Fivehead Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 This morning at breakfast I formulated in my mind a brilliant new plan to get America back on the right track. We should immediately confiscate one of the 50 states with very little worth agriculturally or industrially. I'm thinking Pennsylvania. It's nothing but a dead rust bucket. Empty the state of all human beings. Print up some more of that fake money and fairly compensate all property owners for their land, homes and businesses. When it's empty.......... Announce that henceforth, ALL welfare recipients will continue to receive their checks ONLY if they move to Pennsylvania. Set up post office boxes in Pennsylvania to send the checks to. Fund the welfare programs with more of that fake money. If they steal or kill, they are each others' victims. If they destroy the free houses they live in, tough cookies. If they leave, they go to work or starve. The other 49 states can then resume the former role we enjoyed as an industrial center and world power without 65% of our money being sucked up to fund drug addicted baby factories. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I'm thinking California. The government should put imminent domain on all homes in Malibu, the Pacific Palisades, and Beverly Hills. It should start with the homes of Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Sean Penn, Ron Howard, Rosie O'Donnel, Robin Williams, Tim Robbins, etc. . Let their homes be seized first for the betterment of humanity. This clip illustrates why they should be the first : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivehead Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 I'm thinking California. The government should put imminent domain on all homes in Malibu, the Pacific Palisades, and Beverly Hills. It should start with the homes of Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Sean Penn, Ron Howard, Rosie O'Donnel, Robin Williams, Tim Robbins, etc. . Let their homes be seized first for the betterment of humanity. This clip illustrates why they should be the first : Too much agricultural and industrial value. Remember, the state we choose has to be an uninhabitable stinkhole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Too much agricultural and industrial value. Remember, the state we choose has to be an uninhabitable stinkhole. You described Mexico! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Too much agricultural and industrial value. Remember, the state we choose has to be an uninhabitable stinkhole. Your last sentence is why I thought California. With the people out there, they have turned California into an uninhabitable stinkhole. Pennsylvania has some good farmland once you get away form Philadelphia and Pittsburg. I think that since California is such a cesspool. They would welcome them with open arms just like they did the Okies during the Depression. It worked then, and it can work now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhino2K Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Remember, the state we choose has to be an uninhabitable stinkhole. Ohio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayde Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 north dakota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchblade Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Get rid of California. The property value goes out the window with the people that are already there. We can take an economic hit to get rid of the gays and the protesters I saw on the "Why California must go" thread. That or as imyahuckleberry would say, "Secede!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applebutter Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 New Jersey, or possibly Delaware. For uselessness of the current population, Vermont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaykay08 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Kansas! The most boring state I have ever been through! There is nothing there but idiots who cannot drive and flat land. Oh and the BTK killer....yeah...definately Kansas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchblade Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 did anyone read the "Another reason to get rid of California" thread. Click on the link and look at that stuff. Get rid of that god-forsaken place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat_20 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Kansas has too much agricultural value how about the North Pole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imyahuckleberry Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 That or as imyahuckleberry would say, "Secede!" Thanks, but that credit goes to Fivehead. I'm pretty sure he's the originator of that term here on SDC. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clutchon18 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 California is too pretty....... Let's send them to Oklahoma?? Better yet let's pick the state with the highest number of current welfare recipients and make it the winner.... Think about the murder rate the first six months - it would be crazy until the gangs got re-aligned.... Hey fivehead - I make a motion to go ahead and supply them with guns and ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchblade Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Thanks, but that credit goes to Fivehead. I'm pretty sure he's the originator of that term here on SDC. :thumbsup: O, sorry Fivehead. I just saw imyahuckleberry post it first but Im still new. Ive only been here for about a month and a half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLeihman32878 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I know that there is a lot of sarcasm in this thread, but there is also a lot of irony. What you suggest, having the government pay people to leave their homes to create a true Welfare state, would require a heavy handed government. Again, I don't know about you, but I think government is the problem no matter how good their intentions may be. If you want to end welfare and government hand outs, just do it. Cut all government entitlement programs, don't continue with with certain guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivehead Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 I know that there is a lot of sarcasm in this thread, but there is also a lot of irony. What you suggest, having the government pay people to leave their homes to create a true Welfare state, would require a heavy handed government. Again, I don't know about you, but I think government is the problem no matter how good their intentions may be. If you want to end welfare and government hand outs, just do it. Cut all government entitlement programs, don't continue with with certain guidelines. Here's the problem with JUST stopping welfare. The minute the checks stopped rolling in, the crackheads, baby factories and illegal alien gang members would go wild and this nation would be uninhabitable for the rest of us. Put 'em all together and let 'em kill each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Here's the problem with JUST stopping welfare. The minute the checks stopped rolling in, the crackheads, baby factories and illegal alien gang members would go wild and this nation would be uninhabitable for the rest of us. Put 'em all together and let 'em kill each other. I cant put a handle on it, dont remember where I read it, but one Lib in favor of the giveaways, said it was the price we pay for "those" people to live on the other side of the tracks. Of course this would be denied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USNDocOfMarines Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I vote to get rid of California as well. I hate that 'effin place! Texas, Secede! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatone Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Isn't saying a state needs to secede from the union treason? Just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivehead Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 Isn't saying a state needs to secede from the union treason? Just wondering. No, it's not. Failing to uphold the Constitution (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) and consorting with the enemy (Pelosi) ARE treasonous acts. Therefore, I am once again right and you are once again JRowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEVODIDIT Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 As always, Fivehead is correct. The treason has been committed in Washington. They have endangered the Republic and knowingly given aid to our enemies. They should be given a fair trial, found guilty, and shot. The whole bunch of them. Short of that our only avenue to save the ideals of the Founding Fathers is to secede and start over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivehead Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 As always, Fivehead is correct. The treason has been committed in Washington. They have endangered the Republic and knowingly given aid to our enemies. They should be given a fair trial, found guilty, and shot. The whole bunch of them. Short of that our only avenue to save the ideals of the Founding Fathers is to secede and start over. Amen, Bevo. America has been irreparably damaged and our only solution is to start over on a smaller scale. Secede! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatone Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 No, it's not. Failing to uphold the Constitution (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) and consorting with the enemy (Pelosi) ARE treasonous acts. Therefore, I am once again right and you are once again JRowe. But illegal wire-tapping was Upholding the Constitution, Holding people in prisons without lawyers, without hearing , without anything that was Upholding the Constitution? Please, You have been drinking the fear kool-aide. Bush has you all so afraid of the big bad wolf you go along with anything. You have gave up rights and did it in the name of fear. We attacked a country over oil, no matter what he said. There were no WMD's. And we let him, because of fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stSuperScot Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 But illegal wire-tapping was Upholding the Constitution, Holding people in prisons without lawyers, without hearing , without anything that was Upholding the Constitution? Please, You have been drinking the fear kool-aide. Bush has you all so afraid of the big bad wolf you go along with anything. You have gave up rights and did it in the name of fear. We attacked a country over oil, no matter what he said. There were no WMD's. And we let him, because of fear. Actually, if the msm was doing its job you would KNOW that there has never been presented one shred of evidence supporting the accusation of illegal wiretaping. FISA Court Issues Rare Opinion Upholding Some Types of Warrantless Wiretaps The little-known United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which is the appeals court for disputes brought under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"), issued an extremely rare, albeit redacted, public opinion today upholding the authority of the government to intercept telephone conversations and e-mail without a judicial warrant if the principal purpose is to collect foreign intelligence, even in conversations involving Americans. The ruling was in response to an action filed by an unnamed telecommunications company that had challenged the government's authority to do this. Enemy combatants are not entitled to the same due process as you are. Pray, tell us about your Con Law expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now