U.S. out of S.F.!
November 4, 2004 12:25 AM   Subscribe

U.S. out of San Francisco! - That's right, America, we here in San Francisco are officially sick of your shit, and we're not going to take it anymore.
posted by jackspace (46 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: funny premise, but shitty comments



 
Civil war... excellent! I was getting tired of watching Americans killing arabs on the news, does this mean we're going to get to watch Americans killing Americans (ohh sorry, I forgot that you guys just call that friendly fire)?
posted by DrDoberman at 1:22 AM on November 4, 2004


Post-election-MetaFilter... just as shitty as the Pre.
posted by Witty at 1:35 AM on November 4, 2004


"friendly fire"? That's so 'gulf war'. The phrase is "blue on blue" now, isn't it?

Lets take even more of the impact (sorry) out of killing one's own people.
posted by twine42 at 1:51 AM on November 4, 2004


Oh, what the fuck ever.
posted by sklero at 1:52 AM on November 4, 2004


Oh, what the fuck ever

Hey, don't get pissy with us just because you have another four years of war-monkey in charge :)
posted by DrDoberman at 2:04 AM on November 4, 2004


?

Ok this posts sucks almost as bad as my posts. Thats pretty damn bad.

DrDoberman: I feel what your saying but this really isn't tangible.
posted by Keyser Soze at 2:05 AM on November 4, 2004


Whinyliberalfilter.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:35 AM on November 4, 2004


You could always apologise to the UK for that whole tea thing, and ask to rejoin the commonwealth. We'll look after you, plus, as a special bonus you'll be a proxy member of the EU.
posted by seanyboy at 2:55 AM on November 4, 2004


seanyboy: no way, man. that Stamp Act 1765 was some bullshit.
posted by sklero at 3:25 AM on November 4, 2004


States rights! States Rights!

The Grover Cleaveland idea - 'shrink and stick underwater' is nice rhetoric, but won't happen so long as the Federal Government has the 'business' of shifting money from one place to the other in an attempt to adjust the invisble hand's influence.

A move to states right WOULD starve the feds of $$$$. And I can take a train/bus/drive and if I had to bike or walk to the capitol and 'jawbone' my state reps. I can get a 'real' response from my local/state rep. I get canned crap response from the fed level.

So, yea, STATES RIGHTS!
posted by rough ashlar at 3:47 AM on November 4, 2004


I laughed my ass off at the new map with jesusland. I am starting my own country here in chicago. Overthrow the idiot.
posted by lee at 3:48 AM on November 4, 2004


does this mean we're going to get to watch Americans killing Americans

I sure hope so. I've never touched a gun in my life, but I'll learn if it means I can send some Bush voters to meet their man Jesus.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:08 AM on November 4, 2004


The map so rocked!
posted by LouReedsSon at 4:36 AM on November 4, 2004


WRT the map: Sorry, we're not letting you join us. Slightly less irrational Americans are still Americans. We're not risking it.

That's not to say I don't think you need to do something about those red-coloured federally-subsideized welfare states, but leave us out of it.

Thanks,

Canada.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:48 AM on November 4, 2004


Bring back Emperor Norton I!
posted by RavinDave at 4:49 AM on November 4, 2004


editors note: we did mislabeled the submit button on the form

And they don't know the difference between "succeed" and "secede".

Education before secession, people.
posted by orange swan at 5:00 AM on November 4, 2004


Sorry, we're not letting you join us. Slightly less irrational Americans are still Americans. We're not risking it.

Someone with a rodent and a monarch on his currency just called me "irrational." Should I be offended?
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:07 AM on November 4, 2004


WRT the map: Sorry, we're not letting you join us. Slightly less irrational Americans are still Americans. We're not risking it.


Ha, as if you have a voice in the matter...!
posted by sic at 5:10 AM on November 4, 2004


Having California leave the U.S. and form it's own country just makes good sense. It's an idea whose time has come.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:23 AM on November 4, 2004


i am very tired.
posted by glenwood at 5:27 AM on November 4, 2004


Ha, as if you have a voice in the matter...!

I've noticed this on the site lately - we Canadians are given to speaking as though we were the official moutpieces of our government. (i.e., "You're welcome up here!" "Stay put, we don't want you!".)

The idea of a seceeded state joining us is an entirely new one, and kind of rocks me back on my heels. All my life I've heard rhetoric about our becoming the 51st state - never about one of your states becoming one of our provinces.

It's NOT at all likely to happen, I know. But it's a thought provoking concept. The idea of the U.S. beginning to splinter, of the balance of power shifting, of borders changing... The fact that it seems so shocking tells me just how much I take for granted.

All previous empires have declined and fallen. The U.S. will too, someday.
posted by orange swan at 5:28 AM on November 4, 2004


It'd be nice if the blue states could link up with Canada and leave the red states to form their own little cracker theocracy. Alas, though, the US has already had one bloody war when some states thought they could go their own way. The US gov. won't let that happen again. No way.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:54 AM on November 4, 2004


Come join us in Coastopia.
posted by danOstuporStar at 5:59 AM on November 4, 2004


We can't leave the nuclear bombs in their hands.
posted by goneill at 6:07 AM on November 4, 2004


Cool. Change some minds in LA and there'd be a good chance that would give CA to the repulblicans next election. Well, probably not if you look at the rest of the numbers (which I didn't), but as far as a color coded mape goes there would be more red. :)
posted by tomplus2 at 6:07 AM on November 4, 2004


no way, man. that Stamp Act 1765 was some bullshit

Ah c'mon, let bygones be bygones. You'll get to enter in the Commonwealth Games, and you might even get a Govener-General - you don't vote for him, but he can sack the nation's leader. Pretty sweet...
posted by backOfYourMind at 6:14 AM on November 4, 2004


How many states will the Bushies attempt to steal through massive redistricting now? Or will they have to wait until their judges are in place to okay it?
posted by RavinDave at 6:19 AM on November 4, 2004


I've been thinking long and hard -- in as serious a manner as is possible -- about secession for many months now. It's absurd -- the US government will pound the states into the ground in order to maintain the union -- but intriguing nonetheless. This is a fair collection of the legal arguments for and against secession (although I question its logic here and there). Personally, I think the only thing required for successful (that is, uncontested) secession ought to be repealing the US Constitution as state law, but the Feds don't see it that way. Shame.
posted by uncleozzy at 6:22 AM on November 4, 2004


Well, considering they don't need to "steal" any more states, none.
posted by tommasz at 6:24 AM on November 4, 2004


little cracker theocracy
EB, is that how you see it? By color - you may want to take off any dark shades you're wearing. I'd call it more of a nepotism theocracy.
posted by thomcatspike at 6:28 AM on November 4, 2004


Is the site, U.S. or us out of S.F?
posted by thomcatspike at 6:29 AM on November 4, 2004


They won't even have to change the flag, which already says "California Republic."
posted by alumshubby at 6:33 AM on November 4, 2004


An alternate perspective.
posted by jonmc at 6:35 AM on November 4, 2004


Dear San Francisco - we'd be happy to leave you alone. Frankly, we're kind of sick of your shit too. You're living on a massive damn fault line, and have required billions in federal dollars to rebuild your damn city more than once, and inevitably will again (oddly, we heard no complaints or requests for the US to "leave" when you were applying for aid ... except possibly complaints that the checks weren't big enough, and didn't come fast enough). Go for it!
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:02 AM on November 4, 2004


Of course, if the Republicans let California go, when would they next have to worry about losing the whitehouse?
posted by biffa at 7:09 AM on November 4, 2004


It's a valid point. Why are people in the northeast and northwest continuing to subsidize Jesusland?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:47 AM on November 4, 2004


Jesusland can fend for itself. Of course, we'll want the nukes and long-range bombers in Alaska and Nebraska.
posted by ericrolph at 7:50 AM on November 4, 2004


Why are people in the northeast and northwest continuing to subsidize Jesusland?

Because we haven't got much choice. There's not a hell of a lot you can do at the federal level when legislators ignore what's best for their constituents in favor of what's best for the party. And there's not a hell of a lot you can do at the state level, either, when the federal government is as large as it is.
posted by uncleozzy at 7:56 AM on November 4, 2004


Yeah MidasMulligan, the majority of leech states are in the red column not the blue. If California didn't have to subsidize Bubba's farms in the "heartland" it would have no problem picking up the tab for rebuilding SF every couple of decades.

on preview: oh hell, everybody beat me to the punch
posted by sic at 8:01 AM on November 4, 2004


Isn't there something in the Constitution about the people overthrowing the government if it no longer acts in the interests of the people?

/just sayin', is all
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:06 AM on November 4, 2004


You know, if we all didn't buy into this false urban vs rural, red vs blue dichotomy, we'd rob the right wing of one of it's more potent cultural weapons and maybe actually make some gains. I'm just saying.
posted by jonmc at 8:08 AM on November 4, 2004


But the urban vs. rural opposition is largely true. If you look at a county map of either the 2000 of 2004 election, you'll see that it's much more true than the blue states versus red states.

If you look at the NM results this year, you'll see something that surprised me: Bush won NM, but he did it without winning Bernallilo county, which is Albuquerque, which is almost half the state's population and has a very large contingent of southwestern middle-class white people voters, who are Republican. Of course he didn't win Santa Fe county, that was never possible. But the ABQ suburban county, Sandoval, was closer than the statewide results (Bush barely). The extra votes that Bush got that won him NM this time when he didn't win NM last time are, as far as I can, rural votes. And that's Rove's strategy: bring out those four million christian conservative votes that he thought he could reach.

No one, including me, thought that strategy would work. We were all wrong. We thought that it'd likely result in energizing as many new Dem votes as Repub votes (which didn't turn out to be the case), and we thought that if it did, they'd be concentrated mostly in solidly "red" states where it wouldn't make any difference (which was partly true, but not enough true).

Anyway, the "values voters" that Rove's strategy appealed to, the voters who were freaked out about gay marriage and some other issues and who wouldn't have voted otherwise...they came disproportionately from rural areas, not cities.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:20 AM on November 4, 2004


"Having California leave the U.S. and form it's own country just makes good sense. It's an idea whose time has come."

As long as they take Florida with them, I'm all for it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:23 AM on November 4, 2004


Much as I agree, jonmc, I don't think we're likely to see the (attempts at) black-and-white divisiveness go away anytime soon. If nothing else, the study of decision psychology has taught us that people simply don't like to have lots of choices. We don't like to see shades of grey. We don't like nuance. And we do like heuristics. If "city vs. country" is the heuristic presented, most people will choose to see it that way. It's simply easier, and carries less cognitive load. Like it or not, people will almost always choose the easy way out.

(On preview: Although EB is right, insofar as progressive-vs-puritan does likely break down along city-vs-country lines, I think that the larger problem is the presentation of issues as this-or-that instead of this-that-and-others.)
posted by uncleozzy at 8:25 AM on November 4, 2004


Well, EB, then I think that over the next four years, we on the left have to reach out the folks in the hinterlands, most importantly by making the folks there see that liberal policies will actually benefit them rather than hurt them. Despite all his posturing, I don't think GW Bush actually gives a ripe fuck about an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia or a struggling farmer in Arkansas. I do.

We've already got the "metro" base secure, we just need to convert some of the "retro" side and show them we're not their enemy. Or we can continue living in Karl Rove's bad rewrite of Green Acres.
posted by jonmc at 8:37 AM on November 4, 2004


Frankly, we're kind of sick of your shit too. You're living on a massive damn fault line, and have required billions in federal dollars to rebuild your damn city more than once, and inevitably will again (oddly, we heard no complaints or requests for the US to "leave" when you were applying for aid ...

Oh, like we don't spend billions rebuilding Florida every year, not to mention the money we fork out for the yearly tornado rampage in the Midwest. Oh yeah, I forgot - those states are part of the "real America" and therefore it's okay to take the tax money of the Godless heathens on the coasts to perpetually rebuild what is destroyed every year in glorious Jesusland.

I would so love to see what the red states would do without the federal funds that come from the revenue generated by the blue states. I have to admit, you conservatives have made us see the light - states rights and smaller federal government!!
posted by echolalia67 at 8:43 AM on November 4, 2004


« Older Post election demonstrations   |   He's an asshole! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments