and revert to back-alley
abortions, and the blues will have sex education,
birth control, and condoms. However, the blues will
continue to export the Cialis girl commercials and
Viagra to the red states to allow them to demonstrate
how to deal with temptation.

The reds have to keep Las Vegas, but no Heinz ketchup,
no French fries, and no stem cells.

The blues will keep E Pluribus Unum (Great Divider
Bush is still trying to get this translated, along
with the 10,000 hours of Taliban tapes that the FBI is
sitting on), and the republican national motto will be
Cheney's infamous epithet, F- you! which has worked so
well for them in Europe and at home. This will be
moderated to "F- you, under God" by his religious
supporters, the evangelicals and Catholic church.

Fox News, Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly will move to
Kansas and anchor their evening news (and church
services, until the clergy get out on parole).
Wisconsin and Iowa will represent the left wing of the
republican nation and Cheney's daughter will move
there. The Bishop of Boston and all of the holy ones
suspected of child molestation and related denials and
cover-ups will be relocated to Idaho where they can
practice marriage ceremonies between two priests, one
of whom must be in drag.

Hawaii is among the blue states. The democrats will be
honored to keep it; republicans can vacation in
Florida.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SpiderMan
11-09-2004, 01:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Here is the plan: Let Bush govern the red states, and
Kerry rule the blue. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

But wait, since we're hoping to please everyone, let's subdivide even further ... Since most states were closely contested, let's relocate the red voters to red states, and blue voters to blue states.

Here in Texas, we can have a round-up of all our trial lawyers, welfare queens, gay activists, felons, illegal immigrants, big-government politicians (we'll even include Martin Frost, though we already managed to vote him out), and the occasional well-meaning head-in-the-sand generic liberal. Then we'll send them to Kalifornia or the east coast, where they'll fit in nicely with folks just like themselves and an assortment of clueless "real-world" entertainment personalities, and we'll take the decent working folk in trade.

We'll send Nader supporters to the blue side, and libertarians to the red.

Relieved of our burden, maybe we CAN afford to vacation in Florida! Don't think I'd like Hawaii anyway - they don't trust their citizens with guns, but dial 911 and they'll eventually fill out a nice report on your assault.

SpiderMan

crawdaddio
11-09-2004, 01:57 PM
As a gay, mexican, marijuana selling, congressman, who is now a trial lawyer on welfare I take offense.

DC

Ross
11-09-2004, 02:46 PM
Spiderman, you allow your felons to vote??? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SpiderMan
11-09-2004, 03:16 PM
I admit I'm not an authority on the subject, but my belief is that a felony conviction does not constitutionally bar one from voting. Perhaps state law blocks felons in Texas from voter registration. I'm sure that some of our more liberal policymakers would like to see it change. "Motor voter" laws are a step in that direction.

Anyone have more definitive information?

SpiderMan

SPetty
11-09-2004, 03:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>Anyone have more definitive information?<hr /></blockquote>"It is true that Texans with felony convictions once could not vote. But in 1983, a permanent ban was replaced with a five-year waiting period after felons finished their sentences. That later became a two-year period, and in 1997, then-Gov. George W. Bush enacted legislation eliminating that wait."

from http://www.righttovote.org/news_news_descrip.asp?ID=19

SpiderMan
11-09-2004, 03:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> http://www.righttovote.org/news_news_descrip.asp?ID=19 <hr /></blockquote>

There you have it - yes, felons do vote, so we can include them in our roundup /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
11-09-2004, 07:30 PM
Hey Ross,
We're going to miss you down here.
Be sure to stock up on winter clothes...Unless you decide California is more to your liking.
Oh yeah...Thanks for Vegas...I kinda like that place!

Steve /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Ross
11-09-2004, 11:53 PM
Actually Steve, I wouldn't want to give up Vegas either. Too much fun. I didn't write that blurb - I just received it in an e-mail and thought it was pretty funny. You have to give us Dems some slack to burn off some steam --we've had a tough week! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

pooltchr
11-10-2004, 06:40 AM
Ross, I hear that Dem's Anonymous has an 8 step program to help the hardcore deal with the withdrawl problems. Step number 6 involves imagining the cue ball is the President, particularly on the break shots!

Seriously, I think you will survive, but your political party really needs to come together and define who they are. As long as they keep trying to appeal to this group or that group, there are going to be problems. It seems to make more sense to design a platform in line with the majority of the people as opposed to trying to get a lot of smaller groups to support the party.

By the way...I think if you were to go into politics, I might even find myself supporting a Dem. (OMG, Did I really say that?????!!!!!) /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Steve

silverbullet
11-10-2004, 06:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>


We'll send Nader supporters to the blue side, and libertarians to the red.

Relieved of our burden, maybe we CAN afford to vacation in Florida! Don't think I'd like Hawaii anyway - they don't trust their citizens with guns, but dial 911 and they'll eventually fill out a nice report on your assault.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

Why move Libertarians to the red? I do not believe in any proposed laws or current ones interfering with person freedom: whether anti-abotion, making gay marriage illegal, gun control, illegalization of drugs, censorship at any level, nor a mandatory draft; so how does that make me red more than Blue.

Since I do not believe in any of that stuff, nor in the thief the IRS, I should be able to live anywhere I wish. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

sb

eg8r
11-10-2004, 06:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> As a gay, mexican, marijuana selling, congressman, who is now a trial lawyer on welfare I take offense.

DC <hr /></blockquote> LOL, take it up in Kalifornia. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

One thing Ross's post has failed to mention would be all businesses with a desire to actually make a profit would also move there companies to the red states. This would in effect leave all businesses that are happy with over-bearing government regulation, open to government deciding pay for workers, open to the government forcing them to provide health insurance, etc, can all stay in Kalifornia and New England.

What would happen...Well the all the energy, telephone, and cable companies would be moving to the red. They will charge exorbitant (higher than they already are) amounts of money to the blue states. Once this happens, the blue states will see this as an outrage because the poor surely cannot afford this. They blue states will decide that the government should offer these "necessities" to the people of the blue states. At that point, they will begin taxing the crap out of the citizens, this is the only way the government of the blue states can afford to pay the bill. Well, sooner or later the hollywood morons (and businesses) will get tired of paying for power, telephone, cable etc, for everyone in the state and they will change their minds and move. Once there taxable income has left the blue states, the blue states will begin to lose all of the "clinton surplus" (which was an accounting scam) and go into deep deep debt. At that point, they will need to appoint a Republican leader to "try" and help them out of their government-supported hell.

Wait a second...Isn't that what has happened in Kalifornia already???? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

SpiderMan
11-10-2004, 07:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>


We'll send Nader supporters to the blue side, and libertarians to the red.

Relieved of our burden, maybe we CAN afford to vacation in Florida! Don't think I'd like Hawaii anyway - they don't trust their citizens with guns, but dial 911 and they'll eventually fill out a nice report on your assault.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

Why move Libertarians to the red? sb <hr /></blockquote>

Because I like 'em. If we follow the letter of these proposed changes, I'll wind up in the red and I tend to agree with many of the libertarian philosophies. Just because I was for Bush does't mean I think the Republicans are the answer, it's just that I couldn't stand the thought of Kerry getting away with re-inventing himself in six months and distancing himself from his 20 years of tax/spend and big-government voting record.

I personally feel that, despite the social issues, Republicans and Democrats are little different; ie our bottom line would not change more than 10% under either administration. I consider them little more than the left and right wings of the American Socialist Party. They might differ in 10% or so of the bottom-line stealing and spending, but neither seems to realize that it's not their money.

SpiderMan

silverbullet
11-10-2004, 08:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>

I personally feel that, despite the social issues, Republicans and Democrats are little different; ie our bottom line would not change more than 10% under either administration. I consider them little more than the left and right wings of the American Socialist Party. They might differ in 10% or so of the bottom-line stealing and spending, but neither seems to realize that it's not their money.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

Boy do I agree. In a socialist system, you tend to lose both personal and economic rights. In our current system, one seems more likely (not exclusively) to take away your personal rights in the guise of morality, while the other tends to have a 'robin hood' bent, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but they even do that bady.

But, in both parties, which repubs want to impose federal sanctions in regards to personal rights, dems want to take away 'the right to bear arms', which is also a personal right.

And- and a for instance economically that neither party seems to contest: the lucky ones who work full time at a job, retire on social security and whatever they have saved in 401, etc, a person who has been a senator for one term or less, retires on a full pension. Not too fair when you contrast that to a person, whether blue collar or white, who retires, if they are llucky on 1/3 to 1/2 of the income they had made.

There was a time that the congress was voting huge wage increases for themselves, which comes out of our taxes, and the rest of us languish, regardless of how hard we worked.

The federal govt is corrupt, the IRS is a thief and I want all of my rights back: all of them.

My husband calls me an idealist and says I would have fit in better in the wild west, but I would prefer anarchy over what we currently have, which of course, has little to do with bush or kerry, but the whole system.

I preferred kerry as a person, but perhaps bush is okay there also, the sqeeky wheel gets the grease and you do not know who to believe. I definately preferred bush in terms of tracking alquada, followed by mccain in 2008....But, I still do not believe in the draft and here is why.

Americans as a group value their freedom. If they feel their freedom is in jeorpardy, they will sign up. If they do not feel their freedom is in jeopardy, they will not sign up, which many would not have for vietnam. In such cases, we do not need to be in those wars. Americans will always fight for freedom, a draft is not needed IMO.

sb

SpiderMan
11-10-2004, 08:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr>
Americans as a group value their freedom. If they feel their freedom is in jeorpardy, they will sign up. If they do not feel their freedom is in jeopardy, they will not sign up, which many would not have for vietnam. In such cases, we do not need to be in those wars. Americans will always fight for freedom, a draft is not needed IMO.
sb <hr /></blockquote>

BW,

While I'm philosophically aligned with you on many points, I must disagree here. I do believe that defense should remain a Federal responsibility, and I don't believe we can wait for each individual to decide to support the cause. It would require an advertising blitz more expensive than an election. Too easy for us lazy folk to decide to profiteer while someone else does the fighting. Besides, without conscription, I doubt we'd want to pay the taxes needed to make massive quantities of soldiering jobs attractive to anyone with other options.

SpiderMan

silverbullet
11-10-2004, 11:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
SB,

While I'm philosophically aligned with you on many points, I must disagree here. I do believe that defense should remain a Federal responsibility, and I don't believe we can wait for each individual to decide to support the cause.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

I think that most libertarians would have supported a draft in the war against Hitler, and if this one approaches that magnitude, most of them would not oppose it. In general, strict libertarians do not support the draft, but it is freedom they value most, so I think that they would only support it in 'rare' cases, such as a threat to total loss of liberty, life and freedom. My statement was pretty blanket, but there are rare exceptions in my view.

Here is what I am afraid may happen, based on gut,and opinion. Hope I am wrong

If Bush et al did have a hidden agenda for getting into IRAQ, it may not necessarily be the one that the liberals claimed.There are lots of countries over there which cannot defend themselves and allow alquada to cross their borders and in at least one country who did not like alquada, that terrorist organization was allowed to lauder money through their banks. Why did they allow this? They were afraid. They did not want to be attacked and had no way to defend themselves.

I am wondering if Bush knew that he had to get into the Middle East to get alquada, and took out sadaam in the process,attempted to stabilize IRAQ, and will leave troops there as they are still in afghanistan and in a few other places over there.I heard that we have troops in over 100 countries. If he is going to get them, he may have to wipe through the entire Middle East, and possibly bolster those helpless countries with more protection. It looks pretty bad and there is a pretty sizable contingent in N Africa too.

I do not know how much of a visionary Bush is, but if this is the picture he is seeing and saw, then he had to get into the middle east, with lots of military, even if it meant 'fudging' a bit.And this is also part of the reason I want McCain in 2008.

The intentions were good in IRAQ, but now the new govt of IRAQ is planning on a vote process which is against the recommendations of both the UN and the US, which could cause it to destabilize and end up in civil war. Hope that does not happen, but it could. The plan of taking one country at a time, stabilize it, go on to the next is a good one in theory, but am afraid that IRAQ will not remain stable, adding to the possibility of alquada reintering there in larger forces, if there is not sufficient US, etc military to prevent this.

The downside of all of this is that if US has to flash such a large span of countries, then we are accumulating more debt. But, then, if your freedom is being seriously threatened, not mmuch else matters.

Sb