What If Republican and Democrat States Were Separate Countries?

[Nosmo King]

The point is, you obviously aren't much better off than those you disparage if you live right next door.

No, that's not it at all. HUD targets areas to destroy. They send their lowlifes to those areas and then the good people begin to move out. Nobody nowhere is safe from the federal HUD attacks.

Did you know that Section Eight rent subsidies are paid to private landlords? Did you know that private landlords own the Section Eight rental properties? Did you know that there are some landlords who have made a career for themselves as landlords? Did you know that every Section Eight rental property is inspected every year for quality standards, something rarely done with other rental properties?

Did you know, or are you just shooting from the hip without any real knowledge?

So WTF does that have to do with the price of rice in China? I know all about section 8. I'm a landlord myself. But that doesn't change the fact that lowlifes don't belong in the suburbs with working people. The cops have been out here almost a dozen times because of these lowlifes next door to me, and they're still trouble.

The problem is HUD has way too much money, and that's something we need to cut down. If I have to support these slugs, fine, but I'll support them over there--not over here. Put them in the inner-city where they belong with all the other people that don't work.

Are the poor always lowlifes? Is poverty a marker of a deficiency in morality? If you're poor, is it solely because you're a criminal?

In most cases yes it does. But it goes beyond that.

When I wake up in the morning and those mini-vans and SUV's remain in their parking lot, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they come home at 3:00 am on a work night, drunk as a skunk, making noise enough to wake up everybody nearby, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they use blankets, bed sheets, and towels to cover their windows making the street look like the ghetto, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they have four kids they obviously could never afford, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When their garbage cans remain on the curb several days after the garbage is picked up--even though they are all home during the day, that's a sign of a lowlife.

So poverty is a character flaw and nothing more.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Simply look at the States balance of payments... The Red states are mainly takers and Blue mainly givers....

As for commodities, do you remember globalisation... The Blue states can buy oil & food from anywhere...

This is a major problem for the red states because without the Blue States money they would severely go down hill...

We are in the information age and the Blue States have a major upper hand on that... Tarrifs would be imposed on Red States to keep Companies from moving the major businesses...

Without the power of cheap interest on borrowing, I say the Red states would descend into pretty low levels...

But it is not all doom and gloom... Eventually the red states will drop so far the Blue states will just buy up their resources like Land and Oil... So the Red States will have Blue Landlords...

This is based on actual numbers...

Speaking as one of the red staters, we can hardly wait. In fact, can't happen fast enough as far as I'm concerned. As for the phony giver-taker thing, once blue people move out of our red states, we won't need blue state money any longer. In fact you'll probably need us to borrow some of it to you.

I hate to tell you but Ohio is not a red state. Especially Cleveland. At best it's a swing state.

In the OP, it's listed as a red state. Our governor and legislature is Republican led. What they consider a red or blue state is based on the latest presidential race.

And yes, we red states have blue big cities. That's where most of the welfare money goes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, that's not it at all. HUD targets areas to destroy. They send their lowlifes to those areas and then the good people begin to move out. Nobody nowhere is safe from the federal HUD attacks.

Did you know that Section Eight rent subsidies are paid to private landlords? Did you know that private landlords own the Section Eight rental properties? Did you know that there are some landlords who have made a career for themselves as landlords? Did you know that every Section Eight rental property is inspected every year for quality standards, something rarely done with other rental properties?

Did you know, or are you just shooting from the hip without any real knowledge?

So WTF does that have to do with the price of rice in China? I know all about section 8. I'm a landlord myself. But that doesn't change the fact that lowlifes don't belong in the suburbs with working people. The cops have been out here almost a dozen times because of these lowlifes next door to me, and they're still trouble.

The problem is HUD has way too much money, and that's something we need to cut down. If I have to support these slugs, fine, but I'll support them over there--not over here. Put them in the inner-city where they belong with all the other people that don't work.

Are the poor always lowlifes? Is poverty a marker of a deficiency in morality? If you're poor, is it solely because you're a criminal?

In most cases yes it does. But it goes beyond that.

When I wake up in the morning and those mini-vans and SUV's remain in their parking lot, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they come home at 3:00 am on a work night, drunk as a skunk, making noise enough to wake up everybody nearby, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they use blankets, bed sheets, and towels to cover their windows making the street look like the ghetto, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they have four kids they obviously could never afford, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When their garbage cans remain on the curb several days after the garbage is picked up--even though they are all home during the day, that's a sign of a lowlife.

So poverty is a character flaw and nothing more.

Poverty is the state of not having any (or little) money.
The solution to poverty is to acquire money.
The way to acquire money is to get a job and work, not spend your money carelessly like having children you can't afford or cars you can't afford to keep up, or living in an area you can't afford. It's a combination of bringing in money and spending the least that you can. However that requires responsibility which many lowlifes don't have.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Simply look at the States balance of payments... The Red states are mainly takers and Blue mainly givers....

As for commodities, do you remember globalisation... The Blue states can buy oil & food from anywhere...

This is a major problem for the red states because without the Blue States money they would severely go down hill...

We are in the information age and the Blue States have a major upper hand on that... Tarrifs would be imposed on Red States to keep Companies from moving the major businesses...

Without the power of cheap interest on borrowing, I say the Red states would descend into pretty low levels...

But it is not all doom and gloom... Eventually the red states will drop so far the Blue states will just buy up their resources like Land and Oil... So the Red States will have Blue Landlords...

This is based on actual numbers...

Speaking as one of the red staters, we can hardly wait. In fact, can't happen fast enough as far as I'm concerned. As for the phony giver-taker thing, once blue people move out of our red states, we won't need blue state money any longer. In fact you'll probably need us to borrow some of it to you.

I hate to tell you but Ohio is not a red state. Especially Cleveland. At best it's a swing state.

In the OP, it's listed as a red state. Our governor and legislature is Republican led. What they consider a red or blue state is based on the latest presidential race.

And yes, we red states have blue big cities. That's where most of the welfare money goes.

The OP didn't mention changing demographics. If anything the point was to show the similarities. You're taking it way too seriously.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Simply look at the States balance of payments... The Red states are mainly takers and Blue mainly givers....

As for commodities, do you remember globalisation... The Blue states can buy oil & food from anywhere...

This is a major problem for the red states because without the Blue States money they would severely go down hill...

We are in the information age and the Blue States have a major upper hand on that... Tarrifs would be imposed on Red States to keep Companies from moving the major businesses...

Without the power of cheap interest on borrowing, I say the Red states would descend into pretty low levels...

But it is not all doom and gloom... Eventually the red states will drop so far the Blue states will just buy up their resources like Land and Oil... So the Red States will have Blue Landlords...

This is based on actual numbers...

Speaking as one of the red staters, we can hardly wait. In fact, can't happen fast enough as far as I'm concerned. As for the phony giver-taker thing, once blue people move out of our red states, we won't need blue state money any longer. In fact you'll probably need us to borrow some of it to you.

I hate to tell you but Ohio is not a red state. Especially Cleveland. At best it's a swing state.

In the OP, it's listed as a red state. Our governor and legislature is Republican led. What they consider a red or blue state is based on the latest presidential race.

And yes, we red states have blue big cities. That's where most of the welfare money goes.

The OP didn't mention changing demographics. If anything the point was to show the similarities. You're taking it way too seriously.

Page one, post 001. Pay attention this time and look at the video.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Simply look at the States balance of payments... The Red states are mainly takers and Blue mainly givers....

As for commodities, do you remember globalisation... The Blue states can buy oil & food from anywhere...

This is a major problem for the red states because without the Blue States money they would severely go down hill...

We are in the information age and the Blue States have a major upper hand on that... Tarrifs would be imposed on Red States to keep Companies from moving the major businesses...

Without the power of cheap interest on borrowing, I say the Red states would descend into pretty low levels...

But it is not all doom and gloom... Eventually the red states will drop so far the Blue states will just buy up their resources like Land and Oil... So the Red States will have Blue Landlords...

This is based on actual numbers...

Speaking as one of the red staters, we can hardly wait. In fact, can't happen fast enough as far as I'm concerned. As for the phony giver-taker thing, once blue people move out of our red states, we won't need blue state money any longer. In fact you'll probably need us to borrow some of it to you.

I hate to tell you but Ohio is not a red state. Especially Cleveland. At best it's a swing state.

In the OP, it's listed as a red state. Our governor and legislature is Republican led. What they consider a red or blue state is based on the latest presidential race.

And yes, we red states have blue big cities. That's where most of the welfare money goes.

The OP didn't mention changing demographics. If anything the point was to show the similarities. You're taking it way too seriously.

Page one, post 001. Pay attention this time and look at the video.

The demographics were nearly identical.

 

[Issa]

Simply look at the States balance of payments... The Red states are mainly takers and Blue mainly givers....

As for commodities, do you remember globalisation... The Blue states can buy oil & food from anywhere...

This is a major problem for the red states because without the Blue States money they would severely go down hill...

We are in the information age and the Blue States have a major upper hand on that... Tarrifs would be imposed on Red States to keep Companies from moving the major businesses...

Without the power of cheap interest on borrowing, I say the Red states would descend into pretty low levels...

But it is not all doom and gloom... Eventually the red states will drop so far the Blue states will just buy up their resources like Land and Oil... So the Red States will have Blue Landlords...

This is based on actual numbers...

Speaking as one of the red staters, we can hardly wait. In fact, can't happen fast enough as far as I'm concerned. As for the phony giver-taker thing, once blue people move out of our red states, we won't need blue state money any longer. In fact you'll probably need us to borrow some of it to you.

Dude you can't survive without liberals. Let alone blue states...and I'm a conservative who hates conservatives in this country because they are regressive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Simply look at the States balance of payments... The Red states are mainly takers and Blue mainly givers....

As for commodities, do you remember globalisation... The Blue states can buy oil & food from anywhere...

This is a major problem for the red states because without the Blue States money they would severely go down hill...

We are in the information age and the Blue States have a major upper hand on that... Tarrifs would be imposed on Red States to keep Companies from moving the major businesses...

Without the power of cheap interest on borrowing, I say the Red states would descend into pretty low levels...

But it is not all doom and gloom... Eventually the red states will drop so far the Blue states will just buy up their resources like Land and Oil... So the Red States will have Blue Landlords...

This is based on actual numbers...

Speaking as one of the red staters, we can hardly wait. In fact, can't happen fast enough as far as I'm concerned. As for the phony giver-taker thing, once blue people move out of our red states, we won't need blue state money any longer. In fact you'll probably need us to borrow some of it to you.

Dude you can't survive without liberals. Let alone blue states...and I'm a conservative who hates conservatives in this country because they are regressive.

So you are a conservative that hates your own kind? Why is it I can't take you seriously?

My life without liberals would be the greatest thing in the world. No more political correctness, no more idiotic regulations on businesses and personal life, no more social engineering, no more idiotic environmental regulations that don't do crap, no more rewarding failure and penalizing success, no more supporting criminals and demeaning victims, no more class warfare or wealth envy.

Such a perfect country this would be without liberals. I only wish it were true.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Democrats would have a much richer, far higher living standards, first rate infrastructure, first rate education and our healthcare system wouldn't be shit.

Republicans would be quite poor, low living standards, third world infrastructure, 50th in the world for education and healthcare.

Would suck. People would be told to die on the street within republican land.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Democrats would have a much richer, far higher living standards, first rate infrastructure, first rate education and our healthcare system wouldn't be shit.

Republicans would be quite poor, low living standards, third world infrastructure, 50th in the world for education and healthcare.

Would suck. People would be told to die on the street within republican land.

For people that think I am joking...Just look at Alabama, Mississippi and this is so throughout the south...Low standards of living, shitty infrastructure, shitty education and low insurance coverage.

The opposite is true in most blue states. Look it up!

 

[Dale Smith]

Democrats would have a much richer, far higher living standards, first rate infrastructure, first rate education and our healthcare system wouldn't be shit.

Republicans would be quite poor, low living standards, third world infrastructure, 50th in the world for education and healthcare.

Would suck. People would be told to die on the street within republican land.

You are the funniest purse-swinging, gender confused cross dressing leftard here, Matthew! ROTFLMAO!!

 

[Nosmo King]

Did you know that Section Eight rent subsidies are paid to private landlords? Did you know that private landlords own the Section Eight rental properties? Did you know that there are some landlords who have made a career for themselves as landlords? Did you know that every Section Eight rental property is inspected every year for quality standards, something rarely done with other rental properties?

Did you know, or are you just shooting from the hip without any real knowledge?

So WTF does that have to do with the price of rice in China? I know all about section 8. I'm a landlord myself. But that doesn't change the fact that lowlifes don't belong in the suburbs with working people. The cops have been out here almost a dozen times because of these lowlifes next door to me, and they're still trouble.

The problem is HUD has way too much money, and that's something we need to cut down. If I have to support these slugs, fine, but I'll support them over there--not over here. Put them in the inner-city where they belong with all the other people that don't work.

Are the poor always lowlifes? Is poverty a marker of a deficiency in morality? If you're poor, is it solely because you're a criminal?

In most cases yes it does. But it goes beyond that.

When I wake up in the morning and those mini-vans and SUV's remain in their parking lot, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they come home at 3:00 am on a work night, drunk as a skunk, making noise enough to wake up everybody nearby, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they use blankets, bed sheets, and towels to cover their windows making the street look like the ghetto, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they have four kids they obviously could never afford, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When their garbage cans remain on the curb several days after the garbage is picked up--even though they are all home during the day, that's a sign of a lowlife.

So poverty is a character flaw and nothing more.

Poverty is the state of not having any (or little) money.
The solution to poverty is to acquire money.
The way to acquire money is to get a job and work, not spend your money carelessly like having children you can't afford or cars you can't afford to keep up, or living in an area you can't afford. It's a combination of bringing in money and spending the least that you can. However that requires responsibility which many lowlifes don't have.

So you want the poor to get a job. But not a good job with an apprenticeship program, pension plan, health care and a living wage. Those benefits only come from an overpowered labor union.

You want the poor to live somewhere you aren't. Preferably in ghettos of tenement slums. There the landlord's only responsibility is to wring as much rent out of them as he possibly can. But he should bear no responsibility to provide decent, safe and sanitary conditions.

You want business to run roughshod over the environment so long as they get that factory built. But they should bear no responsibility for the soil on which it sits, the air above it or the workers within it. Because the short term is sweeter and more tangible than the long term.

And you wonder why capitalism is despised. All capitalism promotes is greed through exploitation. You wonder why Conservatism is despised. All Conservatism is is a means of protecting the exploiters.

Don't ever have the ignorance, temerity and arrogance to say Conservatism is always right when it never has been.

 

[Dale Smith]

So WTF does that have to do with the price of rice in China? I know all about section 8. I'm a landlord myself. But that doesn't change the fact that lowlifes don't belong in the suburbs with working people. The cops have been out here almost a dozen times because of these lowlifes next door to me, and they're still trouble.

The problem is HUD has way too much money, and that's something we need to cut down. If I have to support these slugs, fine, but I'll support them over there--not over here. Put them in the inner-city where they belong with all the other people that don't work.

Are the poor always lowlifes? Is poverty a marker of a deficiency in morality? If you're poor, is it solely because you're a criminal?

In most cases yes it does. But it goes beyond that.

When I wake up in the morning and those mini-vans and SUV's remain in their parking lot, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they come home at 3:00 am on a work night, drunk as a skunk, making noise enough to wake up everybody nearby, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they use blankets, bed sheets, and towels to cover their windows making the street look like the ghetto, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they have four kids they obviously could never afford, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When their garbage cans remain on the curb several days after the garbage is picked up--even though they are all home during the day, that's a sign of a lowlife.

So poverty is a character flaw and nothing more.

Poverty is the state of not having any (or little) money.
The solution to poverty is to acquire money.
The way to acquire money is to get a job and work, not spend your money carelessly like having children you can't afford or cars you can't afford to keep up, or living in an area you can't afford. It's a combination of bringing in money and spending the least that you can. However that requires responsibility which many lowlifes don't have.

So you want the poor to get a job. But not a good job with an apprenticeship program, pension plan, health care and a living wage. Those benefits only come from an overpowered labor union.

You want the poor to live somewhere you aren't. Preferably in ghettos of tenement slums. There the landlord's only responsibility is to wring as much rent out of them as he possibly can. But he should bear no responsibility to provide decent, safe and sanitary conditions.

You want business to run roughshod over the environment so long as they get that factory built. But they should bear no responsibility for the soil on which it sits, the air above it or the workers within it. Because the short term is sweeter and more tangible than the long term.

And you wonder why capitalism is despised. All capitalism promotes is greed through exploitation. You wonder why Conservatism is despised. All Conservatism is is a means of protecting the exploiters.

Don't ever have the ignorance, temerity and arrogance to say Conservatism is always right when it never has been.

Really, "comrade"? If you were so concerned about decent blue collar jobs that paid a living wage? You wouldn't be on board with an open border. You wouldn't be on board with globalism and you wouldn't be on board with a foreign owned central bank that extends this corporate entity you call "gubermint" credit from a checkbook that has nothing in itn that we pay interest on via taxes on our labor. Your understanding of how this debt slavery system works is utterly pathetic.....so spare me your angst. I KNOW how this all works. I know all about crony capitalism and how the "good ol boy" club works and how all these unfair "free trade agreements" have turned cities like Detroit into a shithole because I was there. I know how the leftists were used to tear down the middle class jobs by putting in rules, regulations and red tape to keep small businesses from thriving and hiring....so blow your bluster out of your ass, dipshit.

 

[Issa]

Simply look at the States balance of payments... The Red states are mainly takers and Blue mainly givers....

As for commodities, do you remember globalisation... The Blue states can buy oil & food from anywhere...

This is a major problem for the red states because without the Blue States money they would severely go down hill...

We are in the information age and the Blue States have a major upper hand on that... Tarrifs would be imposed on Red States to keep Companies from moving the major businesses...

Without the power of cheap interest on borrowing, I say the Red states would descend into pretty low levels...

But it is not all doom and gloom... Eventually the red states will drop so far the Blue states will just buy up their resources like Land and Oil... So the Red States will have Blue Landlords...

This is based on actual numbers...

Speaking as one of the red staters, we can hardly wait. In fact, can't happen fast enough as far as I'm concerned. As for the phony giver-taker thing, once blue people move out of our red states, we won't need blue state money any longer. In fact you'll probably need us to borrow some of it to you.

Dude you can't survive without liberals. Let alone blue states...and I'm a conservative who hates conservatives in this country because they are regressive.

So you are a conservative that hates your own kind? Why is it I can't take you seriously?

My life without liberals would be the greatest thing in the world. No more political correctness, no more idiotic regulations on businesses and personal life, no more social engineering, no more idiotic environmental regulations that don't do crap, no more rewarding failure and penalizing success, no more supporting criminals and demeaning victims, no more class warfare or wealth envy.

Such a perfect country this would be without liberals. I only wish it were true.

Simply look at the States balance of payments... The Red states are mainly takers and Blue mainly givers....

As for commodities, do you remember globalisation... The Blue states can buy oil & food from anywhere...

This is a major problem for the red states because without the Blue States money they would severely go down hill...

We are in the information age and the Blue States have a major upper hand on that... Tarrifs would be imposed on Red States to keep Companies from moving the major businesses...

Without the power of cheap interest on borrowing, I say the Red states would descend into pretty low levels...

But it is not all doom and gloom... Eventually the red states will drop so far the Blue states will just buy up their resources like Land and Oil... So the Red States will have Blue Landlords...

This is based on actual numbers...

Speaking as one of the red staters, we can hardly wait. In fact, can't happen fast enough as far as I'm concerned. As for the phony giver-taker thing, once blue people move out of our red states, we won't need blue state money any longer. In fact you'll probably need us to borrow some of it to you.

Dude you can't survive without liberals. Let alone blue states...and I'm a conservative who hates conservatives in this country because they are regressive.

So you are a conservative that hates your own kind? Why is it I can't take you seriously?

My life without liberals would be the greatest thing in the world. No more political correctness, no more idiotic regulations on businesses and personal life, no more social engineering, no more idiotic environmental regulations that don't do crap, no more rewarding failure and penalizing success, no more supporting criminals and demeaning victims, no more class warfare or wealth envy.

Such a perfect country this would be without liberals. I only wish it were true.

Well I am conservative when it comes to abortion for example but wouldn't go as far as telling women what to do with their unborn babies....thats just one example.

I live iin an ultra liberal city, and it's just perfect. To each his own....but for a racist or a racist it would be nightmare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So WTF does that have to do with the price of rice in China? I know all about section 8. I'm a landlord myself. But that doesn't change the fact that lowlifes don't belong in the suburbs with working people. The cops have been out here almost a dozen times because of these lowlifes next door to me, and they're still trouble.

The problem is HUD has way too much money, and that's something we need to cut down. If I have to support these slugs, fine, but I'll support them over there--not over here. Put them in the inner-city where they belong with all the other people that don't work.

Are the poor always lowlifes? Is poverty a marker of a deficiency in morality? If you're poor, is it solely because you're a criminal?

In most cases yes it does. But it goes beyond that.

When I wake up in the morning and those mini-vans and SUV's remain in their parking lot, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they come home at 3:00 am on a work night, drunk as a skunk, making noise enough to wake up everybody nearby, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they use blankets, bed sheets, and towels to cover their windows making the street look like the ghetto, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When they have four kids they obviously could never afford, that's a sign of a lowlife.

When their garbage cans remain on the curb several days after the garbage is picked up--even though they are all home during the day, that's a sign of a lowlife.

So poverty is a character flaw and nothing more.

Poverty is the state of not having any (or little) money.
The solution to poverty is to acquire money.
The way to acquire money is to get a job and work, not spend your money carelessly like having children you can't afford or cars you can't afford to keep up, or living in an area you can't afford. It's a combination of bringing in money and spending the least that you can. However that requires responsibility which many lowlifes don't have.

So you want the poor to get a job. But not a good job with an apprenticeship program, pension plan, health care and a living wage. Those benefits only come from an overpowered labor union.

You want the poor to live somewhere you aren't. Preferably in ghettos of tenement slums. There the landlord's only responsibility is to wring as much rent out of them as he possibly can. But he should bear no responsibility to provide decent, safe and sanitary conditions.

You want business to run roughshod over the environment so long as they get that factory built. But they should bear no responsibility for the soil on which it sits, the air above it or the workers within it. Because the short term is sweeter and more tangible than the long term.

And you wonder why capitalism is despised. All capitalism promotes is greed through exploitation. You wonder why Conservatism is despised. All Conservatism is is a means of protecting the exploiters.

Don't ever have the ignorance, temerity and arrogance to say Conservatism is always right when it never has been.

Conservatism is like the cart theory:

A town of people build a huge cart, and they all grab an arm of the cart and pull it down the street so the cart flies down the road effortlessly. After a while, people get tired of pulling the cart and jump inside the cart instead, now the cart moves slower. Before you know it, half of the towns people are in the cart instead of pulling it, and the cart stops.

Conservatism promotes people pulling the cart while liberalism promotes people jumping into the cart.

Yes, I want the poor to live in the lower income areas. After all, if I'm paying for them to have shelter, they shouldn't be having home in an area that I have to work for in order to live in. If I'm going to support you, it should be the cheapest way possible.

You don't need a union to gain employment with a decent wage and benefits. Unions were yesterday and places still offer good paying jobs. My industry for example needs over 50,000 new drivers that we can't find. The problem is people won't stop smoking pot to gain employment or are too lazy to take these jobs. Now industry is bringing in foreigners to do the jobs because Americans are sitting in the HUD home in the suburbs with food stamps, an Obama phone, and paid medical care and utilities. Don't believe me, go to an industrial site in your area and take note of all the HELP WANTED signs on the buildings. I spend my days in these areas and every single one of them are loaded with HELP WANTED signs because they can't find employees.

Capitalism and conservatism are not despised. That's why our elections have been going the way they have; that's why people are still trying to get into this country. Capitalism offers people the ability to become what they want. Government controlled systems tells you where you can be at in life. There are plenty of liberal, socialist, and communist kind of countries, but people choose to try to get here instead, why do you suppose that is, because we have better liberalism than other places?

If you get sick of living in a government controlled country, there are others to choose from if you are allowed to leave. But there is only one USA. Once liberals ruin this place so it's like all the others, there is no other USA to move to. That's why it's so important to preserve this country just the way it is if not better.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats would have a much richer, far higher living standards, first rate infrastructure, first rate education and our healthcare system wouldn't be shit.

Republicans would be quite poor, low living standards, third world infrastructure, 50th in the world for education and healthcare.

Would suck. People would be told to die on the street within republican land.

And what would your wonderful liberal world look like after you quickly drive your state into bankruptcy? Do you think "free" is really free? No, other people have to pay for all those goodies.

 

[Taz]

Always fascinated to watch how the contards endlessly foam at the mouth at the idea of splitting up the United States and/or killing other Americans.

Trump voters......

Can you blame us? Imagine how great of a country this would be with no more liberals.

Heck, I see my state is red. So if Democrats had to move out of my state, my property value would double overnight. We could layoff half of our police officers and fire department personnel. We could empty most of our prisons.

Most businesses would move to lower taxed Republican states so our unemployment would be almost nothing. Then we could institute Loser Pays All for lawsuits. Welfare would only be for people that absolutely had no choice but to be on it, and we would all be safe because besides the huge reduction of crime, most everybody would own a gun.

Man it would be so good never to deal with liberals ever again.

At least you admit that you're a savage. It's a start.

I did? In what way?

It's amazing how liberals see things that really aren't there..

The dude before you said "
Always fascinated to watch how the contards endlessly foam at the mouth at the idea of splitting up the United States and/or killing other Americans."

And you replied: "Can you blame us? Imagine how great of a country this would be with no more liberals."

You're a savage.

 

[Redfish]

"What If Republican and Democrat [sic] States Were Separate Countries?"

The former would be a brutal authoritarian dictatorship, the latter would remain a constitutional republic respecting the rights and protected liberties of its citizens.

The former would likely be a religious theocracy.

wrong, it would be a free country where citizens could practice, or not practice, any religion they chose. All ideas would be heard equally, all citizens would receive equal treatment, borders and immigration would be enforced, police would be respected, government would be small and unintrusive, taxes would be low, businesses would flourish.

whereas the liberal states of America would be burdened with debt, no one would work, crime would be rampant, government would control everything, including thoughts, there would be one media controlled by the government. It would completely fail in 6 months.

You're so full of shit. But then again it just more outdated conservative bullshit! What's New!!!

I described California perfectly, you are so indoctrinated in liberal bullshit you are unable to realize it when its being rammed up your ass.

 

[Redfish]

Jeepers! I must not be very patriotic! I don't love America as much as these secessionists seem to. They love America so much that they would welcome a permanent division of her based on their inability to craft a political compromise, just as the founding fathers did as they crafted the constitution.

The arguments of Conservatives have always been baffling to me. They must have a personal armory to ward off a devious government. But they cite the constitution as a means to keep them free. They have to pack a gun on their person at all times to protect themselves. But they also call for support of the police they think are ineffective and slow to respond. They call for free speech, but they condemn those who actually participate in free speech.

No, I'm not in favor of severing the union. I guess that makes me unAmerican.

No, it actually makes you smart. Liberals could never survive without us conservatives and they know it.

And without Liberals you Conservatives would soon be siting along side a ditch picking thorns from your feet and wondering how it all went so wrong.

A land of nothing but Conservative policies would ignore civil rights, minority rights, worker's rights and environmental protection. Each and every time people call on their government to protect them from any form of exploitation, it has been Conservatives blocking the way. And, therefore, each and every time such exploitation has been blunted, the Conservative have wound up on the wrong side of history.

Tell us here and now, when have Conservatives ever been right?

the US constitution is a conservative document. It provides protections for all citizens and guarantees equal opportunity (not equal results).

The government is not your momma, it is not obligated to protect you from your own stupidity.

Who in 2017 do you think is being exploited? NFL players? entertainers? drug dealers? Who do you think is being exploited?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Always fascinated to watch how the contards endlessly foam at the mouth at the idea of splitting up the United States and/or killing other Americans.

Trump voters......

Can you blame us? Imagine how great of a country this would be with no more liberals.

Heck, I see my state is red. So if Democrats had to move out of my state, my property value would double overnight. We could layoff half of our police officers and fire department personnel. We could empty most of our prisons.

Most businesses would move to lower taxed Republican states so our unemployment would be almost nothing. Then we could institute Loser Pays All for lawsuits. Welfare would only be for people that absolutely had no choice but to be on it, and we would all be safe because besides the huge reduction of crime, most everybody would own a gun.

Man it would be so good never to deal with liberals ever again.

At least you admit that you're a savage. It's a start.

I did? In what way?

It's amazing how liberals see things that really aren't there..

The dude before you said "
Always fascinated to watch how the contards endlessly foam at the mouth at the idea of splitting up the United States and/or killing other Americans."

And you replied: "Can you blame us? Imagine how great of a country this would be with no more liberals."

You're a savage.

I see, so what you are telling us is that you don’t know what the word savage means.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com