Calexit

2

Comments

  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,320
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,320
    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    What does Texas have to offer? Plenty of tax breaks and other incentives for business willing to leave Cali if they "exited", I would guess.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 9,931
    unsung said:

    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    What does Texas have to do with any of this? Nothing.

    Funny California wanted out because Trump won the election, now they are begging for his help.
    you mentiond texas in your original post.
    www.headstonesband.com
    www.the-watchmen.com
    www.thehip.com
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,445
    Hmmn, I'll take that hit. I incorrectly assumed it was in response to the article that I posted just prior to the response.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,445

  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 15,688
    unsung said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    California to form own country?


    Wait, didn't Texas want to do this? Weren't they called racist?

    Never going to happen.

    Two reasons:

    Medicare
    Social Security

    3. would cause a civil war. That's what happened last time states tried to leave.
    Liberals insist that the civil war was fought over slavery.
    if the south fired the first shots, why do southerners continue to call it "the war or northern aggression"??

    the north should have let them go and watched the south collapse on itself. would have saved a bunch of lives.
    "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

    "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

    If you have never failed, you have never lived.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 15,688
    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    texas has a good supply of oil and butthurt. that has to be worth something.
    "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

    "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

    If you have never failed, you have never lived.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,445

    unsung said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    California to form own country?


    Wait, didn't Texas want to do this? Weren't they called racist?

    Never going to happen.

    Two reasons:

    Medicare
    Social Security

    3. would cause a civil war. That's what happened last time states tried to leave.
    Liberals insist that the civil war was fought over slavery.
    if the south fired the first shots, why do southerners continue to call it "the war or northern aggression"??

    the north should have let them go and watched the south collapse on itself. would have saved a bunch of lives.
    Because the South wanted out and the North needed the tax dollars. The North then used force to retain the States.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,320
    unsung said:


    Haha, there should be plenty of cheap labor in CA to mix the concrete, right?
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,178

    unsung said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    California to form own country?


    Wait, didn't Texas want to do this? Weren't they called racist?

    Never going to happen.

    Two reasons:

    Medicare
    Social Security

    3. would cause a civil war. That's what happened last time states tried to leave.
    Liberals insist that the civil war was fought over slavery.
    if the south fired the first shots, why do southerners continue to call it "the war or northern aggression"??

    the north should have let them go and watched the south collapse on itself. would have saved a bunch of lives.
    I don't get why this is such a debate. North wanted to prevent the south from leaving the union The south wanted to leave because of slavery amongst other things.
    Was it to prevent the South from seceding from the Union? Yes
    Was it because of slavery? Yes
    Everyone's right.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,320
    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    California to form own country?


    Wait, didn't Texas want to do this? Weren't they called racist?

    Never going to happen.

    Two reasons:

    Medicare
    Social Security

    3. would cause a civil war. That's what happened last time states tried to leave.
    Liberals insist that the civil war was fought over slavery.
    if the south fired the first shots, why do southerners continue to call it "the war or northern aggression"??

    the north should have let them go and watched the south collapse on itself. would have saved a bunch of lives.
    I don't get why this is such a debate. North wanted to prevent the south from leaving the union The south wanted to leave because of slavery amongst other things.
    Was it to prevent the South from seceding from the Union? Yes
    Was it because of slavery? Yes
    Everyone's right.
    And plenty that didn't give a shit either way that were just trying to protect their towns from being overrun and their families from being slaughtered...let us not forget them.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,178
    PJPOWER said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    California to form own country?


    Wait, didn't Texas want to do this? Weren't they called racist?

    Never going to happen.

    Two reasons:

    Medicare
    Social Security

    3. would cause a civil war. That's what happened last time states tried to leave.
    Liberals insist that the civil war was fought over slavery.
    if the south fired the first shots, why do southerners continue to call it "the war or northern aggression"??

    the north should have let them go and watched the south collapse on itself. would have saved a bunch of lives.
    I don't get why this is such a debate. North wanted to prevent the south from leaving the union The south wanted to leave because of slavery amongst other things.
    Was it to prevent the South from seceding from the Union? Yes
    Was it because of slavery? Yes
    Everyone's right.
    And plenty that didn't give a shit either way that were just trying to protect their towns from being overrun and their families from being slaughtered...let us not forget them.
    A lot of that in the south. Most of them didn't have plantations with slaves, but were just poor farmers forced to fight for the rich people running the region
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,320
    edited February 15
    mace1229 said:

    PJPOWER said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    California to form own country?


    Wait, didn't Texas want to do this? Weren't they called racist?

    Never going to happen.

    Two reasons:

    Medicare
    Social Security

    3. would cause a civil war. That's what happened last time states tried to leave.
    Liberals insist that the civil war was fought over slavery.
    if the south fired the first shots, why do southerners continue to call it "the war or northern aggression"??

    the north should have let them go and watched the south collapse on itself. would have saved a bunch of lives.
    I don't get why this is such a debate. North wanted to prevent the south from leaving the union The south wanted to leave because of slavery amongst other things.
    Was it to prevent the South from seceding from the Union? Yes
    Was it because of slavery? Yes
    Everyone's right.
    And plenty that didn't give a shit either way that were just trying to protect their towns from being overrun and their families from being slaughtered...let us not forget them.
    A lot of that in the south. Most of them didn't have plantations with slaves, but were just poor farmers forced to fight for the rich people running the region
    Here is a good read about some of the politics at play. The truth is, slavery was probably already on its way out. Only about 1/4 of Southerners owned slaves and even many in the south were already trying to isolate and keep the practice from spreading because they were also morally against it. Many just had political differences with how new taxes were being implimented and considered Lincoln a dictator. There were so many aspects to the civil war beyond what was in the textbooks in schools. Here is a random read that I found interesting:
    http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/beyond-the-textbook/23912
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PP193448PP193448 Springboro, OHPosts: 3,038
    edited February 15
    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    Would hate to see the import taxes on all the overpriced Apple products I keep buying... :angry:
    But outside from Silicon Valley, not too sure what else we would really be missing from California...
    Texas does have oil, though... tough call on which would be missed more???
    Post edited by PP193448 on
    2006 Clev,Pitt; 2008 NY MSGx2; 2010 Columbus; 2012 Missoula; 2013 Phoenix,Vancouver,Seattle; 2014 Cincy; 2016 Lex, Wrigley 1&2
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,320
    edited February 15
    PP193448 said:

    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    Would hate to see the import taxes on all the overpriced Apple products I keep buying... :angry:
    But outside from Silicon Valley, not too sure what else we would really be missing from California...
    Texas does have oil, though... tough call on which would be missed more???
    That and the fact that most companies would probably jump ship and stay in the US. California would effectively become Mexico # 2...with a little better scenery.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,178
    PP193448 said:

    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    Would hate to see the import taxes on all the overpriced Apple products I keep buying... :angry:
    But outside from Silicon Valley, not too sure what else we would really be missing from California...
    Texas does have oil, though... tough call on which would be missed more???
    CA has more produce than any other state. More peaches come from there than the peach state. A few years ago they were the 5th largest economy in the world if they were to leave the union (don't know if that has changed or not), so there's a big impact it would have on the rest of the nation.
  • PP193448PP193448 Springboro, OHPosts: 3,038
    edited February 15
    mace1229 said:

    PP193448 said:

    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    Would hate to see the import taxes on all the overpriced Apple products I keep buying... :angry:
    But outside from Silicon Valley, not too sure what else we would really be missing from California...
    Texas does have oil, though... tough call on which would be missed more???
    CA has more produce than any other state. More peaches come from there than the peach state. A few years ago they were the 5th largest economy in the world if they were to leave the union (don't know if that has changed or not), so there's a big impact it would have on the rest of the nation.
    Good point. Produce. But lot of what we see here in the East comes from Mexico. Plus it would be harder for lots of people to live without their iPhone. Peaches, maybe not... just trying to be a smartass... k. I'm done.
    Post edited by PP193448 on
    2006 Clev,Pitt; 2008 NY MSGx2; 2010 Columbus; 2012 Missoula; 2013 Phoenix,Vancouver,Seattle; 2014 Cincy; 2016 Lex, Wrigley 1&2
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,320
    mace1229 said:

    PP193448 said:

    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    Would hate to see the import taxes on all the overpriced Apple products I keep buying... :angry:
    But outside from Silicon Valley, not too sure what else we would really be missing from California...
    Texas does have oil, though... tough call on which would be missed more???
    CA has more produce than any other state. More peaches come from there than the peach state. A few years ago they were the 5th largest economy in the world if they were to leave the union (don't know if that has changed or not), so there's a big impact it would have on the rest of the nation.
    Followed by Iowa and Texas...wonder what percentage of that produce actually leaves California. I bet it would even out pretty well if California kept their peaches and Texas kept their wheat, corn and cotton.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,178
    PJPOWER said:

    mace1229 said:

    PP193448 said:

    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    Would hate to see the import taxes on all the overpriced Apple products I keep buying... :angry:
    But outside from Silicon Valley, not too sure what else we would really be missing from California...
    Texas does have oil, though... tough call on which would be missed more???
    CA has more produce than any other state. More peaches come from there than the peach state. A few years ago they were the 5th largest economy in the world if they were to leave the union (don't know if that has changed or not), so there's a big impact it would have on the rest of the nation.
    Followed by Iowa and Texas...wonder what percentage of that produce actually leaves California. I bet it would even out pretty well if California kept their peaches and Texas kept their wheat, corn and cotton.
    Thought that was a good question. According to this:
    "Over a third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California"
    "In 2015, California exported approximately 26 percent of its agricultural production by volume"
    https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,320
    mace1229 said:

    PJPOWER said:

    mace1229 said:

    PP193448 said:

    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    Would hate to see the import taxes on all the overpriced Apple products I keep buying... :angry:
    But outside from Silicon Valley, not too sure what else we would really be missing from California...
    Texas does have oil, though... tough call on which would be missed more???
    CA has more produce than any other state. More peaches come from there than the peach state. A few years ago they were the 5th largest economy in the world if they were to leave the union (don't know if that has changed or not), so there's a big impact it would have on the rest of the nation.
    Followed by Iowa and Texas...wonder what percentage of that produce actually leaves California. I bet it would even out pretty well if California kept their peaches and Texas kept their wheat, corn and cotton.
    Thought that was a good question. According to this:
    "Over a third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California"
    "In 2015, California exported approximately 26 percent of its agricultural production by volume"
    https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
    Well I guess that would suck for the vegans and trail mix addicts, lol
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PP193448PP193448 Springboro, OHPosts: 3,038
    PJPOWER said:

    mace1229 said:

    PJPOWER said:

    mace1229 said:

    PP193448 said:

    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    Would hate to see the import taxes on all the overpriced Apple products I keep buying... :angry:
    But outside from Silicon Valley, not too sure what else we would really be missing from California...
    Texas does have oil, though... tough call on which would be missed more???
    CA has more produce than any other state. More peaches come from there than the peach state. A few years ago they were the 5th largest economy in the world if they were to leave the union (don't know if that has changed or not), so there's a big impact it would have on the rest of the nation.
    Followed by Iowa and Texas...wonder what percentage of that produce actually leaves California. I bet it would even out pretty well if California kept their peaches and Texas kept their wheat, corn and cotton.
    Thought that was a good question. According to this:
    "Over a third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California"
    "In 2015, California exported approximately 26 percent of its agricultural production by volume"
    https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
    Well I guess that would suck for the vegans and trail mix addicts, lol
    It would be little crazy, but not nuts...
    2006 Clev,Pitt; 2008 NY MSGx2; 2010 Columbus; 2012 Missoula; 2013 Phoenix,Vancouver,Seattle; 2014 Cincy; 2016 Lex, Wrigley 1&2
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,445
    PJPOWER said:

    mace1229 said:

    PJPOWER said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    California to form own country?


    Wait, didn't Texas want to do this? Weren't they called racist?

    Never going to happen.

    Two reasons:

    Medicare
    Social Security

    3. would cause a civil war. That's what happened last time states tried to leave.
    Liberals insist that the civil war was fought over slavery.
    if the south fired the first shots, why do southerners continue to call it "the war or northern aggression"??

    the north should have let them go and watched the south collapse on itself. would have saved a bunch of lives.
    I don't get why this is such a debate. North wanted to prevent the south from leaving the union The south wanted to leave because of slavery amongst other things.
    Was it to prevent the South from seceding from the Union? Yes
    Was it because of slavery? Yes
    Everyone's right.
    And plenty that didn't give a shit either way that were just trying to protect their towns from being overrun and their families from being slaughtered...let us not forget them.
    A lot of that in the south. Most of them didn't have plantations with slaves, but were just poor farmers forced to fight for the rich people running the region
    Here is a good read about some of the politics at play. The truth is, slavery was probably already on its way out. Only about 1/4 of Southerners owned slaves and even many in the south were already trying to isolate and keep the practice from spreading because they were also morally against it. Many just had political differences with how new taxes were being implimented and considered Lincoln a dictator. There were so many aspects to the civil war beyond what was in the textbooks in schools. Here is a random read that I found interesting:
    http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/beyond-the-textbook/23912
    Shhhh, can't have actual history replace the liberal revisionist history.
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 6,704
    PP193448 said:

    rgambs said:

    It was idiotic when it was Texas, it's idiotic now that it's California.
    At least California has something to offer the world though, what does Texas have to offer?

    Would hate to see the import taxes on all the overpriced Apple products I keep buying... :angry:
    But outside from Silicon Valley, not too sure what else we would really be missing from California...
    Texas does have oil, though... tough call on which would be missed more???
    If you're at all into wine, that would be a major one. That'd be one of the biggest reasons I'd love for California to join Canada - Californians and their warm and friendly attitudes being the other :)
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 15,688
    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    California to form own country?


    Wait, didn't Texas want to do this? Weren't they called racist?

    Never going to happen.

    Two reasons:

    Medicare
    Social Security

    3. would cause a civil war. That's what happened last time states tried to leave.
    Liberals insist that the civil war was fought over slavery.
    if the south fired the first shots, why do southerners continue to call it "the war or northern aggression"??

    the north should have let them go and watched the south collapse on itself. would have saved a bunch of lives.
    Because the South wanted out and the North needed the tax dollars. The North then used force to retain the States.
    the north responded to being fired upon at ft sumter.

    lincoln was not going to fire the shots to start the war.

    you can't punch someone in the face and then say you are victimized when they beat you up. this is exactly what confederate apologists do, and logically, you can't make that argument.
    "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

    "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

    If you have never failed, you have never lived.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,445
    Ft sumner didn't start the war anymore than Pearl Harbor started WWII for the US.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 6,901
    unsung said:

    mace1229 said:

    unsung said:

    California to form own country?


    Wait, didn't Texas want to do this? Weren't they called racist?

    Never going to happen.

    Two reasons:

    Medicare
    Social Security

    3. would cause a civil war. That's what happened last time states tried to leave.
    Liberals insist that the civil war was fought over slavery.
    It was and please don't walk into this trap. The smoking gun is out there for anyone to see. To think otherwise is southern revisionist history.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 6,901
    On California.. The state has the FIFTH largest economy in the WORLD. It passed France last year. California is also a donor state. That means it provides to the federal government more than it takes in. It is in the top decile of states that give more than they receive (as a %). So I'm sorry, California leaving would hurt the US far more than it would hurt California. Shipping, trade, tech jobs, furits, vegetables, etc. It's crazy talk for people to think California can just leave and the US would be better off.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 6,901
    edited February 16
    Second, let me just kaibash the "war wasn't about slavery bullshit". Alexander Stephens was the Vice President of the Confederate States. Everyone remembers Jeff Davis, but forgets about Stephens. Well he was important. And he made a very important speech in 1861. History remembers it as the Cornerstone speech. For my progressive compatriots, keep this one in your back pocket every time someone tries to argue tariffs, taxes, states rights, etc. I'm going to just clip a few parts. Please have the patience to read for a minute.. Bolding is mine..

    The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.


  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,320
    mrussel1 said:

    On California.. The state has the FIFTH largest economy in the WORLD. It passed France last year. California is also a donor state. That means it provides to the federal government more than it takes in. It is in the top decile of states that give more than they receive (as a %). So I'm sorry, California leaving would hurt the US far more than it would hurt California. Shipping, trade, tech jobs, furits, vegetables, etc. It's crazy talk for people to think California can just leave and the US would be better off.

    I've personally never been a fan of "furits". If CA left, I'm pretty sure the US could still go on. Many of those tech jobs would most likely abandon and if they refused to trade with the remaining US, they would hurt just as bad. Pretty sure they would still want wheat, corn, cotton, etc. Regardless, it is ironic that people called Texans idiots when threatening to secede and defend Californicators. Not necessarily pointing fingers at the fine people on AMT.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 6,901
    PJPOWER said:

    mrussel1 said:

    On California.. The state has the FIFTH largest economy in the WORLD. It passed France last year. California is also a donor state. That means it provides to the federal government more than it takes in. It is in the top decile of states that give more than they receive (as a %). So I'm sorry, California leaving would hurt the US far more than it would hurt California. Shipping, trade, tech jobs, furits, vegetables, etc. It's crazy talk for people to think California can just leave and the US would be better off.

    I've personally never been a fan of "furits". If CA left, I'm pretty sure the US could still go on. Many of those tech jobs would most likely abandon and if they refused to trade with the remaining US, they would hurt just as bad. Pretty sure they would still want wheat, corn, cotton, etc. Regardless, it is ironic that people called Texans idiots when threatening to secede and defend Californicators. Not necessarily pointing fingers at the fine people on AMT.
    That's not at all my point. My point is that it would be bad for the US for California to exit. I also believe it would be bad economically for the US for Texas to leave. I'm fairly certain it is also a donor state. Now if WV, MS, and AL wanted to leave, well that would probably be NPV positive. Either way, it's a silly argument because it's not happening.
2
Sign In or Register to comment.