board77

I think you proved his point again because you are not privy to the his real argument carefully locked away deep in his brain. He's the unarguable!

Let's remake the Balkans in North America! Won't that be fun! Paint the towns red! Literally! Though blood dries rusty brown so the red will just be temporary, I'm afraid.

I'm sure Canada would love to go down that drain with us. I mean, why bust up one sovreign nation when you can wreck two? It would be just peachy for them, I'm sure. Can we include the mined mountainsides? The shelled historic and cultural sites? The ethnic cleansing and refugees? The sieges, snipers, and rapes? Throw in a few mass graves and some war crimes trials? That's the way it's done these days. Just ask the former Yugoslavs...

At least the people, cities and towns and counties and states all have easily pronounced names that make use of vowels, right? No one's going to have to wrap their tongue around some ungodly mess like "Srebinica" or "Mladic" this time around! Nope, we'll have easy things like "Louisville" and "Smith".



If I were Mexican I'd be offended at not being included. Or is Mexico in reserve for the refugee population? They gotta go somewhere. Not everyone wants to stick out the fighting. A lot of people just say "fuck this" and run when the guns start firing.

That brown area is almost a map of the only places to get In N Out Burger in the US. Gotta flip that Utah blue and the New Mexico brown. I wish In N Out Burger would come to the East Coast..... at least the drive would be closer...

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

What is the point of your map, C_G? I see lots of color blocks, but no key. Am I supposed to just know what they mean (besides the red/blue/light red) by osmosis? Thanks for the unhelpful map.

All right.

For all that people talk about red/blue as if the political spectrum had only two poles and nothing else were allowed, there are actually several distinct regions in the country (and in Canada as well) that even if the same color on an electoral map are quite different form each other.

Blue = United States. Ontario joined the US after the rest of Canada kicked them out.
Green = Canada. Alaska joined up.
Yellow = Quebec.
Dark Brown = Arcadia, also known as Maritime Canada (sometimes East Canada).
Red = Confederate States. They took the old name to piss of the United States.
Orange = Great Plains.
Light Blue = Utah.
Light Brown (slightly greenish) = Desert Confederation.
Purple = Pacifica.

Not Shown - Hawaii and Pacific holdings of the USA = United Pacific States

Is the source of that map this libertarian/secessionist wetdream fantasy that was posted on the Lew Rockwell site?

www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/gonella4.html

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

What is the point of your map, C_G? I see lots of color blocks, but no key. Am I supposed to just know what they mean (besides the red/blue/light red) by osmosis? Thanks for the unhelpful map.

All right.

For all that people talk about red/blue as if the political spectrum had only two poles and nothing else were allowed, there are actually several distinct regions in the country (and in Canada as well) that even if the same color on an electoral map are quite different form each other.

Blue = United States. Ontario joined the US after the rest of Canada kicked them out.
Green = Canada. Alaska joined up.
Yellow = Quebec.
Dark Brown = Arcadia, also known as Maritime Canada (sometimes East Canada).
Red = Confederate States. They took the old name to piss of the United States.
Orange = Great Plains.
Light Blue = Utah.
Light Brown (slightly greenish) = Desert Confederation.
Purple = Pacifica.

Not Shown - Hawaii and Pacific holdings of the USA = United Pacific States

That was an excellent geography lesson professor, but it does nothing to enlighten me as to why the regions are colored that way. Is it based on political breakdown? Is it population? Is it based on favor M&M? or maybe Skittles flavors? Is this some Mad Max future divisions of power that we have to look forward to?

Instead of posting hieroglyphics and then requiring everyone else to do the legwork to figure out your p.o.v., post your p.o.v. then we can get rid of the wasted posts of trying to decipher the riddle of the sphinx and instead get to the meat of the argument. By the way, the answer is 'man.'

It's called Cascadia and it includes Northern California and BC (in essence, the entirety of the Cascades). It is a land of glacier-coated volcanoes, rain, evergreens, peace, harmony, and coffee. Lots and lots of coffee. And Colorado has a tendency to identify more with the Southwest than with Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.


If you're going to tap into silly regional fantasies, you might as get it right.

The red and blue are chosen to reflect the red and blue states. The rest are chosen because I needed colors different from red and blue for the other states. It's kind of hard to show nine different regions with two colors.

Do you want me to describe the political orientation of each of those nine regions?

Riverthalos wrote:

If you're going to tap into silly regional fantasies, you might as get it right.

Iowa is in the union on my map. Just north of Missouri where it's always been. It's colored blue on the map I posted.

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

The red and blue are chosen to reflect the red and blue states. The rest are chosen because I needed colors different from red and blue for the other states. It's kind of hard to show nine different regions with two colors.

Do you want me to describe the political orientation of each of those nine regions?

I forgot that Canada factored into the red/blue divide of the US. Obama should thank those Canadians who voted for him and do more for them. Clean up that snow problem, perhaps.

If that will get you to your point faster, then go right ahead and describe the political orientations of those regions. If you are going to repeat points off of LewRockwell, then just post a link. I get that Texas could secede and the Democrats would have a much easier time of securing the government in their favor, but what is the point?

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

I get that Texas could secede and the Democrats would have a much easier time of securing the government in their favor, but what is the point?

My map isn't the same as that one, but anyway...

The reason I made the comment about Texas is because those who stand the most to gain if Texas does leave are also the ones most vocal about how no state should leave. The entire electoral landscape would permanently shift in a direction that no Democrat could object to, except by objecting to the means of the permanent victory.

Quote:

The reason I made the comment about Texas is because those who stand the most to gain if Texas does leave are also the ones most vocal about how no state should leave. The entire electoral landscape would permanently shift in a direction that no Democrat could object to, except by objecting to the means of the permanent victory.

There is no "victory" in treason.

The point of a democracy is that no one has a permanent victory. It's a nice consolation you seem to be offering, but it demonstrates how little you know about what a democracy entails. I vote Democrat often (despite not being a part of the party), but I would see America as a failure if it became a country of one party. Though, some could say that it already is.....

Light Brown for New Mexico...ha ha very punny.

And we would never be the Desert Confederation....screw that...we'd go back to being part of the Spanish Empire.

Country lines are all fairly arbitrary anyways so I really don't care how you bother carving it all up. But the rather obvious point of CG's map is that there are finer cultural groups in the country than just political party and that just because Cali and NY tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that they are politically of the same mind.

yovargas wrote:

Country lines are all fairly arbitrary anyways so I really don't care how you bother carving it all up. But the rather obvious point of CG's map is that there are finer cultural groups in the country than just political party and that just because Cali and NY tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that they are politically of the same mind.

Is that the point? I didn't think it was as obvious since there was nothing worth grasping concerning the map.

The point of CG's map and the article on Lew Rockwells site which closely matches it in all but hues and colors - is that it is a libertarian/secessionist wetdream of destroying the government of the USA. That is the point behind it. Read the article and its like some perverted political fantasy of the destruction of the USA. Hitler and Mussolini could no do it. Stalin could not do it. The slave owners of the Confederacy could not do it. But somebody on the Rockwell site writes the equal of political porn glorifying treason and the destruction of the USA and it is suppose to be a point for discussion. Sorry - but lets call it for what it is.

Wouldn't Salt Lake City become an independent nation, and change its marriage laws?

Case in point of what is wrong with Faux News and all of Limbaughs 'friends' He was actually idiotic enough to not only read the thesis on the air, he thought it was true for the first half of his show. No actual background work, just bad mouthing the President becuase he found a blog that said so....So Rush here's a big piling mound of poo in your eye you low life scum sucking pos. Sure he'll hem and haw his way out of it, but it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt just how f$%cked up he and his friends are.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93122?fp=1
It must have seemed so perfect. An obscure blogger unearths some pages of President Obama's college thesis. The report supposedly comes from big-time journalist Joe Klein of Time magazine. And the thesis has some real gems: like Obama's disdain for the Constitution.

The whole thing was nothing more than a satirical post on a humor blog. But Rush Limbaugh, who quoted from the supposed thesis on his radio show, sure wasn't laughing. Here's how it went down.

An unknown blogger picked up on a made-up post meant as a joke, which claimed that Joe Klein had gotten his hands on 10 pages of student Obama's college thesis. Rush Limbaugh jumped on it, which immediately sparked Web searches on "obama thesis."

Supposedly titled "Aristocracy Revisited," the excerpt revealed the president had "doubts" about the "so-called founders." Juicy. Except not true. Limbaugh discovered halfway through his show that he'd been had, but defended himself by saying basically the thesis felt true. Listen in to Rush's mea sorta culpa.

Barf.