Thoughts On Secession II

It is true that if Pennsylvania should reject the existing paradigm of federal supremacy it would not have to share its natural gas revenue with places that allow world travel on welfare

But it gets even better.

It's not called the Keystone State without a reason. New Englanders and New Yorkers have to transverse it to reach points west and south. 

Without federal interference, Pennsylvania could impose a heavy toll for using I-80 while removing the toll booths on I-76. This would give the port of Philadelphia a huge competitive advantage while righteously reaping revenue from our fat-cat oppressors in New York City. 

Yes, with the state on its own the typical Pennsylvanian could live a life of indulgent leisure akin to the citizens of Bahrain or Qatar. 

But wouldn't the people who live in those precincts that went 100 percent for Obama oppose such a plan? Did you miss the part about living a life of indulgent leisure?

Those former Obama-supporting Philadelphians would be able to buy Bruce Springsteen's horse farm and hire his daughter to clean the stables leaving The Boss to wander the ruins of New Jersey mumbling pathos-invoking songs about his circumstance. 

Of course they would go for it.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 11/20/2012 10:21 AM Nicholas Klein wrote:
    You wrote this too lightly.

    You make good points, still.
  • 11/20/2012 1:58 PM Kristina wrote:
    You do know that this isn't gonna happen, right? It's not allowed. The "petitions" were made by random people - not politicians. They won't hold up and nobody wants them to, either. Again, he's YOUR president too.
    1. 11/20/2012 3:25 PM Nicholas Klein wrote:
      Accepting foreign campaign donations isn't allowed either.
      1. 11/20/2012 5:09 PM Kristina wrote:
        Well Romney accepted a ton of those, as did Bush. So what are you gonna do? And you seriously think Romney would be better for jobs? He ships all jobs for all the companies he has overseas. Sorry, but that's not gonna get YOU more jobs unless you live in China.
        1. 11/20/2012 5:32 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
          Actually, there is not a bit of evidence that Romney violated any campaign law. There is strong evidence that Obama did with foreign donations, so NK is correct.

          Mitt was going to move jobs to China? You really didn't follow the campaign that closely did you?
          1. 11/20/2012 7:13 PM Kristina wrote:
            Actually I followed it very closely. He moved jobs to China for all the other companies he bought out. What makes you think he wouldn't do it as pres? Because he said he wouldn't? Just like how he said he cared about all of America and then wrote off 47% of our country, right?
            1. 11/20/2012 8:27 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
              You did not follow it closely. Romney's biggest issue might have been China's predations of our jobs via currency manipulation and other means.

              OTOH, Obama picked a guy as his job czar . . .
              1. 11/21/2012 1:01 PM Kristina wrote:
                Ok, you REALLY need to learn to get better sources. What you cite is supposed to be unbiased. You're using a site specifically for republicans. You don't think they're going to be just a teensy bit biased towards the republican candidate? No? Well that's your problem. And the baltimore sun? Wow that source is right up there with the huffington post!

                I followed this closely and used unbiased sources. Unless you start showing me UNBIASED ones (not repub sites, not youtube, not sites anyone can write, not religious sites, etc.) I mean legitimate news sites.
                1. 11/21/2012 1:19 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
                  Try this one then: http://2012.democratic-candidates.org/

                  To get to Romney's position go to the Republican tab then click China under "issues".

                  You really think the Baltimore Sun is a Republican source?

                  BTW, I don't think you cited your sources.
                  1. 11/21/2012 1:21 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
                    And as this is getting hard to read, I am closing comments on this thread.
  • 11/20/2012 5:10 PM Kristina wrote:
    The Dems didn't throw a fit and try to leave when Bush was UNFAIRLY elected. The Repubs think Obama is unfairly elected and start throwing a fit and start talking about leaving the country. REALLY mature, guys.
  • 11/20/2012 7:15 PM Kristina wrote:
    Also, there is strong evidence Romney accepted foreign campaign donations. And I LOVE how you're avoiding the subject of Bush winning unfairly. Just like all the Repubs.
    1. 11/20/2012 8:13 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
      What is the strong evidence that Romney accepted foreign donations?

      Regarding Bush winning unfairly, one guesses you are referring to the 2000 election. The Supreme Court ruled he won fair and square. Recounts by media outlets performed after the ruling showed he won fair and square. Democrats in Florida, however, did try to steal the race for Gore.
      1. 11/20/2012 8:47 PM Kristina wrote:
        Actually the republicans stole the race for Bush. Or are you denying that too? And If you're gonna say that, I'll put out that Romney tried to argue about Ohio going to Obama, but it was decided fair and square that he won. Get over it and just accept it. The Dems didn't throw a fit and try to leave when we got stuck with Bush.
    2. 11/21/2012 11:40 AM Robert Lawrence wrote:
      If you want to steal a close election, you demand a recount of the counties where you think you will pick up votes, and limit the recount to only those counties.

      That is what Gore did in 2000. It was a textbook attempt to steal the election.

      He did this while claiming every vote should count, and going to court to suppress military absentee ballots.

      He claimed voter suppression and voting irregularities, but he only wanted recounts in Democrat controlled areas. So, who was responsible for the voter suppression and the voting irregularities?

      Non-partisan recounts and analysis showed that Bush did win the Florida vote and rightfully became President (YOUR President).

      To claim the Republicans stole the election, or that Bush was unfairly elected can only be done out of ignorance or malice.
  • 11/20/2012 9:11 PM Kristina wrote:
    Also, if you want more money so much, then why don't you support taxing churches? We could make 71 BILLION more dollars a year if we did.

    We're supposed to have separation of church and state, but this past election, Romney and Ryan constantly let their religious belies decide how they wanted to run the country (as did you), while Obama and Biden were able to make a distinction and not let their religion influence their choices.

    Religion either needs to get out of politics or be taxed. Since it's not going anywhere anytime soon (at least according to your party), then they should be taxed. Why can the pope wear a gold crown, but just pray for starving children? I remember how much money was donated to them. They have MORE THAN ENOUGH to pay taxes. We want to get out of debt, that's the way to go.

    And let's not forget all the sex abuse scandals that get covered up.
    1. 11/20/2012 10:37 PM Caveman wrote:
      Ain't you supposed to be smart. The debt is $16 trillion which means $71 billion is just 4.4 percent of it. How in tarnation do you expect that do squat in solving the problem?

      Dang girl if that's how you look at money I'm glad I ain't married to you.

      And just something else to educate you on, churches get exempted from local property taxes not federal ones. Taxing them won't bring $71 billion to the federal government.
      1. 11/20/2012 10:54 PM Kristina wrote:
        Sweetie, I wouldn't marry you if my life depended on it, so there's something we can agree on.

        Secondly, It would get us out a lot faster than any other way there is.

        Third, they should be taxed either way. If they wanna be involved in politics, then they need to pay taxes like everyone else involved with them. Why should they be special? There is obviously no speraration of church and state with all these morons saying "rape is just gods way of giving you a baby and god is against abortion..." so unless they get out of politics, they need to be taxed. They can't have it both ways. And the catholic church has more than enough money.

        You should also know that Obama has gotten rid of 3 trillion dollars of our debt.
        1. 11/20/2012 11:10 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
          Obama has not gotten rid of $3 trillion of our debt. Where are you getting this stuff from?

          And Caveman is basically right. Taxing churches will not make an iota of difference, and that's leaving aside the point that property taxes go to municipalities, not Washington.

          The only way out of the debt would major cuts in spending coupled with a huge increase in employment with the resulting millions more people paying income taxes.

          I don't see that happening. Pray for a miracle but expect bad things.
Leave a comment

Comments are closed.