Civil War

Sock Puppeteer Wants North to Secede So Whole Country Can Be as Dumb as He Is

|

http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2010/11/05/oh-dear-christ-lee-siegel-why ||| The L Magazine
The L Magazine

Disgraced ex-sock puppeteer Lee Siegel, whose cranky-old-man cultural criticism and woe-is-me whining have led to a fruitful career writing for every single liberal publication you've ever heard of, has landed, like these people do, at The Daily Beast, where he has just coughed up one of the lamest hairballs of a political semi-humor column you will ever read: "Memo to the South: Go Ahead, Secede Already!"

While those with more sensitive ears will possibly recoil at Siegel's animus toward "America's backside" (also referred to as the "slave states," "the Confederacy," and so on), and perhaps feel a slight sting from the flaccid insult of "Fuck Kansas, and fuck the horse it rode (into the Union) on," the real self-damnation here is the author's notion of what unencumbered Northern enlightenment would look like:

Just think what America would look like without its mostly Southern states. (We could retain "America": they could call themselves "Smith & Wesson" or "Coca-Cola" or something like that.) Universal health care. No guns. Strong unions. A humane minimum wage. A humane immigration policy. High revenues from a fair tax structure. A massive public-works program. Legal gay marriage. A ban on carbon emissions. Electric cars. Stronger workplace protections. Extended family leave from work in case of pregnancy or illness. Longer unemployment benefits. In short, a society on a par with most of the rest of the industrialized world—a place whose politics have finally caught up with its social and economic realities.

Don't even need electricity for this car! |||

A ban on carbon emissions. How many living-wage jobs do you expect to produce through bicycle power, President Gilligan? And at a time when the labor force participation rate is at its lowest since the truly shitty year of 1979, notice how the presumed consensus economic thinking would have us take that sad base for granted, then jack up taxes, government spending, and incentives to not work. What would the unemployment rate be in Northistan, 20 percent? Thirty?

Who cares! Because being anti-redneck means never having to explain, let alone begin to understand, basic economics. Especially after we ditch the slavers:

The association of North with modernity and South with regression is so prominent, so visible, so all-encompassing that its familiarity has made it invisible. Here are the facts—with important exceptions in every category. The great research universities are in the blue states. So are the great medical schools, the great hospitals, and the great law schools. The great art and history museums are in the blue part of the country.

The most important popular and "high" art is produced by blue people, in blue places. Even the best comedians—with the exception of Stephen Colbert—are, you might say, from free as opposed to slave states.

These borders, more or less. ||| Wikipedia
Wikipedia

At the risk of taking even half-seriously a column that the Twitterer known as Allah Pundit rightly flags as an act of "epic trolling," I was curious about whether these self-flattering "facts" were measurable. So let's take the Confederacy + the slave states, add in Siegel's hated Kansas and also Oklahoma, then tally up the population. (You can quibble over the borders of the resulting Jesusland, but let's remember that Kansas fought for the North.) I get around 125 million people, or 40 percent of the country.

Of the top 25 research universities, as ranked by Arizona State University's Center for Measuring University Performance, seven are in this group: Johns Hopkins (#1, by the way), Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, Washington University in St. Louis, Vanderbilt, Georgia Institue of Technology, and University of Texas at Austin. So yes, "the great research universities are in the blue states," but they are also in the red states, only at 28 percent of representation instead of 40.

How about medical schools? The rednecks get three of 10 in this U.S. News & World Report ranking: Johns Hopkins (#2), Washington U., and Duke.

Hospitals? U.S. News has just three of its top 17 coming from America's backside, giving Siegel his firmest ground to strut on: Johns Hopkins (#2), Barnes-Jewish Hospital at Washington U., and Duke University Medical Center.

Top law schools? Seven of the U.S. News' top 25 are from Over There: Virginia, Duke, U. of Texas-Austin, Vanderbilt, Washington, U. of Alabama, and Emory. Two others (Georgetown and George Washington) are in the southernly ambiguous territory of Washington, D.C.

Wait for it. |||

Art museums? Those are more difficult to rank, so let's go by attendance, which gives us just one flyover-country entrant in the top 10—Houston's Museum of Fine Arts—though there are three in Washington, D.C. as well. History museums are more difficult than I have time to assess.

To sum up: Lee Siegel is doing an endzone dance over the fact that his 60 percent of the country has roughly 75 percent of the top cultural institutions in the categories he values. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

Speaking of pop music, this is where the cultural critic dies on his carbon-neutral high ground. Blues, mountain music, jazz, country, rock n roll—these are the inventions of the region he wants to secede from. Steely Dan can only take you so far in life, Lee.

Advertisement

NEXT: Tamerlan Tsarnaev's Cause of Death Won't Be Released Until Body is Claimed

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is that Lee “Tony” Siegel?

    1. Well, he is a “sock puppeteer”.

    2. I was hoping for a follow-up on that OWS guy with a master’s in marionette making.

      1. Loki, I knew my joke was going to be too subtle.

        AA, that was my hope as well.

  2. A ban on carbon emissions. How many living-wage jobs do you expect to produce through bicycle power, President Gilligan?

    Oh man, I wish he could realize his dream. Without involving me, of course.

    1. It’s easy enough to do for him personally. Put tape over his mouth and pinch his nostrils.

      1. He already has a fist up his ass.

    2. Universal health care. No guns. Strong unions. A humane minimum wage. A humane immigration policy. High revenues from a fair tax structure. A massive public-works program. Legal gay marriage. A ban on carbon emissions. Electric cars. Stronger workplace protections. Extended family leave from work in case of pregnancy or illness. Longer unemployment benefits.

      He left out the part about longer soup lines and the loss of all industrial capability to the freer South.

      1. All I could think of after reading this was of France, the economic powerhouse of Europe.

  3. I’m all for secession.

    1. I would love it, as long as I have a chance to move first.

      1. I’m torn. I really don’t belong in the bible belt, but I really don’t want economic ruin, either.

    2. Sure. I was thinking all of the “red” states sticking together, though.

  4. Just fucking ignore the REGION WAR fucks. They’re moronic collectivist scum. Seriously, just fucking ignore douchebags like this.

    1. They must be sensing that gun control really backfired and Team Blue is about to get an ass kicking at the polls in 2014. They only about succeeding when elections don’t go their way. They spent 8 years threatening to leave when Bush was in office only to again find their love of flag, mom and apple pie after the Black Jesus got into office.

      1. Um have you seen the favorability polls of Republicans who blocked the bakcground check bill? We’re talking double-digit negative shifts.

        There’s nothing magical about guns that makes siding with their lobby over the will of 90% of the people the better political option.

        1. Keep whistling past that graveyard there Tony. Gun control is so popular that every Democratic Senator in a swing state and up for re-election next year voted against it.

          1. Yes, I love this. They really beleive that 90% bullshit. I hope they make that their stand in the upcoming election.

            1. Dismissing polls you don’t like has worked so well in the past, why don’t you keep doing it?

              1. I will believe the Senators who win elections for a living before I will believe a single dumb ass push poll that asked a meaningless question. If even 60% of the population supported the legislation, it would have passed unanimously.

                Do you tell these lies to yourself Tony or just to us in hopes we believe them?

                1. Do you tell these lies to yourself Tony or just to us in hopes we believe them?

                  Campaign mode 24/7

              2. Dismissing polls you don’t like bought and paid for by Michael Bloomberg that he refuses to release data or methodolgy on has worked so well in the past, why don’t you keep doing it?

                Oh don’t worry, Tony w/o spaces, I will.

            2. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the 90% stat is reasonably representative. The problem is that the people who spout that statistic don’t say what the question was or put it in context. The question was specifically about gun shows. And I bet that when most people are asked about that, they think of people buying guns from an official vendor at a show. The problem is that is not all that was in the law and there were lots of other good reasons to stop it. Though I think it probably would have been better strategy to let it get a vote in the Senate and fail there or in the house.

              1. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the 90% stat is reasonably representative.

                You couldn’t get 90+% in a poll asking if Barack Obama was president or if the pope was Catholic. Count me as skeptical of that number.

                1. I’m skeptical about any poll. But I still wouldn’t be surprised by much.

          2. And they may have been stupid in doing so. Increased gun regulation is popular, all you have to do is look at the polling. The catch for politicians is that the NRA is ruthless and gun fetishists are motivated single-issue voters, while normal people can’t be counted on to get passionate about that one issue when there are so many others to attend to.

            1. So, basically by your own admission, gun control just *ain’t* that popular since “normal” people can’t be counted on getting passionate about it.

            2. Tony,

              The people who support gun control don’t generally vote on that issue and even few who do all vote D no matter what. So being for gun control doesn’t get you any votes. IN contrast gun owners vote and vote on that issue and many of them will vote D if the D in question is pro gun. So being anti gun control gets you votes and avoids gun owners punishing you at the polls.

              Give it up Tony. It is a loser issue. We had the debate, your side lost. Get over it. You need to move on and accept the fact that there will never be any more federal gun control than there is now.

              1. Well that’s convincing coming from someone who appears to have his entire reality filtered through rightwing talking heads.

                I’m not sure why you’d be proud about “winning” when by that you mean tens of thousands of gun deaths a year. The price of freedom? Okay, if you say so.

                1. I’m not sure why you’d be proud about “winning” when by that you mean tens of thousands of gun deaths a year.

                  How would this bill have prevented tens of thousands of gun deaths a year?

                  1. So which stronger measures do you favor?

                    1. End the War on Drugs.

                2. Yup, most of them suicides, the bulk of the remainder criminal on criminal which can easily be solved by ending the current prohibition.

                  We actually live in a very safe country – thanks to guns.

                3. “Well that’s convincing coming from someone who appears to have his entire reality filtered through rightwing talking heads.”

                  Oh dear fucking god the irony!

                4. Well that’s convincing coming from someone who appears to have his entire reality filtered through rightwing talking heads.

                  Isn’t he capable of filtering reality through is own right-wing libertarianish head?

                  I think in general you have a very low opinion of people. I don’t think someone taught you this, but i do think it informs your politics. In your view no one can think or act for themselves therefor they need their lives planned for them.

                  Your 10s of thousands of gun deaths is wrong by the way. non-suicide gun deaths hover at around 10,000 each year. 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicide….pretty sure there are like a million ways those people would kill themselves and considering that the US does not have all that high of a suicide rate (average really) compared to countries with little or no guns my guess is those deaths would have happened anyway gun or no gun.

                  1. Corning,

                    I have a low opinion of John’s opinions on political subjects because they are almost breathtakingly misinformed and obviously the product of his being propagandized by the usual rightwing talking heads. He doesn’t express opinions that I haven’t heard a hundred times before, and that’s not so bad except for the fact that they’re always wrong.

                    Even if you discount suicides, this country has a pretty high gun death rate relative to other countries, and while non-gun policies have a lot to do with it, I think it’s worth at least studying the correlation to the massively high gun proliferation in this country. Understand that the people calling for maximum gun liberalization tend not to be the ones living in places where people are dying from gun violence. They’re just the ones enabling it.

                    1. Understand that the people calling for maximum gun liberalization tend not to be the ones living in places where people are dying from gun violence. They’re just the ones enabling it.

                      GTFO!

                      I, living in rural KY have no more to do with gun deaths in urban Chicago than you do for tractor injuries in WY.

                      Shut the fuck up.

                    2. “Understand that the people calling for maximum gun liberalization tend not to be the ones living in places where people are dying from gun violence. “

                      Exactly. Why should they suffer their rights because people in Blue areas can’t keep from killing each other?

                      Goes back to my favorite proposal. Ban guns for Democrats. Problem goes away. Everybody’s happy.

                    3. “Even if you discount suicides, this country has a pretty high gun death rate relative to other countries”

                      Jesus holy christ. You don’t get at the effect of gun control on murder rates (not “gun deaths”, which is basically circular logic…nobody cares if you swap gun murders for knife murders) by using a cross-country analysis, that ignores cultural differences. You get at it by looking at the effect on the murder rates in countries that have implemented strict gun controls. Before and after.

                      And the answer is…gun control has very little effect.

                      Now, of course, you already knew all that. But you use the flawed cross-country because that deceives in just the way you want, and you’re a deceitful sack of shit.

                5. tens of thousands of gun deaths a year

                  And we wouldn’t want dead guns lying around.

          3. every Democratic Senator in a swing state and up for re-election next year voted against it.

            I’m pretty sure that asshat Mark Udall (D-CO) is up for re-election next year nad he voted for it. Then again, I;m not sure CO counts as a swing state anymore.

            1. I am pretty sure that asshat put his political future in real jeopardy. Hickenfucker or whatever his name is is tanking right now thanks to his little jackass stunt.

            2. The last time you could consider voting demcrat in CO Dick Lamm was Gov. Your party is pretty sad when the real American Indian in the party bolts because you’ve gone too commie.

        2. 90%? That’s been thoroughly debunked more times than you’ve had the party fist up your ass spunk monkey.

          1. If 90% of people devote 1% of their political concern to one side of an issue, and the remaining 10% devote 100% of their political concern, then it’s truer to say that the “will of the people” is on the side of the 10%, since their total accumulated political concern is higher.

            1. 4 out of 5 dentists recommend trident!

            2. That’s an additional point that bears consideration. In a poll, you’re less likely to be polled on “do you really give a shit”. And if you are, the results are a lot less likely to be reported.

              1. Only 7% of people who want more gun control consider it an important issue. In polls that rank importance, it’s usually dead last.

        3. Except that “90%” polled aren’t polls of the candidates constituents. Yes, I’m sure you and all your friends hate it that a Senator from Alaska voted against gun control. Guess what? The people who decide if he gets re-elected or not don’t.

          1. Exactly.

            Even if the 90% number were true, why should Rand Paul give a shit when the vast majority of his constituents are against it?

      2. “after the Black Jesus got into office.”

        Ah, yes. The day that dissent stopped being “the highest form of patriotism.”

  5. In short, a society on a par with most of the rest of the industrialized world

    Yeah, look how well that is working out for them in Europe.

    1. But … but … they have electric cars! And a ban on carbon emissions! And same-sex marriage is recognized across the continent!

      1. You have to wonder if the leftards who constantly bemoan our backwardness compared to super happy Euroland have ever met a single European in their entire lives when you encounter their assinine rhetoric.

        1. To the extent that they do, they’re doing the equivalent of a theme park tour. Europe does not consist exclusively of Universities, restaurants, and museums. And to a large degree, Europeans are resting upon the bones of cultures that ceased being dynamic a long time ago.

      2. Yeah, and since they’re doing boneheaded things like replacing nuclear energy with coal, their carbon emissions are shooting up, whereas over here, coal is being replaced with natural gas and carbon emissions are dropping.

    2. When did did europe become the rest of the imndustrialized world?

      I am not blaming you…he did mean Europe when he said it. But is Europe even Industrialized any more? Aren’t they a mixed ecconomy like ours now?

      Isn’t China and Mexico and South America and East Asia now the industrialized world?

      1. ops i meant service economy not mixed economy.

  6. Just think what America would look like without its mostly Southern states. (We could retain “America”: they could call themselves “Smith & Wesson” or “Coca-Cola” or something like that.) Universal health care. No guns. Strong unions. A humane minimum wage. A humane immigration policy. High revenues from a fair tax structure. A massive public-works program. Legal gay marriage. A ban on carbon emissions. Electric cars. Stronger workplace protections. Extended family leave from work in case of pregnancy or illness. Longer unemployment benefits. In short, a society on a par with most of the rest of the industrialized world?a place whose politics have finally caught up with its social and economic realities.

    So…Greece.

    1. That’s stupid, anyway, because there are millions in those states he’s glorifying that oppose all of that. It’s not like the red state/blue state bullshit is really true.

      1. Exactly. One of those stupid red-blue maps by county makes the whole US look like a red state.

        1. Yeah, much more of an urban/rural divide than north/south or anything like that.

        2. Like this one. Statistics for gun violence vs 2012 voting patterns

          http://rare.us/story/dems-love…..-laughing/

      2. Doesn’t 90% of the country and every gun owner support gun control?

        1. I was attempting to define the term concern troll to someone once, and was having trouble. I wasn’t explaining it well I guess. But then I remembered he was a gun guy.

          “You know that guy who says “Hey, I’m a gun owner, and I used to be an NRA member but they just got too extreme for me. There’s nothing wrong with sensible, common sense, gun regulations.” That’s a concern troll.”

          He immediately understood what I meant.

          1. Or David Brooks. It is basically the art of pretending to be a member of the other political side who is explaining how crazy that side is, thus giving his allies the ability to say “see, even one of your own thinks you are crazy”.

            1. Well, as a libertarian, I think that your guys’ conception of concern trolls isn’t really apt.

              I just think that libertarians tend to be a bit too extreme towards non-libertarians, which is probably off-putting to people who disagree with us.

              Furthermore, when people use the c-word on this site, it makes the women sad due their latent feminine weakness, which makes fewer women be libertarian.

              In conclusion, I’m a bit perturbed by the way that you guys just attack concern trolls and other non-libertarians in such an extreme manner.

              1. You’re worse than Hitler.

              2. Come see the puckered asshole inherent in the system.

              3. “I just think that libertarians tend to be a bit too extreme towards non-libertarians, which is probably off-putting to people who disagree with us.”

                Who cares? Those people are dug into their socialism anyway. What do you think, they’re going to become libertarians? No way.

                What you want is the fence-sitters. And the best way to get the fence-sitters is to make the other side look worse than you on trivial or identity-based issues. Trying to win them over with political philosophy is pointless, since these are people that don’t want to think about it too hard.

                Of course, all of this is despicably shallow, but it’s also the reality under a democratic government.

                1. I was making a joke about concern trolls.

                  I wanted to see if anyone would get it without the /sarc tag.

                2. Honestly, I thought ‘latent feminine weakness’ would clue everyone in.

                  1. Honestly, I thought ‘latent feminine weakness’ would clue everyone in.

                    I thought it was great…but was late to the party.

                  2. “Mom, what do you do when you have that ‘latent feminine weakness’ feeling?”

                  3. For what it’s worth, I caught that. Best to turn up the sensitivity of your irony detector around here.

              4. You think libertarians are too harsh in their depictions of non-libertarians? Think about how we might feel about how they depict us….

              5. The ‘c-word’ is not restricted to Libertarian sites. You’ll find the same language on any site regardless of political affiliation. You could probably find it on ‘feminist’ sites.

            2. If David Brooks did not exist Sorkin would have to invent him.

        2. Gun control is using both hands.

          Legislation is gun banishment.

          1. Precisely. True gun control is hitting what you’re shooting at.

      3. There are these people that I don’t like, and more of them live there than here, thus there must be a very bad place we must secede from.

    2. Damn it, you got here first and said what I wanted to say.

      But yeah, PL and others’ comments that the divide is not anywhere near as monolithic as this clown thinks are very well put too.

    3. As a southerner, I can affirm every word he said as truth. Matt’s response is total bullshit. Do not come down here. We marry our cousins, ass rape strangers in woods on canoe trips, beat our wives,worship all things General Lee, do not wear shoes or shirts, think rasilin’ is real, shoot each other in the streets and a bunch of other shit

      1. Except you’re not joking or exaggerating the part about General Lee.

        1. The car of the military guy?

          1. The car OR the military guy. Jeez.

            1. Both….just say it “genral lay” and you’ll sound local.

      2. The North: New York, home of some of the rudest people on the planet (outside of Paris).

        The South: Atlanta, home of some of the nicest people on the planet (outside of Raleigh).

        1. Are we ta
          King about the same Atlanta?

  7. Well there are certainly people who would agree with this piece of trolling. Tbh though, it is very very stinky bait and clownish trolling – I expect better out of Newsweek. We’re talking about a widely respected publication that was sold lock stock and barrel for the unheard of sum of a dollar.

    1. I was at the doctor’s office yesterday morning. I looked at the magazines in the waiting room. There was not a single news magazine. If they are not selling to doctor’s offices anymore, are they selling any copy at all?

      1. Old people.

        They are selling to old people who continue to maintain the subscriptions because that is something everyone does.

        1. All I get anymore is Popular Mechanics, a National Geographic for kids for my youngest daughter, and I’ve kept a Reader’s Digest subscription out of sentiment (my grandfather used to buy that for me each Christmas).

          We also get Southern Living from my mom. Don’t judge me!

          1. All great moms read Southern Living.

              1. Do you read your Southern Living while you sip your mint tea?

                1. No. I read it while I drink my mint julep.

                2. I remember being about eight and I read through an issue of mom’s Southern Living and there was a little side article that recommended spreading flower petals out along the water edges of your bath. So I gathered some azealia flowers in bloom at the time and brought them in. Dad noticed what I was doing and he asked me about it, and I showed him the article. I don’t think she kept those magazines out in the open after that fact.

          2. I used to get PM, but then I realized that it was being run by the same dimwitted gang of 23-year old, lefty know-it-alls that run practically every other magazine as well.

            1. It has moments where I’m annoyed, but it’s mostly decent. I forgot that Dad had got me Wired, which mostly sucks.

              1. I dropped Wired tears ago. The smug got so thick that the Post Office would refuse to deliver it.

                I’m down to Reason (natch), Automobile, R & T, and Maximum PC. There are some really nice European car and racing mags that I’d like to get, but they cost a small fortune to get in the states. Borders was relly good for those (RIP).

                1. The smug and the often total lack of understanding of the technology they’re smugly talking about.

                  1. What’s hilarious about Wired, is that they named a partner at the law firm I worked at the time (in IT), one of the digerati, because she worked on the MS anti-trust case representing Netscape. She’s now in the Obama admin.

                    She barely knew how to turn her computer on.

                    1. Yeah one of the downsides about tech getting easier to use/more mainstream is that there are now a lot of tech writers who are writers first and tech people second, or not at all.

                      Particularly a lot of times I’ll see a tech article that just sucks, and look at the byline and it’s some cute young girl. Call me a hater, but I basically think they’re like cute young sportschicks: hired more for their cuteness then their ability.

          3. Cool stealth plane on the latest PM cover. Do you have to order plans to build your own, or did they publish details?

            1. I think they had a workable model you could make out of stealthy wood. Teak, perhaps.

              1. I would have thought whispering pine. Guess I’ll stop by Walgreen’s and pick up a copy.

                1. I made up that bit about building a working model, just so you know.

                  1. I will not let your small thinking dissuade me. The New Confederacy needs this technology.

    2. You mean the one that employs Eleonor Clift? I’m Canadian and even I can see she’s a pure shill for all things Obama and Democrat.

    3. And it was still over priced.

  8. I’m all for guys like this banning carbon emissions, but think globally and act locally – he can lead the way by holding his breath.

    1. and walking everywhere.

  9. What would the unemployment rate be in Northistan

    Who gives a fuckistan.

    1. Quite a few people who live there, I think.

      1. And they have that very same unemployment and they don’t seem to give a crap.

        1. No, the premise was that it would be even worse in a Northistan separated from the southern states. And yeah, people do give a crap. A lot of them want to do the wrong thing, but that doesn’t mean they don’t care. And it’s important to remember that even in teh north east, politically things are pretty close to evenly divided. People are way too quick to collectivize people by region.

  10. So are the great medical schools, the great hospitals, and the great law schools.

    The MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston word like to have a word with you.

    1. So would Wash U in St. Louis, Vanderbilt, Baylor and a lot of others.

      1. Yeah when we get sick we just pray over it, sometimes while handling snakes and gibbering in tongues.

        1. Then the EMTs arrive and the snakes go back in the terrarium.

      2. What would tacos taste like in the North?

        1. Tofu with ketchup.

        2. They’d screw it up, like with their “chili” that’s really just overly sweet meat sauce on spaghetti. I mean really, who the fuck does that?

          1. This!

            Some places, they put macaroni noodles in chili. I mean, what the hell?

            1. Chili-Mac can be found in Chicagoland quite easily.

          2. Isn’t that what they do in St. Louis? Is that the south or not?

            1. STL is not the South, although it has some interesting ties due to the river and the Cardinals. There were no MLB teams in the South back in the day, so guys from down south would get off work Friday, drive all night up to STL to see the Cards play on Saturday and Sunday, then drive home Sunday.

            2. Cincinnati. It’s a toss-up because some of Cincinnati is in Kaintucky.

              1. None of Cincy in in KY. Newport/Covington/etc want that made very, very clear.

                Some of the Cincinnati metro area is in KY, including the airport.

                1. I need a real chili recipe. Anyone?

                  Nothing from Rachel Ray please. Nothing personal since I’d do her hard.

                  1. Did you try Alton Brown’s recipe? Should be available on the Food Network site. He’s a good Southern boy, too.

                    1. NeonCat, will check it out. Thanks.

        3. Since I’m assuming CA won’t be invited to the secessionist party, I’m going to say they will be delicious in the north, and by north I mean southern california, where they are always delicious.

          1. What if California has its own secessionist war and the parts that are not LA or SF win?

            1. LA-SD is essentially one massive megalopolis. Coastal CA is fairly liberal with OC and SD socially moderate and somewhat fiscally conservative. Inland CA would benefit more from trade with coastal CA than other states, particularly if they could extract better water rights from the state government in exchange for staying.

              CA is a net exporter of Federal taxes, so we’d be somewhat financially better off without the rest of you, particularly if we’re breaking the USA brand up (CA has its own strong international branding), and not having a Federal government to back up our stupid might cure Californians of some of our worst excesses.

              We also already have direct strong relationships with Japan, Korea and China (and massive populations of immigrants from those countries to help grease those relationships). Optimistically it wouldn’t be about LA/SF or inland CA winning, but about dragging CA back from the brink and prospering.

              1. Hey, the flag still says “California Republic”!

              2. La Raza might have something to say about the governance of a severed California.

                1. Sure they would. We’d could have a much more dynamic political culture though if we didn’t have the electoral college discouraging conservative political involvement in the state. It’s possible the whole state would become a hell hole, but that could be said about the southern confederacy everyone’s excited about too.

                  CA on its own is a large economy and for all of its attempts to destroy itself is pretty productive. What happens to the southern states who are net consumers of Federal taxes once everyone goes rogue?

                  1. The real problem would be in the new constitutions. In 1787, you could declare the rights of man and abolish the aristocracy, and even an agrarian proto-communist nutjob like Jefferson would admire your radical spirit.

                    These days you need to stuff in every last item on the social justice wish list or 24/7 protesters will be calling you a heartless, racist, reactionary monster. Worse, people will actually take them seriously. Natural rights just aren’t new and sexy anymore.

                  2. What happens to the southern states who are net consumers of Federal taxes once everyone goes rogue?

                    A lot of people would have to cancel cable.

                  3. What happens to NY, IL and CA who consume roughly 50% of the welfare bill?

                    1. Welfare is one portion of Federal spending. If CA, NY and IL, who are all producing more federal revenue than they are consuming were to no longer be paying for Mississippi, AL, and frankly most of the southern states except for Texas, AK and GA then we would be able to cover our own welfare bill and whatever we’re getting back in Federal block grants and still have money to spare. There’d probably also be efficiency gains because we’d no longer have to meet weird federal compliance regulations or have duplicative programs between Federal and state agencies.

                      You’d also have less spending since there’d no longer be weird incentives in the form of matched funding federal grants, and people would know that money being spent was coming from their pockets rather than the nebulous federal government’s. Oh and we probably wouldn’t have a very good credit rating, so it’s not like people would be loaning us cash to dig the hole deeper.

                    2. Is Alaska a southern state now?

                  4. California is a shithole. Seriously, just because you paid $700,000 for your 3-bedroom rancher doesn’t make you richer than the guy in Kansas who got the same house for $175K (plus a bigger back yard). The stats say you’re richer, but you don’t own shit.

                    1. That’s great KPres, you don’t like CA, how courageous of you in the Reason comments. You’ve got your big boy britches on now, no?

                      CA loses money in its relationship with the Federal government. I was not making a claim that the state is in awesome financial shape, it is not. I also didn’t get into relative property values in any way, so I’m not sure why you’re frothing over home ownership. I was making the claim that if CA went solo while the rest of the board is divvying up the nation into north and south, it would be better off financially than it is now. We can pay for our permanent underclasses out of pocket, but many of the other states would have to take up higher costs, or finesse the issues of welfare and medicare to avoid upheaval.

                      Is Alaska a southern state now?

                      No, we should just drain the fucker dry of oil and give it to Canada.

                    2. CA loses money in its relationship with the Federal government.

                      Maybe if the cost of living there wasn’t so fucking high, this wouldn’t be the case.

                    3. Maybe if the cost of living there wasn’t so fucking high, this wouldn’t be the case.

                      I don’t think I’m following. If our cost of living were lower then we’d be receiving more federal tax dollars than we’d be producing in revenue?

                    4. You would have lower salaries and thus be taxed at lower brackets creating less revenue to send out.

                      I’d also like to see the inevitable bail out of California’s pensions factored in. Unless you think that won’t happen.

                    5. You would have lower salaries and thus be taxed at lower brackets creating less revenue to send out.

                      That’s what I figured, I’m not sure why that’s something for non-Californians to be upset about. From a non-Californians perspective it’s a boon that our cost of living is so high. From a Californian’s perspective it just matters that pay and cost of living are reasonably matched.

                      Unless you think that won’t happen.

                      I’m kind of hoping it won’t happen. I’d like to see a more fiscally sane California in my lifetime and a bailout won’t accomplish that (but it probably will happen).

                      Federal spending / state ignores the fact that some benefits of this spending is not trapped behind state lines.

                      We don’t hoard research from JPL and we have 32 military bases in CA. I suppose there is some wiggle room on the numbers when we talk how Federal spending pans out once you include intangible benefits like DARPA research, but I don’t think CA is really a slouch when it comes to CA hoovering up federal funds for science and technology.

                    6. That’s what I figured, I’m not sure why that’s something for non-Californians to be upset about. From a non-Californians perspective it’s a boon that our cost of living is so high.

                      Are you kidding? It used to be fairly easy for a working-class family to get a decent home in Colorado for under $100K. Californians (and to be fair, more than a few Texans) sold out the massive equity in their overpriced 1000-square-foot homes, saturated the housing market with their bux, and now the median price of a home in the Denver area alone is over $200,000.

                    7. That’s fair, I would argue that that isn’t inherently the fault of CA or TX’s economy, but the housing market operating under the large distortions created by federal policy over the last 15+ years, and the collusion of the banks to keep prices artificially high. I’m sorry to hear that Coloradans are being significantly priced out of homes, the same has happened here.

                      My parents sold their home in 2002 and the next year the list price had doubled and they were screwed. I don’t really have much hope of buying a house even though I have significant savings because I’d still need to take out an absurd loan to buy in my area.

                  5. I will read the link, but I always wonder about the claim that California is really that “net.”

                    Federal spending / state ignores the fact that some benefits of this spending is not trapped behind state lines. For example, Los Alamos Laboratories does not jealously hoard its research in New Mexico alone. Army troops based in Ft. Hood Texas also defend California.

              3. Don’t bet on it. Can you imagine the current crop of Democrats in Sacramento given the right to print money? We’re already screwed enough as it is, no need to give them even more power.

        4. Tacos will be outlawed. Because… RACIST!!!11!!!

  11. they would not even be satisfied with that. Many of them would realize the nightmares they created and would flock to the south, only to find out that they miss some of their statist trappings and start trying to institute those policies here.

    their brand of statism is a virus. It must spread in order to survive. It must continue to spread until it has consumed all of the world and finally destroyed it all, including itself. It will never be satisfied or contained. Liberty will never be tolerated.

    1. Not forgetting that whole civil w*r thing which Speilberg frames as a battle of enlightened northerners bring freedom to blacks.

      When of course, the truth was far more complicated and involved ‘revenue’ (they love that word) and of course, taking a collosal dump on the 10th Ammdt.

      The North would never voluntarily give up the ‘revenue’ generated in the South.

      1. It was a war to preserve democracy and Union, through the military subjugation of people who voted to leave the Union.

    2. only to find out that they miss some of their statist trappings and start trying to institute those policies here.

      Yep. They flee bad schools, high crime, and high taxes in say, Maryland then they cross the Potomac and shriek “The schools are underfunded! The teachers union isn’t strong enough! Your gun laws are completely crazy!”

      1. Yep. They flee bad schools, high crime, and high taxes in say, Maryland then they cross the Potomac and shriek “The schools are underfunded! The teachers union isn’t strong enough! Your gun laws are completely crazy!”

        The newly free states will establish and maintain strong deportation and repatriation policies.

      2. That’s why you need to have a shoot on sight policy for any cars with MD plates, coming over the bridges.

        Can I apply for asylum?

        1. As a Maryland driver, I wholeheartedly support shooting MD drivers on sight. In fact, I think we should make it a statewide initiative, but only for the left lane.

          Pass quickly, or die.

          1. Those flashing high beams in your mirror mean MOVE. THE. FUCK. OVER.

            I used to think it was just Maryland, but MD ex-pats elsewhere tell me that the shitty MD-style driving is everywhere now.

            1. I rarely pass on the right.

              If I see a Michigan plate, I dont even give them a chance to get over to the right, because they wont.

            2. If I’m driving 5-10 MPH over the posted limit, and actively passing vehicles to my right… GET. THE. FUCK. OFF. MY. ASS.

              Or I WILL do a break check.

        2. We’ll have our “Not the CIA” smuggle you out as a defector/refugee.

    3. Even more pathetic, FDR stuck TVA in the South, along with plenty of other socialistic crap. Now we can’t get rid of the damn mess.

      When Yankestan is created maybe we can return TVA to the previous owners and sell the power across the border at market rates.

    4. Fuck that shit. If we secede, we’re putting up a fucking wall. No more of this “I voted for policies that turned my state to shit. Hey, your state seems really nice!” bullshit.

  12. “Progressives” are the least progressive about the most important thing in society–other humans. You could bottle their barely-contained desire for authoritarianism and sell it cheap in the middle east.

    1. But progressives are the most intelligent, most educated, most cultured people with the best wishes for all of humanity. You can tell this by the way that as soon as anyone disagrees with them, they begin calling him names and wishing for his destruction.

      1. And when they run out of breath spewing their bile, they complain that there’s no dialogue any more with the people they won’t listen to.

    2. But isn’t preventing animal cruelty just as important as increasing the number of abortions?

  13. Someone might want to ask this jackass if the NE is so enlightened why is the great black migration of the 20th Century currently reversing?

    1. Someone might want to ask this jackass if the NE is so enlightened why is the great black migration of the 20th Century currently reversing?

      Because most blacks aren’t as stupid and gullible as liberals would like to believe.

  14. I would truly love it if we could get this to happen.

    1. Only if we could build a wall too keep people from fleeing South. You know what would happen. Progoland would totally collapse and everyone but the super rich and the poor would flee and then proceed to fuck up the places they moved to.

      1. Yep, it would be like California and the surrounding states all over again!

        1. How long before Progoland went full fascist and invaded because of the South’s predatory tax and regulatory practices and refusal to buy its bonds?

          1. Invade with what? The scrapings of the permanent underclass, led by the fine young people of the Ivy League? Equipped with carbon neutral, sustainably fueled vehicles and carrying non lethal weapons?

            1. When they go Nazi, they will throw all that shit out of the window. They will become militaristic as hell. I always laugh when progtards get their military hate boner. The military is the most socialized and collectivist and conformist institution in our society. If they actually experienced it, those fuckers would love it.

              1. Progs in Congress, such as Keith Ellison, have recently made the astonishing realization that military spending (boo, hiss) is government spending (yay). The cognitive dissonance is too much even for them.

              2. If they actually experienced it, those fuckers would love it.

                Except they might have to sweat.

              3. No because that is what other people do and they are too intelligent and enlightened to enlist.

            2. Leftists/Liberals/Progs/Socialists all remind me of one man:

              Baghdad Bob.

              Even as reality stares them in the face they will ignore it.

              Unicorns. Uni. CORNS.

              1. Reality has a well documented anti-progressive bias. I’m sure all will be fine once they’ve overturned the laws of supply and demand, scarcity, and the 3 laws of thermodynamics, just for starters.

          2. They wouldn’t invade. They’d go the route of England in the 1950’s. Increasing regulation and price controls, trying desperately to keep the economy from contracting as they discover that telephone hygiene and lesbian poetry analytics aren’t sufficient to keep an economy going. They don’t have the martial tradition to invade anybody – not anymore.

            And, since they couldn’t keep the US military commitments to the Saudi’s, I think it would be 10 years before the dollar collapsed in a bout of hyperinflation.

            1. And then they would go full on fascist.

              1. And then they will invade when they “discover” that their collectivism is not as “productive” as the Krugman modeling predicted.

                For precedent, see Korea, Vietnam, China, and Europe. As soon as they get their way, there is a mass rush for the border and an armed chase after the capital that still exists next door.

                1. AA,

                  Socialists quickly run out of other people’s money. So the system either collapses or sustains itself by invading and stealing the wealth of other states.

                  1. Yes, John. That is what I was saying.

                    Addendum: If you want to know where the relative freedom is, follow the refugees.

                    1. Sorry. Misunderstood.

          3. With a heavily armed indigenous population any invading Army of Progotard would not fare well.

            1. Aren’t our purely defensive ICBMs in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota? They really don’t have to leave the continent.

              1. I find it hard to believe those states would stick with progostan any longer than it takes to say WTF.

                1. Wyoming, at least, is already making plans.

      2. That’s why we implement a 2-tier citizenship thingy.

        Make it really difficult to get full-on citizenship with voting rights but also have a liberal (hah) immigration regime where these poor sods can come and work (and pay taxes, oh yes we’ll tax the hell out of them since they like it so much).

        1. Poll tax. Three ounces of gold, paid to the treasury.

          1. Pole tax: $100 paid for dancing, paid locally. Screw the feds.

      3. The Ohio River is deep and basically unfordable.

        Virginia needs to figure something out.

    2. So, do you all think that the South would do a lot better? I think north and south woudl go in somewhat different directions, but the impulse to control is pretty strong everywhere.

      1. I mean, I do think you’d see some of the blue laws come back, and the corruption is about as bad here in the South as it is up North.

        But we would never do something stupid like taxing carbon. I mean, crazy environmental regs alone would make a hypothetical Southern American Nation a very attractive industrial destination. Hell, it’s already started. All the productive car factories in the US are in the South.

      2. The South would absolutely dominate.

        First off, the Northerners would be in for one hell of surprise when Southern GDP starts being compared to Northern GDP using PPP (rather than unadjusted income the way most comparisons today are), and we find out that Southern states are just as wealthy as the northern ones right from the get go.

        Beyond that, once the USSA (United Southern States of America) block immigration, you’ll see educational outcomes equalize as well.

        Then you add all the UNSA (United Northern States of America) businesses flooding the USSA for the circa. 15% corporate tax vs the UNSA’s new wealth-equalizing, corporations are evil! 60% tax rate (which will be demanded when the new national statistics show the significantly higher inequality that exists in the North), and the North will become a wasteland within 20 years.

        1. I don’t buy it. You’re making the same mistake that so many Malthusian environmentalists make, that no one will change based on changing conditions.

          But as long as we are generalizing about large geographical regions, I’ll have a go. All you southerners will just keep on fucking your sisters and killing black people until all you’ve got is an army of inbred gingers snorting oxys and driving four-wheelers ruled by slutty college girls and Boss Hogg like lawmen.

          1. And what is wrong with slutty college girls?

          2. Really I was just looking for some context under which I could make my three points: That Southern State incomes are essentially identical to Northern states once adjusted for cost of living, that the difference minority populations cause the difference in educational outcomes, and that the capital flight would be enormous.

            1. Oh, yeah, point #4: Inequality is much higher in the north as well. That was in there as well.

  15. someone has never heard of Illinois Nazis.

  16. I would miss skiing in VT, but if that’s the price I have to pay, I’ll suck it up and ski in Austria. Streif, here I come!

    1. Utah doesn’t have ski slopes?

      1. I’m unsure how they would divide the country. I could see Utah joining the South, but maybe the Northistan would invade and force them into socialist utopia.

        1. Well if we’re really making Redtopia and Blueistan, then Utah is definitely in Redtopia.

          1. Fuck, they could put the capital there!

            (j/k we all know it would be in Tejas)

    2. No, you would not miss skiing in vermont. The moment you went skiing in the rockies, you’d say to yourself, “Oh, THIS is what skiing is like!”

      But I do admit that it looks like the rockies states got thrown into the blue-state realm. So, yeah, you’re definitely not going to enjoy skiing in Texas.

      1. I’m sure you guys would end up with Taos, no? I don’t think CA has gotten its hooks that deep in there. Although NM has its own brand of hippiness to contend with.

        1. Yeah, places like Santa Fe and Taos are full of transplant white folks waving crystals and wearing chunky turquoise jewelry.

        2. That’s kinda scary – I could end up getting cut-off because NM is between me and the rest of Redtopia.

      2. Well obviously we would reclaim our former territory which includes most of New Mexico and a strip trough Colorado and Wyoming.

        1. The only good thing that came out of New Mexico was Gary Johnson. Don’t give it to Yankestan, give it to Old Mexico.

          1. There is no way in hell I am giving Navajo tacos to the Blues. Old Mexico can have the rest of NM, but we (Redtopia) get the frybread.

        2. If we take all of CO and Wyoming, I’m in.

      3. Let’s not forget about Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, three of the most gun-friendly, government hating states on earth. Montana folks are truly card carrying badasses. They make southerners like me look like Little Debbie.

        1. Lots of the big ICBM guns are housed there too.

        2. Yeah, but lots of rich liberals have ranches in Montana.

          1. True but you have to take the good with the bad I guess. I’m liking Wyoming because of the no state income tax and low sales and property taxes.

    3. What Swtizerland, France and Italy are too declasse for you?

      Vermont is nice (I love Vermont and currently scoping out land to hopefully buy in a few years) but Quebec offers more things to do at night.

      1. Quebec offers more things to do at night

        I’m pretty sure I can watch TV, eat, have sex and smoke weed (not necessarily in that order) anywhere.

        1. Touche.

      2. It’s the Streif, man. The. Streif.

    4. There is something wrong with people who think you can have fun in snow. Snow so fucking sucks. Can’t wait until its warm enough for my jet ski in a few weeks.

      1. It’s probably a good idea to put on something more than a swimsuit.

  17. That reminds me of a book I saw on Amazon titled “Better Off Without ‘Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession” written by Chuck Thompson.

    And on a off-topic sidenote, I spotted a clip on Youtube showing a proposed National anthem for Cascadia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGJpXcShGSM

  18. Seriously, just fucking ignore douchebags like this.

    How dare you deprive me of my daily RDA of hate.

  19. His real problem would be that his new country would not have two centuries of good will built up, so it would have to secure the loyalty of its population based on its own merits.

    “The United States of America” has the loyalty of quite a few people based on its ownership of the brand. His new country wouldn’t have that. So when they decided to collect all the guns for shits and giggles, a lot of people who would take that from “The United States of America” would say, “You know what? Assholeland doesn’t get that kind of respect from me,” and would start shooting his legislators and their magistrates.

    1. I think that if New England were to secede, Maine would refuse to go along, and if it did – they would face an insurgency from the people living in the country there.

      1. You really think Maine would be the holdout? Really?

        1. Yes…

          They’re the West Virginia of New England, and their poverty will make them more willing to resist the economically stupid dictats coming from Boston/NY.

          And the more the progtardian authorities try to crack down, the more they will resist.

          If I were writing the HArry Turtledovian alternate history, that’s how *I* would plot it.

          1. There would be a power struggle between the elites of Boston and New York that would consume them both in a vicious cycle of back biting and Pittsburgh comes out on top.

        2. Maybe upstate. And Quebec.

    2. That is a good point. Brand loyalty is not just something in commerce. It is like when Roger Waters went solo. Sure he was playing all of the Pink Floyd songs and yeah they pretty much sounded the same in concert. But the ticket didn’t say Pink Floyd, so it wasn’t the same.

      1. Okay, so the South gets the United States part, which signifies federalism, anyway, and the North can have America. United States of Skynyrd?

        1. Hell, I want the Articles of Confederation back.

        2. People’s Democratic Republic of America

          We’ll be the Republic of America

          That way no one will get confused as to which is the third world hell-hole.

          1. Or, even better – the American Federation.

            No more confusing who has the power in this relationship – the states or the feds.

            1. Or screw it, go whole hog

              The Commercial Compact.

              Just a collection of autonomous individuals who have banded together for mutual enrichment.

          2. Flip Republic of America to American Republic. Reorganize states into 15 if need be.

            AR-15

            I have some ideas for a flag.

      2. Not that it matters on this thread and to Americans in general, but the “brand” argument seems to play out in Canada.

        Dipshit Quebecois nationalists (mostly the useless ones) want to break up Canada and each time they’ve taken it to a vote (1980 and 1995) they lost. We call it “attachment” to Canada. But it could mean the Canada brand, when taken to the people in Quebec, still carries positive meaning.

        Of course, Quebec has thrived UNDER THE PROTECTION of Canadian Federalism.

        Therein lies the truth about their infantile and destructive mindset. Quebec has no business going at it alone – nor can it afford to.

        1. And if they went alone, they couldn’t bitch anymore. And that not a good role for Quubecois. Responsibility is not good for them. They are better off bitching and moaning and not really having any power or responsibility.

          1. John, quoted for truth. It only is cemented with the fact that they want to retain the currency and passport, not pay its share of the debt, and expect the Canadian military to protect it. The “logic” being they paid into all these years. But they’re the ones looking to leave – not Canada.

            The mind boggles at their stupid insecure immaturity. You can’t take these people seriously but boy do they have a panache for enacted repressive language laws. Clowns.

          2. There was a time where most of us was responsability but groups of bureaucrats, politicians, artists and mainly union leaders washed our brain with the mantra “don’t worry, government is here to help you.”, most of us turned into a group of “governmetnomane” or “governmentholic” (I created these world who sounds like cocainomane and alcoholic, which mean addicted to government).

            The union leaders of the Quebec unions like CSN, FTQ who was part of the orchestration of the “Maple Spring” got their own agenda in mind and, it might be politically incorrect to said this, hijacked the movement for their personnal interests.

            Jane Jacobs once agreed on the idea of an independent Quebec but if she was still alive today and saw how these folks have in their minds, she could had changed her mind.

  20. So we can watch a prosperous South, now free from the yoke of the Federalistas, grow and grow into a near utopia, while we watch the North slide slowly and inexorably into the abyss and where rape gangs roam the streets?

    Where do I buy tickets to this show?

  21. You know this guy is mentally annexing Maryland, the DC metro area, the Research Triangle and the city of Austin for Team Blue.

    1. Fuck that. We’re keeping Virginia. All of it. I will lead the pogroms myself if need be. My state is far too beautiful to go to the Progtards. Especially Robert E. Lee’s former home. The bastards expropriated it, but he would have approved of the use to which they put it. No way in hell do the fascists hang on to Arlington National Cemetery.

      1. If you could take Fairfax, Arlington, Montgomery and PG Counties and go ahead and give DC statehood with those places included, I might take that deal. It would save Virginia and it might actually make Maryland a decent state again.

        1. MD is doomed, because Baltimore is a cancer.

          1. MD is doomed, because Baltimore Annapolis is a cancer.

            Baltimore can destroy itself just fine, thankyew.

        2. Sounds fair to me, as long as I could sell the condo for a tidy sum before the Northistan gubmint tells me private property is a thing of the past. Then I’d move out somewhere on the I-81 corridor.

          1. Don’t worry, you can come out west and live with me.

            Well, in the spider-hole under my trailer anyway.

        3. I’ve long thought that the part of DC that was given back to Virginia should become part of DC again. That alone would make Virginia a red state permanently.

          1. Maybe, but who knows. I’m a Richmond native who moved away in 2001 and moved back 10 years later. The West End is now crawling with Lexus SUVs plastered with Obama stickers. Makes me want to vomit to see Northern statist scum infesting my beloved hometown.

    2. And Asheville. That would be a big loss – despite all the filthy hippies (you want a 60’s flashback, visit downtown Asheville), it’s a really nice place.

      1. The filthy hippies would all run home to the progtard mother land. Places like Ashville and Austin would become bearable again.

      2. Charlton Heston lived there for a while, so it’s been ritually purified.

    3. we can have a purge in Austin if we need to. Round up all the Calfornians and send them into Mexico.

      Most of the Northeasterners who are here don’t seem to carry the progressive virus, at least IMO.

      1. It is Californians. I knew a lot of Northeasterners who had transplanted to Texas and they seemed to have done it to get away from Pro politics not spread them.

  22. Just think what America would look like without its mostly Southern states[…] A humane immigration policy.

    I would like to know if what he believes would be a “humane” immigration policy means letting Northeners jump the moat, the mine fields and the electrical fence and escape to the freer Southern states.

    In short, a society on a par with most of the rest of the industrialized world

    That same industrialized world that’s drowing in debt and with amazingly high unemployment rates.

    Even Tony is not that stupid… I think.

    1. No, that’s emigration policy, which he conveniently failed to mention.

      1. As the song says, you can check in anytime you like…

        1. There’s not a song that says that.

    2. I don’t think any of these idiots realize that the US is 30% richer than Europe. We’re like the Tiger Woods of industrialized nations. Par would be a major downgrade.

  23. You can practically smell the self satisfied smugness oozing out of this asshole’s tripe. And might I add, what a punchable face he has.

    I wonder which will have the largest GDP – government spending? Especially after a generation or two?

  24. As for the Kansas issue, their remaining loyal to Lincoln and the Unionists allowed them to keep their slaves. Both of them (per 1860 Census).

    1. Kansas is a lot more integrated and friendly to blacks than New York or Boston.

      1. Bosnia is more friendly to blacks than New York or Boston.

          1. How many Bitcoins can I cash that in for?

  25. It is undeniably true that American conservative politics has held the country back from joining the modern world in many important ways. (And since being an American conservative means never having to say you’re wrong about anything, while not offering any proposals that pass any empirical smell test, they just dig deeper the more the rest of us try to progress.)

    But it’s important to get more granular (I hate that word) about the divide. It’s not red state vs. blue state, it’s urban vs. rural. New York has its rural conservatives and Georgia has its urban liberals. People who live in cities, for understandable reasons, tend to favor bigger government and more social programs. The more sophisticated infrastructure and connectedness leads to higher quality education and culture.

    People who live in more rural areas, also understandably, see less of a need for connectedness and tend to be more conservative. I think this is a universal phenomenon. I believe there is only one variable that matters that makes the US more conservative than other advanced countries: its size. (Canada is large in size but the people are less dispersed.) Europe squeezes large populations into smaller areas and unsurprisingly gets more socialism.

    In a free democratic society people tend to get the government they want. The only task for us is to make our country more free and democratic (say, by abolishing the Senate).

    1. Fuck off, sockpuppet.

      1. How about you fuck off, empty-headed bore?

        1. He said, fuck off. FUCK. OFF. sir!

      2. NutraSweet, do not respond to it. Just don’t. It hateses that the most.

        1. You don’t get to tell me what to do! You’re not my real dad!

          1. That is because you real dad is…..your mother! Nutra-Sweet is really Cartman! It makes a lot of sense, actually.

      3. Funny, I was thinking the same thing – but then it goes and says something like this “more free and democratic (say, by abolishing the Senate)” and I remember how ignorant and retarded it is.

        1. Shouldn’t the federal government adhere as closely as possible to the will of the people it governs? Why, then, should people who happen to live in rural areas get so much more of a vote in how it operates? Are they special?

          1. I think that the federal government should be doing a lot less governing of people.

          2. No they’re not special – but they do deserve protections from mob rule that the senate provides.

            Especially since your “urban liberal” like to impose their idea of what works (for a city) on EVERYONE, even those living out in situations that are vastly different.

            1. Why don’t people in cities deserve the same protection from mob rule with respect to the will of rural citizens and their outsize political influence?

              It’s both wrong and irrelevant to claim that liberals want to impose their will more. The constitution doesn’t say people with certain political opinions ought to have less of a say in policy. It explicitly says the opposite. And the whole point is that rural voters get more of a vote on national policy. That is imposing their will. Just because you like what they are imposing and slap a label on it that reads “freedom” doesn’t make it not an imposition. Laissez-faire is a choice same as any other, and it has consequences same as any other policy.

              1. Why don’t people in cities deserve the same protection from mob rule with respect to the will of rural citizens and their outsize political influence?

                Why do you think the only government is that provided by the highest level possible? States and cities have government, too. If the Federal government did not constantly usurp local powers, this would not be an issue.

              2. “It’s both wrong and irrelevant to claim that liberals want to impose their will more.”

                Bullshit. Localized government is what solves this issue, yet it’s you people that block any move in that direction, anything that might decentralize the state.

                You’re nothing but totalitarian shitheads.

              3. Ya know, you could just move to Europe and you’d get everything you seem to want in government.

              4. Why don’t people in cities deserve the same protection from mob rule with respect to the will of rural citizens and their outsize political influence?

                More people live in the cities than in rural areas. Who’s the mob, now?

                1. A majority does not equal a mob. What makes rural denizens special, again?

                  1. But a majority can easily turn into a mob. And rural denizens deserve just as much say in how national policies affect their daily lives as any neutered urbanite faggot.

              5. You have a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution. It’s purpose was to protect the rights and freedoms of the 49% from the tyranny of the 51%. That is why our country was expressly NOT formed as a democracy – you clod.

          3. No, not in a republic it shouldn’t. This country is a republic, not a democracy. I know that for my diploma from Texas tells me so.

            1. Meaning a guy in Montana gets hundreds of times the say in national policy as a guy in California? What does that have to do with Republicanism?

              1. Republics prevent a tyranny of the MINORITY. You might want to read Plato, Cicero, Jefferson, et al. They all warned that a straight democracy was the worst form of government because it amounts to the mob rules.

                So, in a republic, rural values don’t get as easily marginalized by city dwellers who can outvote them because they outnumber them. Is that clear enough for you Tony Nospaces? Or is it Tony Withspaces?

                1. ** Meant tyranny of the MAJORITY. Prob won’t matter to Tony Nospaces tho.

                2. You’re not making any sense. Nobody is advocating direct democracy. Just proportional representation (i.e., republicanism).

              2. Meaning a guy in Montana gets hundreds of times the say in national policy as a guy in California?

                Yeah! Who the fuck needs a Constitution?

          4. “Shouldn’t the federal government adhere as closely as possible to the will of the people it governs?”

            Um, no. It should adhere to the rights of the people, regardless of the fact that 51% would like to trample those rights.

            1. But most often we’re not talking about individual civil rights. I know you guys think your every brainfart of a policy idea is an absolute civil right written in the cosmos, but generally majority rules is the opposite of tyranny.

              1. “but generally majority rules is the opposite of tyranny.”

                Bah! I say a small group of elites is less likely to be tyrannical. It’s just that when they are, they’re capable of a more extreme level. Not surprisingly, most people agree with that assessment, which is there are zero democracies in existence and tons of representative democracies.

                1. For the love of Christ, since I’ve explained this a hundred million times, that nobody, especially not me, is advocating for a system altered to be direct referendum democracy, any accusation of such shall be treated as the strawman it is.

                  No problem with representation. Much better than direct democracy. Problem with minority rule on all policy.

          5. No.

            Democracy is not about will of the people…it is about stability from revolution.

            You have to remember the will of the people killed Socrates because he said things that made the people uncomfortable.

            Liberty from government power is what sets our form of government apart from the historical norm of tyranny.

            The way the senate is set up is to be check against government over reach.

            Anyway it would not solve your problem…the house which is based on population (the will of the people) would have killed the bill even more then the Senate did.

            What your big concern is that because the democrat controlled senate killed the bill Obama can’t blame the house controlled republicans for it. In essence your party lost against itself a huge portion of its 2014 election strategy….and you have your head so far stuck up team blue’s ass that now you want to completely trash our democratic republic to “fix” it.

            1. For the record more people voted for Democratic House candidates than Republicans in the last election, so the House isn’t all that representative either.

              There is no sane defense of requiring a 60% threshold for all votes in the Senate. It was never intended, it’s just an exploitation of a loophole in the rules, and represents rule by the minority.

              1. It doesn’t represent rule by the minority you idiot. How the hell is a minority supposed to pass ANYTHING with a 60% requirement? Don’t you think you should have to be able to pass SOMETHING before you can say you’re ruling?

                What it does is create a conservative bias (and I mean “conservative” in the true sense of the word, not the political ideology). And that’s good, since one of the biggest problems with mob rule democracy is that the fickleness of the masses.

                1. That’s a nice 8th grade civics whitewash of the situation, but it’s really not that anymore. Nobody who designed the Senate or anyone who served in it up until turn of the last century believed the Senate should require 60% to pass anything. That was not part of the cooling saucer plan.

          6. I think it’s an historical artifact, based on the fact that the united States were originally a confederation of independent states, with some of those states understandably unwilling to join the confederation without some institutional guarantees that their interests would be represented, and not drowned out by people in more populous states with different interests.

            1. You’ll have to type slower–Tony can’t understand why rural voters shouldn’t have their interests run roughshod by dysfunctional urbanites.

        2. I wonder how many of those people realize that abolishing the Senate would guarantee a Republican congress for the foreseeable future? Probably not many, since most of them think Republicans gerrymandered their way into the House, and therefore ignore the demographic REALITY (ie, democrat voters in cities are naturally too concentrated to win seats) that insures Republican control.

    2. say, by abolishing the Senate

      How about contracting the federal government by 1/2? Relieving vested interest and political cronies of the use of our money nutures personal freedom and an individual’s control over his future.

      1. A valiant effort but remember, ignorant, fascist retards are impervious to logic and reason.

      2. Stop talking in generalities and say which programs you want to cut so that rich people can have lower taxes. That’s all you’re really talking about.

        Not even red-staters want to cut the federal government by half. In fact they don’t want to cut much of it at all if you’re talking specific programs. You seem to be missing my point. You want to apply the most extreme rural individualist mindset to the country as a whole, but it makes no sense for the country and almost all of the people don’t want it.

        1. ….almost all of the people don’t want it.

          God but you’re a useless cum spot.

        2. Remove dept of
          Education
          HUD
          Health and human services
          Veteran’s Affairs
          Commerce
          Agriculture
          Labor
          Transportation
          Energy

          Cut in half (to start)
          DOD
          State
          Treasury
          Interior
          Homeland Security

          Not only will rich people have lower taxes, so will I.

        3. You want to apply the most extreme rural individualist mindset to the country as a whole, but it makes no sense for the country and almost all of the people don’t want it.

          You want to apply the most extreme urban collectivist mindset to the country as a whole, but it makes no sense for the country and almost all of the people don’t want it.

          1. Almost everything I support is supported by majorities of Americans, and I wouldn’t support them if they weren’t practically beneficial for society.

            1. Well bully for the majority of Americans, drek-for-brains. That neither makes it moral nor lawful. It simply means “Might Makes Right” to which the only rational reply is “Go fuck yourself”.

      3. But how can we cut spending by 50 percent (back to FY 2001 levels), when the 3 percent sequester cuts nearly brought civilization to its collective knees?

    3. Clearly, big government has worked out so well for urban centers.

    4. Re: Tony,

      It is undeniably true that American conservative politics has held the country back from joining the modern world in many important ways.

      Depends on what you mean by “modern world”, because the high-tax, high-regulation systems that exist in Europe are actually throwbacks of earlier eras where special-interest groups held economic power (like in France before and even after the Revolution, or the old Junkers of Prussia.)

      People who live in cities, for understandable reasons, tend to favor bigger government and more social programs.

      While it is true (in part) that urbanites tend to favor bigger givernments, it is mainly because many cities have very massive bureaucracies that pretend to provide services. But there IS a reason why certain cities are being vacated, Tony, a fact you conveniently leave out. And hint: It has NOTHING to do with this urban vs rural dichotomy.

      People who live in more rural areas, also understandably, see less of a need for connectedness and tend to be more conservative.

      That’s not the reason. They tend to be more conservative because they’re mainly property owners. Urbanites are mostly renters.

      1. My status as a renter vs. owner has no bearing on my political views and I don’t think it does for anyone else either. Rural people just see less value in strong social institutions, since they don’t require them as much. The more densely populated a given area of land, the more formality and complexity of rules and regulations, since more people have to get along.

        But if it’s going to be a power struggle between the political values of rural people vs. urban people, I think we should err on the side of urban, since they tend to be less religious and more educated and since the world is increasingly in need of strong institutions as human connectedness grows. Someone living in Manhattan may not know what’s best for someone living in Bumfuck, but the converse is at least as true.

        1. Rural people just see less value in strong social institutions, since they don’t require them as much.

          What a load of crap. Rural people see plenty of value in social institutions. They just don’t equate those institutions with coveting other’s wealth.

          1. They just don’t equate those institutions with coveting other’s wealth.

            They don’t equate a *social* institution with government.

          2. A psychobabble explanation does not trump a reasonable correlation one. What reason do you have to believe that rural denizens are more morally virtuous?

            1. Huh?

            2. What reason do you have to believe that rural people don’t value social institutions? The SWPL pretension you pulled out of your ass?

              1. Seriously, get out of your stupid urban whiteopia and go to any small town. Their social institutions are usually built around the local American Legion, community high school, and/or various churches. But just because you may not see these things as social institutions doesn’t mean they aren’t.

                Your arguments are just kindergarten-level Thomas Frank regurgitation with no intellectual value whatsoever.

        2. But if it’s going to be a power struggle between the political values of rural people vs. urban people, I think we should err on the side of urban, since they tend to be less religious and more educated and since the world is increasingly in need of strong institutions as human connectedness grows

          Relying on the instincts of a bunch of managerialists is the last thing a healthy society needs.

    5. Re: Tony,

      In a free democratic society people tend to get the government they want.

      Oh, yes, and they get it good and hard.

      The only task for us is to make our country more free and democratic (say, by abolishing the Senate).

      More democratic =/= being freer. There’s no question that the North Korean people are very democratic about the suppoort they give to their government. Unless you want to tell me that there are bad democracies and good democracies, an ad hoc attempt to make your argument more coherent…

      1. Hate to go Godwin, but it’s a fact that Hitler had 85% approval ratings.

        1. You know who else had 85% approval ratings?

        2. And the 15% should get their way instead, because he’s Hitler? Who gets to decide these things?

    6. Here we go again claiming that the citizens of large urban areas get better education. Good to hear that those “horrible inner city school districts” and Detroit’s 25% graduation rate have been taken care of.

    7. Where or what is this “modern world” of which you speak?

    8. Europe squeezes large populations into smaller areas and unsurprisingly gets more socialism.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…..3-0080.pdf

      In a free democratic society people tend to get the government they want. The only task for us is to make our country more free and democratic (say, by abolishing the Senate).

      Spoken like a true marxist.

    9. “The more sophisticated infrastructure and connectedness leads to higher quality … culture.”

      Philadelphia doesn’t have a world class collection of art museums because of “more sophisticated infrastructure” and “connectedness.” It has these museums because, once upon a time, very rich people founded and stocked those museums. Tourist dollars, not “bigger government” and “more social programs” keep them alive today.

      Hollywood isn’t the center of the film industry because of “more sophisticated infrastructure” or “connectedness”. Indeed, when the film colony /started/ out there, the surrounding region was a wasteland. It’s not “bigger government” and “more social programs” that keep the film industry alive today, it’s because filmmakers do a decent job of churning out products that lots of people are willing to pay for and see.

      For every urban liberal success story, there are of course liberal urban centers that are cultural wastelands. No /other/ American cities have the cultural power of New York or Los Angeles. And very few match the lower tier status of cities like Philadelphia.

      Contemporary liberal politics do /not/ lead to higher quality culture. If they did, then Detroit would be the cultural capital of the United States.

  26. I can see by what he’s trolling that he comes from TNR.

    When those major research universities came about, they weren’t in blue states. All those top universities were built over long periods of time in economically and culturally vibrant communities. If you look at the US News rankings from 1983, not a whole lot has changed in the top universities, save for public universities dropping due to rankings criteria. If his point is that they would be nice to have in Northistan, I guess he would be right; if his point is that progressivism nurtured them, he’s wrong.

    The up and coming technology centers are in the South and West. Does anyone think a top research university would form in Michigan these days?

    1. That is a very good point and something progs never consider. Places like New York and Boston are living on their past accumulated wealth. Every year their population gets a little smaller and more vibrant places in the South get a little bigger.

      It is not a perfect indicator but I think it is a leading and illustrative one; take college football. Fifty years ago, the Big 10 and Notre Dame pretty much ruled college football. Alabama was awfully good and other southern schools would occasionally have a good year. But that was it. Now the SEC rules and the Big 10 is historically bad and will never be what it was.

      People say that is because of culture. And that is not true. People in Ohio love college football just as much as they do in Alabama. The difference is that the population and the money has moved from the East and the upper midwest to the South and now the plains, since California has gone nuts. And that transfer of wealth and people eventually shows up in the quality of institutions.

      1. The center of population has trended south and west for decades for now.

        The idea that the South is not vibrant and culturally thriving is simply provincialism. We got great food, great music, great weather, all kinds of awesome stuff to do, and sorry our girls are better.

        1. It is totally absurd. What infuriates me about progs is that they have taken over places that were some of the greatest places the world has ever seen. New York and Boston and LA and San Fransisco are fucking moments to civilization. And they have proceeded to completely fuck them up. But then they act smug because the places they live are so great as if those places were great because of them rather than in spite of them.

          To put it in personal terms. It is like those assholes took over all of the great grand dame Victorian beauties in a town and everyone else got stuck in 50s ranches. They then proceeded to piss on the carpet and tear the windows out while everyone else remodeled and expanded their ranches. But they still think they are so much better because they live in these big, beautiful houses.

          1. They then proceeded to piss on the carpet and tear the windows out…

            B-b-but, BROKEN WINDOWS! /Krugabe

        2. “great weather”

          Well that’s debatable. I don’t consider summers where AC is basically a requirement to be comfortable good weather.

          1. The weather in the South sucks. The weather in the mid Atlantic is much better and milder. And not only is it hot as a ring of hades in the summer, the winters are often cold, wet and grey. Outside of Florida, you really don’t get that much nice weather in the winter to make up for the horrible summers. How anyone could think any place not on a beach and south of Richmond has “good weather” is beyond me. If you are crayfish looking to get steamed maybe.

          2. Yeah that five solid months of drinking by the river or lake or pool is a real hardship.

            1. Five solid months of breaking into a sweat every time you walk out the door, five months of staying inside in the AC and maybe going out in the evenings or mornings, which thanks to the humidity are not that pleasant either unlike the desert.

              Saying it is five months by the pool is like someone from Minnesota saying winter is five months of snow mobiling and ice fishing. Yeah maybe but no thanks.

              1. I mean, some can’t handle it, and that’s fine. I probably would be miserable during a Minnesota winter.

                1. Like the Minnesota winters, southern summers are just extreme. If you didn’t grow up with them, they are very hard. I loved living in the South. But I don’t miss the climate for a minute. I am not sure I ever want to move further south than DC. Maybe west or northwest. But I just can’t take the deep south summers. I could if I had to. But I really don’t want to.

                  If it were up to me, I would give the entire South to the progs and take back the North and Midwest.

              2. Our energy costs are actually lower here in the South. And I don’t consider anywhere to have livable weather when for five months out of the year you can get a blizzard that strands you for a week wherever you happen to be at the time. You can always drive through heat.

            2. Well, I get close to 4 months of that here in NH with the added bonus of being able to do other things outside without dying from the heat and humidity. I would miss winter, but I can understand why people might prefer to miss out on that.

      2. Yeah, I don’t get all the vitriol hurled upon the south from northerners. Northern liberals, to me, sound a lot like the cranks in the Lombard League in Italy. They say the exact same things highlighted by this sock guy. And they’re seen as “extremists” in Italy since they want to break the North from the South.

        In their eyes, they produce while the south eats and let the Mafia control everything.

        Me? I look forward to visiting Tennessee this summer.

        1. Of course the Lombard League actually has a grievance and the Northeast Progtards don’t.

          1. Well, they do up to a point. Problem is plenty of “southerners” work in the North and I don’t think they like much people from the south.

            No one likes being made to feel like they’re carrying dead weight. But southerners make up a large percentage of the labor force in the North I believe.

            It’s like here in Canada. Regional, economic cleavages exist everywhere and not sure if it’s a reason to split. Alberta is increasingly annoyed, for exmaple, with Quebec and its whiny, spendthrift ways.

      3. Fifty years ago, the Big 10 and Notre Dame pretty much ruled college football. Alabama was awfully good and other southern schools would occasionally have a good year.

        In the 1950s, (which is closer to 60 than your 50) Duke and GT were national powers in football.

        1. Duke was a power in the 40s.

      4. Six of the 20 most populous cities in the US are in Texas.

  27. And Pennsylvania isn’t as blue as he thinks. Outside of Philly, our Ds are conservative, most pro-gun and lots pro-life. Remember Casey v. Planned Parenthood? That was our Gov, a D.

    Plus we’re a see of gun freedom in a region of gun-fearing wussies. Try convincing us to adopt NY or Maryland gun regs in the new Progoland, and you’ll get a second Whiskey Rebellion.

    1. Yes, PA’s overall population is as pro gun as Arizona’s, Texas’s, Idaho’s and Kentucky’s. It’s only the legacy union worker population that has kept PA in the blue column.

  28. People DO realize their debating what a sock puppet thinks, right?

    1. Thank Jeebus someone else sees this for what it is.

      People, you are being trolled. By reacting, you are giving him what he wants. By getting all butthurt, you are being collectivist yourselves.

      Don’t play this asshole’s game. Just. Fucking. Don’t.

    2. No, we’re debating how to best split up the USA.

  29. Yeah ok, while you morons go off and form Jesusland and The Soviet States of North America can we carve off 1 state for libertarians? It doesn’t need to be a big one as there aren’t that many of us but it needs to have ocean access or at least a border with Canada so we are not landlocked by you two numbskulls.

    1. We’ll lease you Guam.

      1. Dude, I am totally down with starting a libertarian nation on Guam.

        1. I dunno Virginian, it might tip over at any time. (starting at 1:15)

          My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize

          1. I always like to bring that up when people rant about stupid Republicans being anti-science. Sorry, islands tipping over is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard said in Congress.

            OK, well….maybe not..its a tough competition.

          2. Is anyone here old enough to remember Al Capp’s Slobbovia? That country was in danger of capsizing because its citizens were eating too many bagels, making it top heavy.

            Honestly, I can’t believe Hank Johnson wasn’t kidding.

            Please tell me he was kidding.

        2. Throw in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and it’s a deal

    2. The Free State Project is trying for New Hampshire.

  30. Northtards can have Maryland if we can keep Indiana.

    1. They can have Maryland anyway. Fuck Maryland.

      1. Are you going to approve my application for asylum or what?

        1. If you can fire a good group from pistol and rifle, properly balance a checkbook, and then spit without flinching upon the holy symbols of Maryland, then yes.

          1. I’ll happily take a shit on Martin O’Malley’s head and dance on Willy Don’s grave.

            Balance a what, grandpa?

            1. Haha exactly. I remember the time my dad asked me if I’d balanced my checkbook. I said huh what? He said how do you know how much money you have then?

              I showed him how to look up his balance online, and now he never balances his anymore.

              1. Even way back when, when I had a checkbook, I never could get the damn thing to balance. Never.

                I just gave up and kept an eye on the balance. Now that’s it’s online, I can be as OCD about it as I want.

                1. Plus I only write checks to the landlord.

          2. Maryland is a great state. The Chesapeake is awesome. The Western part is just as pretty as Virginia. Annapolis os beautiful. And Crackmore has some great old neighborhoods and charm.

            It is another example of progs taking a dump on what should be and no doubt once was a very nice place.

            1. That is true, John. But the politics is so vile, so ubiquitous and overwhelming, touching fucking everything in this state, (and it’s all personal to these statist schmucks) that it colors and ruins the entire state.

              A pox on it, I say.

              1. I agree with you. I would like to shoot everyone involved in politics in this state.

              2. John and JW are both exactly correct. Maryland should be an awesome place and I can’t stand it.

            2. As I’m in Baltimore right now at JHU, all my memories of this place being a shithole are flooding back. And Hopkins has become statist central, unless of course you have enough money to float above the unwashed masses. No wonder Bloomberg was a graduate from here.

              1. Fells Point is one of the better neighborhoods and bar districts you can go too. Baltimore has some charm.

      2. Ok. I need a lesson. What’s the deal with Maryland. Every year we head to Delaware and spend a day in Mary-land. So I’d like to know.

        1. It has a long tradition of really corrupt government. Originally it was the old time Cabot Lodge Republicans who were the resident crooks. Spirow Agnew was governor to give an example. But now it is uniformly Democratic, supported by the huge spigot of fed money pouring into its DC suburbs. Its politics are dominated by the worst sort of nasty progtard liberals in Montgomery County and old time big city black dem political machine gangsters out of Baltimore. It is hopeless.

          1. Thanks John.

            I hate Maryland now.

        2. Why do you go to Delaware? I’ve been there. Why?

  31. I was going to post something about how the red states produce virtually all of America’s oil and gas, so the North would have very little energy without buying shit from companies in the south and west, but then I remember that the North will be running a magical, post-carbon economy. So I guess they won’t actually need any oil, gas or coal.

    Touche, Siegel.

    1. Wasn’t the South so smart for having all those natural resources under its land? They really pulled off a coup with that one. Same for having all that farmland, I suppose.

      Of course they still manage to stay poorer, less educated, and more federally subsidized.

      1. The same applies to Northern universities since all of those universities were started long before modern liberalism. Modern liberals had nothing to do with Harvard or Princeton, those existed long before progressivism was even a glint in Marxisms eye. Your stupid argument applies equally well to all the things Seigel lists, since libs had nothing to do with most of them.

        Furthermore, the south is backwards and poor from the days that they were run by New Deal Democrats. It’s kind of funny that the south saw massive economic stagnation when progressives ran it, and have seen much faster economic growth since they stopped voting for Democrats. Meanwhile, the north saw faster economic growth when they were run by people who weren’t progressives, and have seen comparative stagnation since progs started running the place.

        Weird how that works, huh Tony?

        1. Its also wierd how those “progressive” democrats wanted slavery (and later institutionalised discrimination) and it was the horrible regressive republicans who got off their arse and ended slavery and got the CRA passed.

          1. Tony forgets (conveniently) that it was Wilson, the Progressive’s stalwart, who segregated the government and the army. Or that it was paleo-conservatives (Harding, Coolidge) who introduced Civil Rights legislation (including anti-lyinching) only to have it rebuked by a Democratic-controlled Congress.

          2. This bullshit needs to be shot in the head because it’s a zombie canard. I see liberalism as in the tradition of liberal policies, not party labels. Republicans were the more liberal party at one time. Now they’re right-wing crazies and Democrats are the liberals (and have been for many decades now). If current Republicans were still the party of increasing social liberalization then I’d be one.

            1. The thing is, nobody can quite agree on what exactly “liberal” means. There are plenty of issues today, even social ones, where large numbers of liberals are not pushing for freedom. It’s a bit self-serving to define anything good that happened in the past as automatically “liberal,” no? The parties were not as ideologically coherent and separate (even though today they still are far from coherent and much more similar in practice than they are different) as they were back then. There were wide splits within parties. There were plenty of segregationist Democrats (such as Wilson, but there were many others) who supported Progressive policies on economics and other issues. And Harding and Coolidge were regarded back in their days as conservatives.

              1. *That should say “as they are today”

            2. They weren’t being ‘liberal'(at least not in the modern sense), they were supporting equality before the law, something they still hold dear(at least in theory).

              The were never for ‘social liberalization’–they were for individual liberty.

              While the advent of a ‘socially conservative’ republican voting block has sped the infection of statism, there are more people in the Republican party that support individual liberty than there are among the Democrats.

      2. poorer, less educated, and more federally subsidized

        Sounds like your preferred citizenry.

  32. Do this “hillbilly” south just live in the imagination of the writer?

    I’ve stayed in South Carolina several times and love the place. Warm weather, great food, conservative but friendly culture, and everyone is so damn polite.

    1. It’s what I’ve observed too. More in North Carolina. Look, to me it’s simple, if liberals are going off on it, then the opposite is the truth. I always go against what liberals think and argue for. It makes me happier knowing I’ll be right in the end.

    2. When I lived in Atlanta I used to ride my motorcycle all over the North Georgia, Western Carolina and East Tennessee mountains. That is real hillbilly country there. It is where they filmed Deliverance. It is where some of the famous moon shining roads are. But there were not any hillbillies left. It was mostly rich people from Atlanta and Charlotte’s summer homes.

      1. My exposure with the south is all those states on the way to Florida. I’ve met plenty of people from the South and every single one of them were polite and gracious. Northerners tend to be arrogant and crass I find and I visit the North A LOT.

        Georgia has a proud feel to it. Look forward to visiting Tennessee this summer.It’s time to explore this region in America. The fact liberals seem to hate it means there’s more depth to it.

        I grew up with the Tony’s of this world. They bore me with their vomit.

  33. I’m in the south, so I’m all for the north seceding and creating their own utopia. The amusement of watching it crash and burn U.S.S.R. style would just make life worth it.

  34. Where does he get off including the midwest with the northeast ?

    In my experience southerners and midwesterners get along just fine, which makes sense seeing as the midwest is full of rednecks on ice. (Yes I’m joking, mostly.)

    1. By “he”, I meant Seigel, not Welch.

  35. http://www.philly.com/philly/b…..idate.html

    Check out the dark horse mayoral candidate in Philadelphia.

  36. Re: Tony,

    Stop talking in generalities and say which programs you want to cut so that rich people can have lower taxes.

    All of those not enumerated in the Constitution. By the way, I want to be rich, so that is what I’m talking about. If you want to continue paying taxes, be my guest.

    Not even red-staters want to cut the federal government by half.

    And?

    You want to apply the most extreme rural individualist mindset to the country as a whole,

    Oh, so now you’re calling everybody here “rural”, as if individualists cannot be urban.

  37. Anti-southern prejudice is a retrograde impulse that went out of style when ‘Tucker and Dale vs. Evil’ hit the theaters.

    1. Hazel, progressivism is built upon a number of prejudices acting as premises. Several of those prejudices are racial ones, which Tony shows in full force.

      In the 1920’s, there’s no question in my mind that he’d be wearing a white hood.

    2. Tucker and Dale vs. Evil

      Awesome movie. I nearly missed it and then convinced a bunch of friends to watch it. I’m sad it didn’t seem to get as much play as it deserved.

      1. Great film. Hopefully it will do to anti-Southern prejudice what Blazing Saddles did to anti-black prejudice.

  38. Check out the dark horse mayoral candidate in Philadelphia.

    RACISS….err wait………… she’s pretty hot!

    1. yes, yes she is.

  39. The mere fact that William Faulkner (Mississippi) is generally considered the greatest American novelist of the 20th century is enough to suggest Siegel hasn’t thought very hard.

    1. There’s Samuel Clemens. Missouri, even briefly served in the Confederate army.

      1. Edgar Allen Poe grew up in Virginia I believe.

      2. No, he served in a secessionist militia then fled to Montana. He spent nearly all of his professional life in Connecticut.

        1. He married a woman from Connecticut and moved there when he was nearly 40.

          1. Seems your right, but he did live in the territories and California since he was in his 20s.

  40. A humane minimum wage. A humane immigration policy. High revenues from a fair tax structure. A massive public-works program. Legal gay marriage. A ban on carbon emissions. Electric cars. Stronger workplace protections. Extended family leave from work in case of pregnancy or illness. Longer unemployment benefits. In short, a society on a par with most of the rest of the industrialized world?a place whose politics have finally caught up with its social and economic realities.

    Their are several countries already like that in the world, Greece, Italy, France…..wasn’t their some type of crisis or something that is happening in those places, what was it again….ecometric crisis…ya that was it.

    1. Real immigration reform would be a good thing though.

  41. Humane immigration policy?

    Except for those dirty southerners. Can’t let them in. They might spread their carbon emissions.

  42. Don’t let the door… etc. etc.

    It’s a silly troll. What can you say?

  43. Smith and Wesson? He’d name his Southern nation after a company founded in Massachusetts, and a major supplier of sidearms to the Union Army in the Civil War?

    1. That’s a doubleplusungood thing to say, Knoss.

      1. Well it’s good that the Union won the war, and that New England had the best gun makers.

  44. But how can the south survive without rent control, high fuel prices, state income taxes, gun control, or strict zoning & housing regulations that will invite speculative bubbles and price the poor out of the housing market?

    No child should ever have to live in a home that rests on less than a half-acre lot. You extremist monsters would probably let children miss out on a quality public education just so they could deliver papers before dawn or do farm work with scythes and other dangerous equipment commonly used by the hicks who grow my food.

  45. Since we’re cutting up the country. Can we go ahead and split Washington state and take East Washington? It would fit nicely with Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Arizona.

    Also, all of NC is in the Southland. Asheville is one tiny town in a sea of red. No one in Buncombe County is a liberal, that’s why Asheville has their own city school system not a county school system. Research Triangle Park is purple at worst.

  46. Donald Fagen is among the best composers, arrangers, and songwriters of the last century. His repertoire kicks the Beatles’ ass up and down Abbey Road. Steely Dan is also the source of probably the greatest (and incredibly underappreciated) libertarian song ever, “Only a Fool Would Say That,” which begins:

    A world become one, of salad and sun?
    Only a fool would say that.

    You can only go so far with, say, the group Boston or Fleetwood Mac or some other ground-round three-chord pop pabulum. Steely Dan introduced a lot of young people to jazz and great jazz artists (everybody on the recordings), and should not be used as joke bait. Now go search for and listen to that song, people.

  47. Didn’t something like 3 billion leftists write this exact same thing after the 2004 election? This guy is just a lazy plagerist.

  48. Does Siegel realize that Florida would possibly go through another Inquisition if what he proposed actually happens? Why would the guy want to put his fellow Jews through something like that?

    1. And for that matter, what’s stopping the left coast and northeast from forming their own “People’s Republic of Statist Bootlickers” and leaving those HURR REDNECK XRISTIAN BIGOTS DERP in the dust?

  49. Does Georgia get to keep Kings Bay? We can extract tribute from all the world with that asset. Fuck Yankees.

  50. Alas, for the South! Her books have grown fewer,
    She never was much given to literature.

    Time to reread Mencken’s Sahara of the Bozart:

    http://writing2.richmond.edu/j…..encken.pdf

    1. A few years later he acknowledged that it was outdated.

      1. Wait-he acknowledges that in the headnote to the linked article, and credits himself for the literary revival which began in the South in the 1920s.

  51. As a lifelong resident of Mississippi, I would like to know where I can donate to Mr. Siegel’s cause.

  52. Instead of “E Pluribus Unum,” the motto for Mr. Siegel’s “America” could be: “Because the Stockholm Syndrome isn’t only for Swedes.”

  53. If it were the minority imposing policies you don’t like you guys would be screaming bloody murder about proportional representation. You guys are such scheming hypocrites and yet you lecture about morality.

    1. What the hell are you even talking about? And libertarians don’t change their positions on something based on what the majority opinion is. That makes them the opposite of hypocrites dumbass.

      1. So you’re defending an indefensible exploitation of Senate rules because you happen to really like it, for some reason?

  54. You know who else engaged in pro-active community justice to stop Rape Culture and Workplace Harassment?

  55. Obamaland will of course need much higher tax rates to pay for all the good things liberals love. That’s not a problem, because Obama’s wealthy friends in Wall Street, Chicago, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley wouldn’t dream of opening bank accounts, shell corporations, factories, and domiciles in low-tax Jesusland!

  56. If the Marxists and Progressives want to go off and create their very own country, I say let them do it. We’ll build a very high and strong wall between our two nations. Not to keep our people in, but to keep the people who chose to live in Northistan OUT. Cause as sure as the sun rises, they would soon be doing everything they could to leave their promised paradise.

  57. Come on Matt, you and I both know that Maryland the second time around would side with Northistan.

  58. Interesting-such concern for the number of art galleries but no concern for how many acres of farmland are represented. Kansas produces a lot of something called ” food “, which is actually still grown on land by farmers. How old school can you get? They even still drive tractors and everything. Rednecks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.