>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:31:32 -0800 (PST), plainolamerican
>>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> MEMO
>>>>>> Attn: =A0Blue States
>>>>>> Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
>>>>> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
>>>>> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r=
>>>> edblue-paradox
>>>> In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
>>>> look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
>>>> Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>>>> umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>>>> share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>>>> The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>>>> coherent and connected.
>>> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
>>> complaining about their taxes.
>> as they should ... along with immigration control, welfare rolls, and
>> socialist liberals
>  you would starve without us. yet you hate us.

>>On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>> with Obama in office.

>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.

>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.

>>I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>>that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>>in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>>the President by their votes.  

>You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
>entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
>all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
>were skewed.

>> It looked like a land slide up until
>>HurricaneSandy.

>God hates republicans? Or are you blaming global warming?

>>After Sandy it was a win but not a land slide...  and after Obama won I
>>had the realization that our elections are being stolen.     Democrats
>>won the contest in stealing the ballots.

>They won by voting - despite the GOP's efforts to stop them.

>I'm just wondering how long it will be before you go out to use your
>Obamacare benefits.

> "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message
> news:h6_ns.1584$tk4.1001@newsfe25.iad...
>> On 11/11/2012 5:43 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 12:58 pm, Steve from Colorado
>>> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:

>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
>>>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>>>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>>>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>>>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>>>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>>>>>> will look like soon.

>>>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
>>>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since  the mid
>>>>> 2000s

>>>>> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-2...

>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Cal...

>>>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
>>>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
>>>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
>>>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,
>>>>> suggesting California is no longer “perceived by most Americans as the
>>>>> land where dreams come true.”

>>>> <snip>

>>>> Just a couple of observations per the articles:

>>>> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
>>>> Latin America.  Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
>>>> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
>>>> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
>>>> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
>>>> overturning of PROP 187.

>>>> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it
>>>> now
>>>> resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
>>>> Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
>>>> orange groves.  Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
>>>> '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
>>>> of Southern California.  Other than the warm weather, it has little
>>>> going for it.

>>> A letter from the Blue States

>>> Dear Red States:

>>> We're ticked off at the way you've treated the Blue States, and we've
>>> decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're
>>> taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that
>>> includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Minnesota, Wiscon...
>>> sin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.

>>> To sum up briefly:

>>> You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell
>>> research and the best beaches.

>>> We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Opry Land. We get Harvard; you
>>> get Ole' Miss.

>>> We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you
>>> get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the
>>> red states pay their fair share.

>>> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
>>> Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families; you get a
>>> bunch of single moms.

>>> Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's
>>> fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the
>>> nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve
>>> French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the
>>> high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living
>>> redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
>>> plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

>>> With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
>>> Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
>>> mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
>>> of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
>>> Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

>>> We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

>>> 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by
>>> a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death
>>> penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that
>>> Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you
>>> are people with higher morals than we lefties.

>>> We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow
>>> in Mexico.

>>> Sincerely,
>>> Blue States

>> Promise you'll take the Federal Reserve and bureaucrats?

>> I admit your secession would be entertaining and beat anything on cable.
>> Great programing - no laugh track necessary!

>> Unfortunately we'll never see it.  The combination of Blacks, Latinos,
>> perverts and the White politically correct couldn't figure out how to
>> pour
>> piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the sole.

>> But keep a good thought Blue Staters, once the economy crashes and
>> unemployment
>> reaches its tipping point, you will be rewarded.

> Did you ever pledge "...one nation, UNITED..."?

>> We've employed Capitalism and freedom for 150 years and it didn't have
>> any real problems until Woodrow Wilson the Progressive and Socialist and
>> the last 100 years have been slightly more rocky with every ne
>> Socialist-progressive plan they created.

> LOL. SO you were a big fan of the 6 day 72 hour work week, child
> labor, sweat shops and company store?

> Sheesh, you never get embarrassed by just how stupid the stuff you say
> is?

>>> Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?

>>> Kevin MacDonald

>>> My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
>>> glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
>>> very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
>>> they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
>>> around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
>>> doomed if they don’t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).
<snipped>

>> So Mr. McDonald is proposing that the USA copy the breakup of the
>> former Soviet Union.  Sending illegal aliens and ayslum seekers from
>> Somalia packing would be a better solution, IMO.

> Maybe Homeland security could start looking at foreigners as threats
> rather than just looking at U.S. citizens as the major threat?

>> "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message
>> news:h6_ns.1584$tk4.1001@newsfe25.iad...
>>> On 11/11/2012 5:43 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>> On Nov 11, 12:58 pm, Steve from Colorado
>>>> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:

>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
>>>>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>>>>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>>>>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>>>>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>>>>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>>>>>>> will look like soon.

>>>>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
>>>>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since  the mid
>>>>>> 2000s

>>>>>> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-2...

>>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Cal...

>>>>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
>>>>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
>>>>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
>>>>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,
>>>>>> suggesting California is no longer “perceived by most Americans as the
>>>>>> land where dreams come true.”

>>>>> <snip>

>>>>> Just a couple of observations per the articles:

>>>>> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
>>>>> Latin America.  Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
>>>>> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
>>>>> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
>>>>> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
>>>>> overturning of PROP 187.

>>>>> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it
>>>>> now
>>>>> resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
>>>>> Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
>>>>> orange groves.  Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
>>>>> '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
>>>>> of Southern California.  Other than the warm weather, it has little
>>>>> going for it.

>>>> A letter from the Blue States

>>>> Dear Red States:

>>>> We're ticked off at the way you've treated the Blue States, and we've
>>>> decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're
>>>> taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that
>>>> includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Minnesota, Wiscon...
>>>> sin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.

>>>> To sum up briefly:

>>>> You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell
>>>> research and the best beaches.

>>>> We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Opry Land. We get Harvard; you
>>>> get Ole' Miss.

>>>> We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you
>>>> get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the
>>>> red states pay their fair share.

>>>> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
>>>> Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families; you get a
>>>> bunch of single moms.

>>>> Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's
>>>> fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the
>>>> nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve
>>>> French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the
>>>> high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living
>>>> redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
>>>> plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

>>>> With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
>>>> Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
>>>> mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
>>>> of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
>>>> Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

>>>> We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

>>>> 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by
>>>> a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death
>>>> penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that
>>>> Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you
>>>> are people with higher morals than we lefties.

>>>> We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow
>>>> in Mexico.

>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Blue States

>>> Promise you'll take the Federal Reserve and bureaucrats?

>>> I admit your secession would be entertaining and beat anything on cable.
>>> Great programing - no laugh track necessary!

>>> Unfortunately we'll never see it.  The combination of Blacks, Latinos,
>>> perverts and the White politically correct couldn't figure out how to
>>> pour
>>> piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the sole.

>>> But keep a good thought Blue Staters, once the economy crashes and
>>> unemployment
>>> reaches its tipping point, you will be rewarded.

>> Did you ever pledge "...one nation, UNITED..."?

>I took an oath to defend the Constitution.

>>> On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>>> with Obama in office.

>>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.

>>> I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>>> that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>>> in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>>> the President by their votes.  

>> You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
>> entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
>> all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
>> were skewed.

>And they were all skewed in 2010.

>My only mistake was to think Democrats couldn't steal an election...   I
>guess I under estimated the depths they could sink to.

>Polls are really useless and I told you the poll that would count would
>be the Nov 6, poll.   So I'm right about some of it.

>> On 11/12/2012 9:20 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:00:28 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>>>> On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>>>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>>>> with Obama in office.

>>>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.
>>>> I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>>>> that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>>>> in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>>>> the President by their votes.  
>>> You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
>>> entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
>>> all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
>>> were skewed.
>> And they were all skewed in 2010.

>> My only mistake was to think Democrats couldn't steal an election...   I
>> guess I under estimated the depths they could sink to.

>> Polls are really useless and I told you the poll that would count would
>> be the Nov 6, poll.   So I'm right about some of it.

> You are right about nothing.  Nothing whatsover.  All you know is hate
> obsessed rants against things you can't understand.

> > On Nov 12, 3:11 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:

> > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:31:32 -0800 (PST), plainolamerican

> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

> > > >> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> > > >> >MEMO
> > > >> >Attn: =A0Blue States

> > > >> >Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.

> > > >> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
> > > >> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r=
> > > >edblue-paradox

> > > >In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
> > > >look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
> > > >Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
> > > >umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
> > > >share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
> > > >The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
> > > >coherent and connected.

> > > What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
> > > complaining about their taxes.

> > as they should ... along with immigration control, welfare rolls, and
> > socialist liberals

>  you would starve without us. yet you hate us.

> Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
> States Are the Parasites:Rand predicted rightly that parasites
> invariably despise the producers they feed on:you should be
> embarrassed that red state behavior bears her out so clearlyhttp://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/Ayn_Rand_Worshippers_Should_Fa...
> AlterNet / By Sara Robinson
> Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the
> Providers, 
Red States Are the Parasites 
There's only one way to
> demonstrate who America's producers and 
parasites really are. It's
> time to go Galt. 
February 29, 2012  |
>  Last week, the New York Times published a widely discussed article
> updating an argument that progressive bloggers noticed a very long
> time ago. It's now well-understood that blue states generally export
> money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.
> TPM published a great map showing exactly how this redistribution
> works:
> (click for larger version) 
Progressives believe in the redistribution
> of wealth, so we're not 
usually too upset by this state of affairs.
> That’s what it means to be 
one country. E pluribus unum, and all
> that. We’re happy to help, 
because we think we’ve got a stake in
> making sure kids in rural 
Alabama get educations and seniors in
> Arizona get healthcare. What’s 
good for them is good for all of us.
> We also like to think they’d help 
us out if our positions were
> reversed. It’s an investment in making 
America stronger, and we feel
> fine about that.
> But maybe it's time to admit that we're being played for chumps, and
> that there are people in the rest of the country who are taking way
> too much advantage of our good nature. After all: it's now a stone
> fact that the blue states and cities are the country's real wealth
> creators. That's why we pay more taxes, and are able to send that
> money to the red states in the first place. We're working our butts
> off, being economically productive, going to college, raising good
> kids, supporting reality-based schools, keeping our marriages
> together, tending to our busy and diverse cities, and generally
> Playing By The Rules. And the fates have smiled on us in rough
> proportion to the degree that we’ve invested in our own common good.
> So we've got every right to get good and angry about the fact that,
> by 
and large, the people who are getting our money are so damned
> ungrateful -- not to mention so ridiculously eager to spend it on
> stuff we don't approve of. We didn't ship them our hard-earned tax
> dollars to see them squandered on worse-than-useless abstinence-only
> education, textbooks that teach creationism, crisis-pregnancy
> misinformation centers, subsidies for GMO crops and oil companies,
> and 
so on. And we sure as hell didn't expect to be rewarded for our
> productivity and generosity with a rising tide of spittle-flecked
> insanity about how we’re just a bunch of immoral, godless, drug-
> soaked, sex-crazed, evil America-hating traitors who can’t wait to
> hand the country over to the Islamists and the Communists.
> Ironically, the conservative movement's favorite philosopher had some
> very insightful things to say about this exact situation. Ayn Rand's
> novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized
> "producers" -- noble, intelligent Übermenschen whose faith in their
> own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams
> drives 
everything else in society. And she called out the evil of
> "parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to
> producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.
> Conservatives love this story. They're eager to claim the gleaming
> mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is
> going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's
> darkly 
implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do. If you
> want to 
arouse their class and race resentments, there are few
> narratives that 
can get them rolling like this producers-versus-
> parasites tale.
> But the NYT story and that map up there prove beyond arguing that the
> conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees,
> flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly
> concentrated in the blue cities and states -- the regions full of
> smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to
> money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places
> in 
the country to live.
> Advertisement
> And the real parasites are centered in red states (the only
> exceptions 
being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and
> Texas) -- 
the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a
> fading past, 
rejected science, substituted superstition for sense,
> and refused to 
invest in their own futures. It's not unfair to say
> that those regions 
are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling
> labor, and 
expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about
> their wealth- 
destroying ways.
> And we producers have had enough.
> Progressives Go Galt!
> If you're a conservative who thinks Ayn Rand called it true with this
> producers/parasites thing, then by all means: let's go there. All the
> way there — and then some. But fair warning is in order: you may not
> like where we end up. 
By way of a modest proposal, I hereby declare
> the birth of a new 
Progressive Objectivism — a frankly producerist
> personal- 
responsibility crusade aimed at getting these whiny red
> leeches off 
our collective blue hide. If they think they can get by
> without us, 
let’s not stand in their way. What these people need from
> us, at 
minimum, is some tough talk — the kind of stern, grown-up
> verbal whoop- 
ass the conservatives wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to
> unload on us 
if the roles were reversed. 
The time has come for blue
> America to go Galt. Our farewell rant — 
long and epic, as Rand's
> turgid writing style would have required — 
might sound a bit like
> this: 
First off, dear Red Staters: If your town’s economy depends on
> a 
nearby dam, canal, harbor, airport, military base, interstate
> highway, 
national park or monument, or prison, just STFU. Because you
> are, in 
every way possible, a parasite, living off something the rest
> of us 
paid to build.
> Second: If you are a homeowner who takes a mortgage interest
> deduction 
— which is how the rest of us subsidize your house, and
> with it your 
status in the middle-class — we don’t want to hear
> another word from 
you about how you made it all on your own. And that
> goes for those of 
you who got your education via the GI Bill, or took
> out an SBA loan, 
or went to well-funded public schools back when such
> things existed. 
You are what you are because we believed in you, and
> invested in you. 
And we’re deeply insulted that you refuse to even
> acknowledge that 
fact. 

Third: Don't come crawling to us to support
> those kids you 
couldn't afford to have, but refused to allow
> contraception or 
abortions or actual fact-based sex education to
> prevent. It's just 
that simple. Our blue-state babies are better off
> in every way that 
matters because we plan our families. A failure to
> plan on your part 
does not create an obligation on ours. Your
> policies force women to 
have kids, even when they're patently not
> ready to have them. Now (as 
you’re so fond of telling women who find
> themselves unhappily 
pregnant), you get to live with the consequences
> of those choices.
> Fourth: Don't ask us to pay to educate your kids if you're not
> willing 
to have us teach them what we know about the world. We
> believe in 
free, comprehensive, rigorous and reality-based public
> education 
because it’s done more than any other government service to
> make us 
rich, powerful and successful; and we want the same for you.
> We realize some of you aren't too keen on public schools. It's great
> that you want to take on more personal responsibility for educating
> your own kids. Just be warned: if

> you would starve without us
> ---
> speculation noted ... not shared

> that you even try to segregate Americans with red and blue colors says
> tons about your intellect.

> news:h6_ns.1584$tk4.1001@newsfe25.iad...

> > On 11/11/2012 5:43 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >> On Nov 11, 12:58 pm, Steve from Colorado
> >> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
> >>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:

> >>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
> >>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> >>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> >>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> >>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> >>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> >>>>> will look like soon.

> >>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
> >>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since  the mid
> >>>> 2000s

> >>>>http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-2...

> >>>>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Cal...

> >>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
> >>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
> >>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
> >>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,
> >>>> suggesting California is no longer perceived by most Americans as the
> >>>> land where dreams come true.

> >>> <snip>

> >>> Just a couple of observations per the articles:

> >>> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
> >>> Latin America.  Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
> >>> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
> >>> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
> >>> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
> >>> overturning of PROP 187.

> >>> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it now
> >>> resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
> >>> Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
> >>> orange groves.  Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
> >>> '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
> >>> of Southern California.  Other than the warm weather, it has little
> >>> going for it.

> >> A letter from the Blue States

> >> Dear Red States:

> >> We're ticked off at the way you've treated the Blue States, and we've
> >> decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're
> >> taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that
> >> includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Minnesota, Wiscon...
> >> sin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.

> >> To sum up briefly:

> >> You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell
> >> research and the best beaches.

> >> We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Opry Land. We get Harvard; you
> >> get Ole' Miss.

> >> We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you
> >> get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the
> >> red states pay their fair share.

> >> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
> >> Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families; you get a
> >> bunch of single moms.

> >> Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's
> >> fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the
> >> nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve
> >> French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the
> >> high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living
> >> redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
> >> plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

> >> With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
> >> Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
> >> mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
> >> of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
> >> Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

> >> We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

> >> 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by
> >> a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death
> >> penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that
> >> Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you
> >> are people with higher morals than we lefties.

> >> We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow
> >> in Mexico.

> >> Sincerely,
> >> Blue States

> > Promise you'll take the Federal Reserve and bureaucrats?

> > I admit your secession would be entertaining and beat anything on cable.
> > Great programing - no laugh track necessary!

> > Unfortunately we'll never see it.  The combination of Blacks, Latinos,
> > perverts and the White politically correct couldn't figure out how to pour
> > piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the sole.

> > But keep a good thought Blue Staters, once the economy crashes and
> > unemployment
> > reaches its tipping point, you will be rewarded.

> Did you ever pledge "...one nation, UNITED..."?

> >On 11/11/2012 11:47 PM, Sid9 wrote:

> >> "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message
> >>news:h6_ns.1584$tk4.1001@newsfe25.iad...
> >>> On 11/11/2012 5:43 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 11, 12:58 pm, Steve from Colorado
> >>>> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:

> >>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
> >>>>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> >>>>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> >>>>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> >>>>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> >>>>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> >>>>>>> will look like soon.

> >>>>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
> >>>>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since  the mid
> >>>>>> 2000s

> >>>>>>http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-2...

> >>>>>>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Cal...

> >>>>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
> >>>>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
> >>>>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
> >>>>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,
> >>>>>> suggesting California is no longer perceived by most Americans as the
> >>>>>> land where dreams come true.

> >>>>> <snip>

> >>>>> Just a couple of observations per the articles:

> >>>>> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
> >>>>> Latin America.  Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
> >>>>> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
> >>>>> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
> >>>>> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
> >>>>> overturning of PROP 187.

> >>>>> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it
> >>>>> now
> >>>>> resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
> >>>>> Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
> >>>>> orange groves.  Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
> >>>>> '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
> >>>>> of Southern California.  Other than the warm weather, it has little
> >>>>> going for it.

> >>>> A letter from the Blue States

> >>>> Dear Red States:

> >>>> We're ticked off at the way you've treated the Blue States, and we've
> >>>> decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're
> >>>> taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that
> >>>> includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Minnesota, Wiscon...
> >>>> sin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.

> >>>> To sum up briefly:

> >>>> You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell
> >>>> research and the best beaches.

> >>>> We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Opry Land. We get Harvard; you
> >>>> get Ole' Miss.

> >>>> We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you
> >>>> get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the
> >>>> red states pay their fair share.

> >>>> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
> >>>> Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families; you get a
> >>>> bunch of single moms.

> >>>> Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's
> >>>> fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the
> >>>> nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve
> >>>> French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the
> >>>> high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living
> >>>> redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
> >>>> plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

> >>>> With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
> >>>> Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
> >>>> mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
> >>>> of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
> >>>> Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

> >>>> We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

> >>>> 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by
> >>>> a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death
> >>>> penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that
> >>>> Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you
> >>>> are people with higher morals than we lefties.

> >>>> We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow
> >>>> in Mexico.

> >>>> Sincerely,
> >>>> Blue States

> >>> Promise you'll take the Federal Reserve and bureaucrats?

> >>> I admit your secession would be entertaining and beat anything on cable.
> >>> Great programing - no laugh track necessary!

> >>> Unfortunately we'll never see it.  The combination of Blacks, Latinos,
> >>> perverts and the White politically correct couldn't figure out how to
> >>> pour
> >>> piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the sole.

> >>> But keep a good thought Blue Staters, once the economy crashes and
> >>> unemployment
> >>> reaches its tipping point, you will be rewarded.

> >> Did you ever pledge "...one nation, UNITED..."?

> >I took an oath to defend the Constitution.

> against its enemies.."both foreign and domestic"

> Gunner raises his hand as well

> "The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be
> reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and
> controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced,
> if the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt. People must again
> learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

> (Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 B.C.)

> keep doubling down on what does not work "CONSERVATIVE", its the way
> your type does things.
>  meanwhile, your policies of greed, selfishness, wealth worshiping,
> deregulation(which is nothing more than thievery), hatreds, etc. has
> turn offed tens of millions of people.
>  california is now turning deep blue, even though its the birthplace
> of reaganomics, and nixon.
>  but, arizona is turning blue, nevada is turning blue, new mexico is
> turning blue, colorado is turning blue. so your article is pure
> "CONSERVATIVE" crap as usual.

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/10/california-gop_n_2110152.html

> California GOP Showing Worries Party Strategists
> By MICHAEL R. BLOOD 11/10/12 06:46 PM ET EST

> LOS ANGELES — If the future happens first in California, the
> Republican Party has a problem.
> The nation's most populous state – home to 1 in 8 Americans – has
> entered a period of Democratic political control so far-reaching that
> the dwindling number of Republicans in the Legislature are in danger
> of becoming mere spectators at the statehouse.
> Democrats hold the governorship and every other statewide office. They
> gained even more ground in Tuesday's elections, picking up at least
> three congressional seats while votes continue to be counted in two
> other tight races – in one upset, Democrat Raul Ruiz, a Harvard-
> educated physician who mobilized a district's growing swath of
> Hispanic voters, pushed out longtime Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack.
> The party also secured a supermajority in one, and possibly both,
> chambers in the Legislature.
> "Republican leaders should look at California and shudder," says Steve
> Schmidt, who managed John McCain's 2008 campaign and anchored former
> Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election team in 2006. "The
> two-party system has collapsed."
> Republican voter registration has dipped so low – less than 30 percent
> – that the party's future state candidates will be hobbled from the
> start.
> Republicans searching for a new direction after Mitt Romney's defeat
> will inevitably examine why President Barack Obama rolled up more than
> 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote, and 9 of 10 votes among
> blacks, essential ingredients in his victory. Women also supported
> Obama over Romney nationally and in California, where they broke for
> the president by 27 percentage points.
> There is no better place to witness how demographic shifts have shaped
> elections than in California, the home turf of Richard Nixon and
> Ronald Reagan that just a generation ago was a reliably Republican
> state in presidential contests.
> A surge in immigrants transformed the state, and its voting patterns.
> The number of Hispanics, blacks and Asians combined has outnumbered
> whites since 1998 in California, and by 2020 the Hispanic population
> alone is expected to top that of whites. With Latinos, for example,
> voter surveys show they've overwhelmingly favored Democratic
> presidential candidates for decades. Similar shifts are taking place
> across the nation.
> "There are demographic changes in the American electorate that we saw
> significantly, first, here in California and Republicans nationally
> are not reacting to them," said Jim Brulte, a former Republican leader
> in the California Senate.
> "Romney overwhelmingly carried the white vote – 20 years ago, that
> would have meant an electoral landslide. Instead, he lost by 2 million
> votes" in the state, Brulte said.
> Perhaps no part of the state better illustrates how Republicans
> surrendered ground than in Orange County, once a largely white, GOP
> bastion where Nixon's seaside home became known as the Western White
> House.
> Today, whites make up a little more than 40 percent of the population,
> while 2 in 10 residents are Asian and about 1 in 3 is Hispanic,
> according to the census.
> In 1980, Jimmy Carter managed to collect about a quarter of the vote
> against Reagan in the county. But by 1996, with the county
> diversifying, Bill Clinton grabbed 38 percent of the vote, and Al Gore
> boosted that to 40 percent in 2000. This year, Obama won 44 percent of
> the vote in Orange County, according to preliminary returns.
> Romney "implemented a winning election strategy for 1980," University
> of Southern California professor Patrick James said in a statement
> issued by the school. "If you look at the demographics and voting
> proportions, the Reagan coalition would not win a majority today."
> Celeste Greig, president of the conservative California Republican
> Assembly, said in an email to supporters Friday that the party was in
> need of a makeover, emphasizing Main Street over Wall Street.
> "We have to admit that as a party in California, we're just plain
> disorganized," she wrote.
> Romney bypassed California this year, waging his fight in
> battlegrounds such as Ohio and Florida. In claiming the biggest
> electoral prize in America, California's 55 electoral votes, Obama
> rolled up a nearly 21 percent margin. Voters also returned Democratic
> Sen. Dianne Feinstein to Washington in a landslide, after Republicans
> put up a virtually unknown candidate, Elizabeth Emken, an autism
> activist who had never held elected office.
> Independents now outnumber Republicans in 13 congressional districts
> in California, a trend analysts predict will continue.
> California counted more registered Republicans in 1988 than it does
> today, although the population has grown by about 10 million over that
> time. You'd have to go back to that year to find a Republican
> presidential candidate who carried the state, George H.W. Bush.
> Surprisingly, Democrats continued to make gains in the state even at a
> time of double-digit unemployment, with polls showing that voters are
> unhappy with Sacramento and Washington. And it could get worse for the
> GOP. Republicans are trailing in two other House races in which the
> vote counting continues.
> It remains unclear what direction Democrats, who have close ties to
> public employee unions, will take with their additional clout. If they
> achieve the supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, Democrats
> can pass tax increases and override gubernatorial vetoes without any
> Republican support.
> The state is saddled with a litany of problems, including a long-
> running budget crisis, massive, unfunded public pension obligations,
> tuition increases at California universities and growing demands for
> water, affordable housing and energy.
> Gov. Jerry Brown sounded a cautionary note this week, saying he
> intended to avoid spending binges.
> Still, Democrats believe they have the state's demographics on their
> side with a message that appeals to a younger, more diverse
> population.
> More than half the young voters in the state, ages 18 to 39, are
> Hispanic, according to the independent Field Poll. Thirty-five percent
> are Asian. If you look into a classroom in the Los Angeles area –
> tomorrow's voters – 3 of 4 kids are Hispanic.
> The GOP retains pockets of influence regionally, including rural,
> inland areas.
> Republican National Committee member Shawn Steel has been pushing the
> party to become more aggressive about recruiting Asians.
> "It's not just all about the Latinos," he says.
> Schmidt traces GOP troubles with Hispanics to 1994, when voters with
> encouragement from Republican Gov. Pete Wilson enacted Proposition
> 187, which prohibited illegal immigrants from using health care,
> education or other social services.
> The law eventually was overturned, but it left lingering resentment
> with many Hispanics at a time when the Latino population was growing
> swiftly and becoming increasingly important in elections.
> California "is not just a large state, population-wise, it's a trend-
> setting state," said Schmidt, a public relations strategist. "It could
> be a glimpse of the future."

>> you would starve without us
>> ---
>> speculation noted ... not shared

>> that you even try to segregate Americans with red and blue colors says
>> tons about your intellect.

> i am not the one preaching hate.

> gee maybe after decades of lying and hate directed at liberals and
> civil society, a few "CONSERVATIVES" may be getting it: zero tolerance
> with the terrible tone that’s coming out of the talk radio universe
> and some of our leaders in Congress who are serially disrespectful to
> this fastest-growing demographic in the country.”

> http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-limbaugh-slams-gop-ruling-class-b...

> Rush Limbaugh Slams GOP Blame Game: Apparently ‘I’m The Primary
> Reason’ For Election Loss
> audio
> by Meenal Vamburkar | 10:41 pm, November 12th, 2012

> On Monday’s installment of his show, Rush Limbaugh hit back at those
> attributing part of the Mitt Romney‘s election loss on, among other
> things, talk radio. Criticizing the GOP “ruling class,” Limbaugh also
> argued that the media and Democrats will ensure that Republicans are
> not perceived as “pro-Latino.”
> “Just as I predicted, ladies and gentlemen,” Limbaugh began, “this
> election was lost because of your host, Rush Limbaugh. I am the
> primary reason.”
> “There are others, but I’m the primary reason the Republican Party
> lost,” he continued. “And I am, by the way, the primary reason the
> Republican Party will keep losing, until I am denounced by the
> Republican Party.”
> He went on to talk about the “ruling class” of the Republican party.
> “We, the country class, are not in the ruling class,” he said. “We’re
> the problem.”
> As an example, he pointed to Steve Schmidt‘s recent remarks, wherein
> he said Republicans need “zero tolerance with the terrible tone that’s
> coming out of the talk radio universe and some of our leaders in
> Congress who are serially disrespectful to this fastest-growing
> demographic in the country.”
> Additionally, he argued that Democrats aren’t exactly looking out for
> the GOP’s best interests when they offer up advice. To that point, he
> asked Republicans a question: “Do you really think that the Democrat
> Party will ever allow you Republicans to be seen as pro-Latino and pro-
> immigration?” (Hint: no.)
> All it takes is one person — be it an elected official or a talk radio
> host — “disagreeing with the direction the party is taking, and the
> Democrats and the media will focus on that person and say, ‘See? The
> Republicans really are anti-immigrant!’”
> “The Democrats will always come up with a position that tests the
> Republicans’ limit,” Limbaugh said. “They’ll always find some extreme
> position that the Republicans just can’t agree with in order to be
> able to claim the Republicans are anti-female, anti-woman, anti-
> abortion, anti-immigrant.”

> they just cannot shut the demagogues up can they: the hate, lying and
> demagoguing is still going on: Bill O’Reilly Decries ‘Secular
> Progressives’ Who Are ‘Bent On Destroying Traditional America(white)

> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-decries-secular-progressives-...

> Bill O’Reilly Decries ‘Secular Progressives’ Who Are ‘Bent On
> Destroying Traditional America’

> by Meenal Vamburkar | 9:13 pm, November 12th, 2012

> Is traditional America gone for good? That’s the question Bill
> O’Reilly tackled during his Talking Points Memo on Monday night.
> Criticizing “secular progressives,” O’Reilly called for the right kind
> of politician who will help us confront the “reality of our
> situation.”
> Traditional America can come back, O’Reilly said, with the right
> person to make it happen. Specifically, he pointed to Mitt Romney‘s
> electoral loss among blacks, women and Latinos. “It was an entitlement
> election,” he said.
> The media would have you believing the election confirmed election
> ideology. While that’s not true, he said, secularism is “eroding
> traditional power.”
> “On paper, the stats look hopeless for traditional Americans,”
> O’Reilly said. “But they can be reversed. However, it will take a very
> special politician to do that. By the way, Mitt Romney didn’t even try
> to marginalize secularism. He basically ignored it.”
> Secular progressives don’t have the right approach, he argued, because
> they don’t want judgment on personal behavior. For examples, O’Reilly
> pointed to the issues of out-of-wedlock births, abortion and
> entitlements. Secular progressives “don’t want limitations on so-
> called private behavior,” he said.
> The majority of Americans can be persuaded, O’Reilly said, “that the
> far-left is dangerous outfit, bent of destroying traditional America
> and replacing it with a social free-fire zone that drives dependency
> and poverty.” We need to confront that, he added. But too many of our
> politicians are too cowardly to do so.

> Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?

> Kevin MacDonald

> My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
> glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
> very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
> they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
> around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
> doomed if they don’t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

> The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
> the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
> year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59%–39%. Of
> course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
> classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
> identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
> Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
> didn’t immediately bomb Iran at Israel’s behest. As a critical
> component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
> by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
> Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
> partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
> electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
> Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.

> Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama–80% on average. Asians have
> become like Jews in their voting—focused not on their economic
> position so much as their identification with non-White America.
> Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
> Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).

> Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
> voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
> youngest age category (18–29 years)–those most influenced by Sumner
> Redstone’s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
> pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
> audiences–voted Republican (51% to 41%).

> So the Republican Party is the White people’s party. The media is
> screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
> competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
> is very unlikely to work.

> It’s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
> majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
> party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
> base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
> article (“California’s Greek Tragedy“), two Stanford professors,
> Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that

> from the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10
> million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
> paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population
> swelled by 115,000. … With 12% of America’s population, California has
> one third of the nation’s welfare recipients. (see here)

> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> will look like soon.

> So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
> agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
> taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
> even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
> would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
> research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public
> goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It’s going to make for a
> very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.

> And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
> and Asians—they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
> party of non-White America independent of social class.

> White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
> continue to decline. It’s no accident that stocks of gun companies
> soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
> took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
> traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
> White’ category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
> disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding
> population. That’s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of
> these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
> campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
> elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
> because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
> continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.

> This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
> this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
> But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
> deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham
> O’Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about
> secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
> futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
> other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
> history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.

>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> MEMO
>>>>> Attn: =A0Blue States

>>>>> Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.

>>>> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
>>>> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r=
>>> edblue-paradox

>>> In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
>>> look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
>>> Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>>> umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>>> share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>>> The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>>> coherent and connected.

>> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
>> complaining about their taxes.

>  yep.

>>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> MEMO
>>>>>> Attn: =A0Blue States
>>>>>> Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
>>>>> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
>>>>> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r=
>>>> edblue-paradox
>>>> In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
>>>> look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
>>>> Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>>>> umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>>>> share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>>>> The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>>>> coherent and connected.
>>> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
>>> complaining about their taxes.
>>  yep.

> Just say that they did secede. Where would all the money for their
> indigent citizens come from and who would defend them against, um, er,
> lets say Mexico?? Us?? No chance...

>>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> MEMO
>>>>>> Attn: =A0Blue States
>>>>>> Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
>>>>> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
>>>>> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r=
>>>> edblue-paradox
>>>> In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
>>>> look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
>>>> Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>>>> umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>>>> share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>>>> The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>>>> coherent and connected.
>>> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
>>> complaining about their taxes.
>>  yep.

> Just say that they did secede. Where would all the money for their
> indigent citizens come from and who would defend them against, um, er,
> lets say Mexico?? Us?? No chance...

>>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> MEMO
>>>>>> Attn: =A0Blue States

>>>>>> Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.

>>>>> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
>>>>> red states. So why do you
>>>>> lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r=
>>>> edblue-paradox

>>>> In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
>>>> look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any.
>>>> The
>>>> Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>>>> umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>>>> share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>>>> The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>>>> coherent and connected.

>>> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
>>> complaining about their taxes.

>>  yep.

> Just say that they did secede. Where would all the money for their
> indigent citizens come from and who would defend them against, um, er,
> lets say Mexico?? Us?? No chance...

> --
> ~~
> HW
> __________________
> The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
> Are Capitalist Extremists.
> Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
> Are Racists.
> Are Pro-War.
> Are Pro-Torture.
> Are Pro-Execution.
> Are Pro-Money-lender.
> Despise Human Rights.
> Despise The Poor.
> Despise Women.
> They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
> Who are these people really??

> > Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?

> > Kevin MacDonald

> > My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
> > glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
> > very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
> > they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
> > around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
> > doomed if they don t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

> > The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
> > the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
> > year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59% 39%. Of
> > course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
> > classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
> > identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
> > Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
> > didn t immediately bomb Iran at Israel s behest. As a critical
> > component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
> > by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
> > Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
> > partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
> > electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
> > Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.

> > Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama 80% on average. Asians have
> > become like Jews in their voting focused not on their economic
> > position so much as their identification with non-White America.
> > Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
> > Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).

> > Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
> > voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
> > youngest age category (18 29 years) those most influenced by Sumner
> > Redstone s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
> > pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
> > audiences voted Republican (51% to 41%).

> > So the Republican Party is the White people s party. The media is
> > screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
> > competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
> > is very unlikely to work.

> > It s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
> > majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
> > party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
> > base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
> > article ( California s Greek Tragedy ), two Stanford professors,
> > Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that

> > from the mid-1980s to 2005, California s population grew by 10
> > million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
> > paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population
> > swelled by 115,000. With 12% of America s population, California has
> > one third of the nation s welfare recipients. (see here)

> > And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> > majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> > as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> > Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> > light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> > will look like soon.

> > So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
> > agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
> > taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
> > even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
> > would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
> > research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public
> > goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It s going to make for a
> > very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.

> > And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
> > and Asians they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
> > party of non-White America independent of social class.

> > White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
> > continue to decline. It s no accident that stocks of gun companies
> > soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
> > took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
> > traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
> > White category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
> > disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding
> > population. That s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of
> > these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
> > campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
> > elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
> > because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
> > continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.

> > This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
> > this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
> > But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
> > deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham
> > O Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about
> > secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
> > futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
> > other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
> > history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.

> I am sure Mexico would love to take them all over. Imagine that. Your
> garden guy becomes your boss....

> --
> ~~
> HW
> __________________
> The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
> Are Capitalist Extremists.
> Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
> Are Racists.
> Are Pro-War.
> Are Pro-Torture.
> Are Pro-Execution.
> Are Pro-Money-lender.
> Despise Human Rights.
> Despise The Poor.
> Despise Women.
> They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
> Who are these people really??

> > Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?

> > Kevin MacDonald

> > My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
> > glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
> > very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
> > they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
> > around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
> > doomed if they don t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

> > The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
> > the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
> > year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59% 39%. Of
> > course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
> > classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
> > identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
> > Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
> > didn t immediately bomb Iran at Israel s behest. As a critical
> > component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
> > by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
> > Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
> > partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
> > electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
> > Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.

> > Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama 80% on average. Asians have
> > become like Jews in their voting focused not on their economic
> > position so much as their identification with non-White America.
> > Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
> > Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).

> > Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
> > voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
> > youngest age category (18 29 years) those most influenced by Sumner
> > Redstone s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
> > pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
> > audiences voted Republican (51% to 41%).

> > So the Republican Party is the White people s party. The media is
> > screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
> > competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
> > is very unlikely to work.

> > It s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
> > majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
> > party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
> > base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
> > article ( California s Greek Tragedy ), two Stanford professors,
> > Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that

> > from the mid-1980s to 2005, California s population grew by 10
> > million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
> > paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population
> > swelled by 115,000. With 12% of America s population, California has
> > one third of the nation s welfare recipients. (see here)

> > And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> > majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> > as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> > Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> > light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> > will look like soon.

> > So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
> > agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
> > taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
> > even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
> > would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
> > research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public
> > goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It s going to make for a
> > very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.

> > And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
> > and Asians they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
> > party of non-White America independent of social class.

> > White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
> > continue to decline. It s no accident that stocks of gun companies
> > soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
> > took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
> > traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
> > White category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
> > disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding
> > population. That s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of
> > these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
> > campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
> > elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
> > because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
> > continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.

> > This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
> > this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
> > But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
> > deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham
> > O Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about
> > secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
> > futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
> > other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
> > history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.

> I am sure Mexico would love to take them all over. Imagine that. Your
> garden guy becomes your boss....

> --
> ~~
> HW
> __________________
> The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
> Are Capitalist Extremists.
> Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
> Are Racists.
> Are Pro-War.
> Are Pro-Torture.
> Are Pro-Execution.
> Are Pro-Money-lender.
> Despise Human Rights.
> Despise The Poor.
> Despise Women.
> They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
> Who are these people really??

>> > Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?

>> > Kevin MacDonald

>> > My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
>> > glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
>> > very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
>> > they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
>> > around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
>> > doomed if they don t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has
>> > it).

>> > The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
>> > the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
>> > year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59% 39%. Of
>> > course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
>> > classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
>> > identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
>> > Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
>> > didn t immediately bomb Iran at Israel s behest. As a critical
>> > component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly
>> > motivated by their identification with the non-White coalition of the
>> > Democratic Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is
>> > sufficiently bi-
>> > partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
>> > electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
>> > Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.

>> > Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama 80% on average. Asians have
>> > become like Jews in their voting focused not on their economic
>> > position so much as their identification with non-White America.
>> > Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
>> > Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).

>> > Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
>> > voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
>> > youngest age category (18 29 years) those most influenced by Sumner
>> > Redstone s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
>> > pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
>> > audiences voted Republican (51% to 41%).

>> > So the Republican Party is the White people s party. The media is
>> > screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
>> > competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
>> > is very unlikely to work.

>> > It s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
>> > majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
>> > party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
>> > base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
>> > article ( California s Greek Tragedy ), two Stanford professors,
>> > Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that

>> > from the mid-1980s to 2005, California s population grew by 10
>> > million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax
>> > filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison
>> > population swelled by 115,000. With 12% of America s population,
>> > California has one third of the nation s welfare recipients. (see
>> > here)

>> > And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>> > majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>> > as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>> > Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>> > light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>> > will look like soon.

>> > So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
>> > agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
>> > taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision
>> > that even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete
>> > surrender, and would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency.
>> > As all the research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay
>> > for public goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It s going to
>> > make for a very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of
>> > multiculturalism.

>> > And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
>> > and Asians they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
>> > party of non-White America independent of social class.

>> > White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
>> > continue to decline. It s no accident that stocks of gun companies
>> > soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
>> > took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
>> > traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
>> > White category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
>> > disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the
>> > founding population. That s a lot of angry White men. The vast
>> > majority of these men are not going to be willing participants in a
>> > Republican campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the
>> > enlightened party elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites
>> > voting in 2016 because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and
>> > because of continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.

>> > This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
>> > this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically
>> > impotent. But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states
>> > that are deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by
>> > Farnham O Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked
>> > about secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart
>> > from futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have
>> > any other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage
>> > of history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.

>> So Mr. McDonald is proposing that the USA copy the breakup of the
>> former Soviet Union.  Sending illegal aliens and ayslum seekers from
>> Somalia packing would be a better solution, IMO.

> Sending illegal aliens and ayslum seekers ---
> come legally or don't come at all

>> Payments to foreign governments must be reduced ---
>> no ... eliminated. We owe them nothing.

> Amen!

> Handing out money to foreign governments when our own government is past
> bankrupt is just FUCKING STUPID.

>> On 11/12/2012 9:20 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:00:28 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>>>> On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>>>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>>>> with Obama in office.

>>>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.

>>>> I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>>>> that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>>>> in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>>>> the President by their votes.

>>> You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
>>> entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
>>> all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
>>> were skewed.

>> And they were all skewed in 2010.

>> My only mistake was to think Democrats couldn't steal an election...   I
>> guess I under estimated the depths they could sink to.

>> Polls are really useless and I told you the poll that would count would
>> be the Nov 6, poll.   So I'm right about some of it.

> You are right about nothing.  Nothing whatsover.  All you know is hate
> obsessed rants against things you can't understand.