Better get over it soon H2O...The Neandrathals won. Rhodesian Man is coming to mess with you for 4 more years!!!!

By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Secession, which didn't work very well when it was tried once before,
is suddenly red hot in the blue states. In certain precincts, anyway.
One popular map circulating on the Internet shows the 19 blue
states won by Sen. John Kerry — Washington, Oregon, California,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Maryland and the
Northeastern states — conjoined with Canada to form the "United States
of Canada." The 31 red states carried by Mr. Bush are depicted as a
separate nation dubbed "Jesusland."
The idea isn't just a joke; one top Democrat says, "The segment of
the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed
by the people who don't pay for the federal government."
"Some would say, 'Oh, poor Alabama. It's cut off from the wealth
infusion that it gets from New York and California,' " said Lawrence
O'Donnell, a veteran Democratic insider and now senior political
analyst at MSNBC. "But the more this political condition goes on at
the presidential level of the red and blue states, the more you're
testing the inclination of the blue states to say, 'So what?' "
Mr. O'Donnell raised the subject of secession on "The McLaughlin
Group" during the weekend. "Ninety percent of the red states are
welfare-client states of the federal government," said Mr. O'Donnell,
who was an aide to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat.
In a telephone interview, Mr. O'Donnell said the red states that
went to Mr. Bush "collect more from the federal government than they
send in. New York and California, Connecticut — the states that are
blue are all the states that are paying for the bulk of everything
this government does, from ... Social Security to everything else, and
the people in those states don't like what this government is doing."
The Internet has exploded with talk of a blue-state confederacy,
including one screed circulating by e-mail that features a map of a
new country called "American Coastopia" and proposes lopping off the
Northeast, the West Coast and the upper Midwest to form a new country,
away from the "rednecks in Oklahoma" and the "homophobic
knuckle-draggers in Wyoming."
"We were all going to move to various other countries, but then
we thought — why should WE move?" the anonymous message asks. "We hold
our noses as we fly over you. We are sickened by the way you treat
people that are different from you. The rest of the world despises
America, and we don't want to be lumped in with you anymore."
The secession movement has already spawned commercial
opportunism. One Web site is selling T-shirts that read "I seceded."
No one at the White House would comment on the calls for
secession, but one top Republican official with ties to the Bush
administration said the recent talk is not surprising, coming off an
election in which the president received more than 59 million votes —
the most in history.
"If we were that far out of the mainstream, maybe we'd be pushing
the creation of our own country," the official said. "Then we might
have a chance of ever winning an election again."
But Andy Nowicki, a libertarian blogger, said the blue states
will never secede because "liberals don't want to leave their enemies
alone. Instead, as their track record shows, they want to take over
the government in order to force their enemies to endure perpetual
sensitivity training for being such racist, sexist, homophobic,
'closed-minded' boors, i.e., for disagreeing with them."
The emergence of a solidly Republican South prompted longtime
Democratic activist Bob Beckel to advocate Southern independence the
morning after Election Day.
"I think now that slavery is taken care of, I'm for letting the
South form its own nation. Really, I think they ought to have their
own confederacy," Mr. Beckel said on the "Fox and Friends" program.
While secession is often thought to be a Southern phenomenon,
Northern leaders repeatedly threatened secession in the 19th century,
in protest of such provocations as the War of 1812, as well as the
admission of Louisiana and Texas to the Union. In 1803, Massachusetts
Sen. Timothy Pickering proposed "a new confederacy," naming the New
England states members along with New York ("the center of the
confederacy").
In 1839, former President John Quincy Adams defended the right of
secession in a speech in New York, saying, "Far better will it be ...
to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by
constraint."
But according to Slate.com — another liberal Web site that has
explored the topic of secession — there are no provisions in U.S. law
for a state or states to opt out of the Union, citing such authorities
as Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School and Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law
School who say that since Appomattox "scholars have agreed that the
Constitution grants no right of secession."
While legal scholars say states cannot leave the Union, nothing
stops individuals. Before the 2000 election, actor Alec Baldwin was
one of several Hollywood figures who threatened to leave the country
if Mr. Bush was elected — but didn't.
"Unfortunately, there were no such pronouncements this time
around," said Martin Grove, a columnist for HollywoodReporter.com,
"perhaps because the last time around, when push came to shove, all of
these people decided maybe they were in the best place they could
possibly be to begin with."

Which cartoon character are you grandpa?

I love it that righty in washington acts as if they were somehow contributory to Bouche's victory...like 'we won, 'we won'!

Get this through your fat head, you lost washington. Lefty won washington healthily. I did my job, I accomplished my task.

What did righty do in washington?

Failed....abyssmally at that.

I was over the election result before we got the final election result. I've moved on...one way you can tell is that I am now able to find humor in it....apparently righty is still having a tough time with that.

What do you expect with a constituency that includes the likes of grandpa and elvis?

Well, gloating when you lose is what I will expect in the future.

"I was over the election result before we got the final election result. I've moved on..."

Right. No really, I believe you. Seriously. After all, you did 'your part'. You 'won' Washington (as if that wasn't a given from the beginning). That must have been an awesome 'victory' party you had.

Now who has the rose colored glasses??

PS - I heard a quote from JFKerry recently: "I won the election...........before I lost the election"

"I was over the election result before we got the final election result. I've moved on..."

No one gets over their world view getting slamed like the libs did in such a short timeframe. All that has happened is some justification why it went the way it did. Liberal agenda items one by one are overwhelmingly opposed my the majority of Americans by an Avg. of 75%.

So stupid that they could get a man elected during a controversial war with a supposed bad economy that has supposedly lied and has taken away everyone civil rights. You'd think that with all the things against him all the "smart" people would have no trouble getting their man elected. Shoot, all them hicks that you so easily slam are also the ones serving our country so that all the smart people can stay home and bash everything those dumb soldiers are doing. It's Pretty funny though that Kerry's IQ is lower than GW. But, if calling most of a Nation that last week you were calling for unity and joining together stupid makes you feel better have at it. And you sit back in wonder why you lost and what's going on?

It's even funnier hearing someone make that claim.

Last time I was in the South, they had a saying that applies to all the whimpering, sore-losers in the Democratic fold:

"Here's a quarter."

Hell! You ain't been travelin' much lately then KJ... just in case you ain't heard yet... a phone call's gonna cost ya at least $.35 nowadays... :p

Dans, like the , NY Times , and on and on ..........

4-salt-- Actually, I've been travelling so much that my wife doesn't care if I call...

I guess I could have offered other responses from the South, but a couple I could think of right off the bat were too vulgar for a popular forum, even though that doesn't seem to bother some folks. I was thinking of the oldie, "Kiss my grits," but then I'd have to explain to a bunch of dumb Yankees what grits were.

OK, so back to work I go,

KJ

Kjackson - just don't travel sooo much that the wife starts minding once again if you do remember to call - and interupt her and the pool boy....

"Mel... kiss my grits!" - Flo the waitress from the 70's TV show 'Alice'.

"Here's a quarter... call someone who cares." - Travis Tritt song from the 80's.

Believe it or not, I've been to Possum Patch Mississippi a time or two also.

I was just funnin' ya a bit there KJ.


PP does offer some sage advice though... If you're gonna travel that much... drain the swimming pool first!

4S- Didn't take it any other way.

PP-- Now I know why my wife requires a phone call when I touch down at Seatac...

I probably am going to nail Paris Hilton this weekend, too.

Dan

See if you can get her to buy you a sled :p

With all that money she can toss a little coin your way for your services

(Edited to be nicer and to keep others from being as ruffled as I was when I read this regional biased post about the South.)

I don't remember Democrats having a problem with Southerners when they had Democrat Southerners as Pres and Vice-Pres. And...I didn't hear them complaining about Edwards being the VP candidate.

If you want a Democrat in the Whitehouse, don't pick a Senator who has a liberal record for a candidate. The last Senator from either party that was elected ran against a Senator, and you have to go way back to find one.

Edited - To congratulate eddie on making the best post in this thread.

Man, there's a lot of solid validity in that statement. The problem with a Senator of either party running is the length of the record to use against them. Every issue they vote on can become pretty complex and their vote is motivated by a miriad of reasons. In contrast to the black and white bubble that some live in, the issues that Congressmen vote on are never that clear cut.

Boy H2O you sure don't sound like you "got over it" very well. Your agenda is safe in King County I guess but not so popular everywhere else. Out there in Sappho country I bet it is similar to the South except I'm sure not nearly as polite.

Oh and 4Salt is right...that old country song will have to change two words to say: " Here's two quarters...call someone who cares."

What's that? No phones out in Sappho?

Let me try and add some context to this discussion. I have seen so many maps that try and explain the divide in this nation related to the election. Here are what I believe to be facts.

1. Are people different in cities, suburbs, and rural areas? You bet, there has always been differences, nothing new here. The United States needs all the groups of people in order to survive.

2. Do the taxpayers in the blue states pay more taxes than the people in the red states? Yes, they do and there is a transfer of those tax dollars generally to the red states. Is this a huge problem? Not really, see #1.

3. How about the IQ scores? While generally true that the Blue states have higher IQ's on average than the red states - does this really tell us anything? I'm unsure, although one possibility is that the IQ tests are subtly biased towards a more urban experience. I have met people from all over this country and found intellegence (or lack thereof) to be pretty universal.

4. One other difference between the red states and the blue states. If you measure charitable giving, you will find the red states are far ahead (per capita) than the blue states. Not really surprising, the churches are more well attended in the red states and I expect are very active in a large percentage of the charitable giving.

My point is, this is the United States of America. That means that everyone contributes to the overall quality of life here. Do I like what the majority of voters decided last week? Absolutely not, but the pendulum must always swing one way or the other. It's not the first time the majority has been wrong nor will it be the last. But, now is not the time to try and divide along geographical, philosophical, or any other lines. Those of us who are disappointed with the election let's pick ourselves up, continue to fight the good fight, pick our battles carefully and we may speed up the pendulum swing back in our direction. But, we do not need to fight the Civil War again. If you love the United States, you will recognize that what makes this country great is our diversity. Let's celebrate that and move on.

Eddie, So you are saying it would not be more productive to slam your Yam Sack in the car door every morning in protest over GW being president president?

TK - that would be correct!!!

Boy Ed.....Isn't it even remotely possible that the majority is trying to get something through the minorities thick , know-it-all skull? Isn't there a little sliver of a possibility that the minority is wrong?

The majority does not necessarily rule in this country. The minority , as you so aptly pointed out, think they are right and are desperate to control the majortity whom they view as Neandrathals who need guidance. One way the minority does that is through the courts. Can you say gay marriage?

:D

tk, that was the funniest thing I've read here in a while!

Grandpa, you bet the minority can be wrong, in my opinion, they are not this time.

Nobody won this one.

P.S. The south sucks hard.