27
   

What States or Portions Thereof of The USA should be told to GET OUT!

 
 
fbaezer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 05:36 pm
Texas can have Juarez.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 05:58 pm
@fbaezer,
Hold on there,now, hod on there. We might want to keep Texas, or parts of it, just for the oil.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 06:08 pm
@ehBeth,
I stayed at a motel in Tucson (a red roof). I might have been the only occupying guest, me and Pacco, on our way to Abq.

I'm not anti desert, and I have huge qualms about programs to put desert lots into eastern gardens, lawns, and golf courses - stopped doing that early on, decades ago.

That is not going on in my neighborhood here. Mostly we have black plastic sheeting and stone coverage. (don't get me going)
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 06:10 pm
@Rockhead,
As I said earlier, I think native americans have the territory.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  5  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 06:23 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
No no.
Texas secedes.
You need the oil. You invade it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 01:20 am
For those of you who are factually challenged when it comes to agriculture and animal husbandry:

The US is the #1 producer of corn in the world. Canada is 7th but produces only 3.5% of what the US does.

Livestock and poultry consume between 40% and 50% of US produced corn. So a whole lot of livestock must be starving Joe "Mr. Greenjeans" Nation.

So, let’s see: The former USA states in the new USC account for 34% of current USA corn production. That leaves 66% in the Jesusland states.

The former USA states in the new USC account for 47% of the current population of the US and so the USC with its existing 35 billion citizens and a relatively meager corn production of their own will have less than 35% of the USA production of corn to support roughly 48% of the combined population of former Canada and former USA.

Jesusland, on the other hand with have a surplus and will be more than willing to export it to USC for the right price.

“Not so fast!” says Joe “Modern Farmer” Nation, “I was an Aggie and I know that a major component of livestock and poultry feed is soybeans.” True, and in terms of soybean production the Jesusland states out produce those that will be forming a union with Canada, 70% to 30%.

And our friends from Canada will likely chime in “uhhhhh…Canada grows soybeans eh.” Yes it does, but as it was with corn, the USA is #1 and Canada is #7, but Canadian soybean production is about 3.4% of what its neighbor to south produces.

“Well we’ll figure out what to feed all of our livestock and poultry later. Grass feed beef is better for you and the earth anyway. Besides, Canada is no slouch when it comes to livestock eh.”

OK, but with the enormous influx of Americans into the USC, I don’t think the new nation’s meat and poultry production will be up to the task of redeeming all those food stamps.

Beef: #11 Canada produces 9% of the amount produced by #1 USA

Poultry: #15 Canada produces 6% of the amount produced by #1 USA

Pork: #6 Canada produces 24% of the amount produced by #3 USA (Here’s a surprise. Who would have though Canada was closest to us with pigs?)

“Well, we know Jesusland has to produce more beef what with Texas and Oklahoma, and they must produce more pork since North Carolina and Arkansas are with them, but chicken…that’s where we’ll have them, what with us having Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware. Besides, it better for you and no one is going to be obese in the USC!”

Not so fast Joe “Perdue” Nation: When it comes to poultry, Jesusland states account for 90% of US production and the states going to the USC produce only 10%.

The discrepancy is even greater when it comes to beef and pork production.

So the USC will have far less livestock than Jesusland, and far less grain to feed the livestock they have. Spells high food prices for USC to me.

I would suggest that current Canadians think long and hard about accepting a union with American Blue States, even if you get to use “Canada” in the name of the new country. Your current agricultural livestock production may be just fine for you current population (even to the extent that you can export some) but when the hungry blues mouths join you; they won’t be bringing a corresponding amount of means to feed those mouths.






Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 01:36 am
Keep the freakin corn. Nobody can actually digest that shite. We'll keep growing wheat, canola, oats, barley and spuds. Our cows are grain fed, no corn.
And who wants that shite corn anyway, it aint' edible.. it's a subsidy program from one corner of the US to the next, and it ain't for eatin', just for the 10% ethanol you put in the gas tank. Drive across the US and that's all you'll see, corn, corn, corn. No diversity at all.
What the hell are you on about anyway??? Jesusland? huh???
Why are you shitting on Canada again? slow day in Tejas?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 01:48 am
@Ceili,
Keep up with the thread Ceili.

I know it's a bother to read prior posts but it would be good form to do so before you go off all bitch-like on the one directly preceding yours.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 05:22 am
Were this US of C to be created, it would include far more efficient agricultural production areas than the remaining red state desert. What a maroon . . .
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 06:35 am
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
Drive across the US and that's all you'll see, corn, corn, corn.

You've obviously never driven across the US.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 07:51 am
@Ticomaya,
Not much corn in Arizona?
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 08:05 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I would suggest that current Canadians think long and hard about accepting a union with American Blue States,


you don't seriously think anyone posting here is seriously interested in this, do you?
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 09:54 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Were this US of C to be created, it would include far more efficient agricultural production areas than the remaining red state desert. What a maroon . . .

That's the dirty little secret of Jesusland: For all its talk about self-reliance, fiscal conservatism and whatnot, it feeds on money transfers from what's about to become the Southern USC. I, for one, can't wait to get rid of those Bible-thumping welfare queens.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 09:56 am
@Thomas,
Their only foreign exchange will come from selling petroleum products. Then they'll really find out just how much the one percent value them.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 11:12 am
@Ticomaya,
Yes, I have. Several times. Just not this drought year... I couldn't believe the mono crop, very little diversity.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 12:09 pm
@Ceili,
Kansas' largest crop is wheat -- it's the #1 wheat-producing state in the US. So, I take it you didn't drive across Kansas?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 12:16 pm
@Ticomaya,
The sixth largest in Kansas is marijuana.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 12:40 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Not much corn in Arizona?

Not in my part. Saguaros, yes ... corn, not so much.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 01:00 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
For all its talk about self-reliance, fiscal conservatism and whatnot, it feeds on money transfers from what's about to become the Southern USC. I, for one, can't wait to get rid of those Bible-thumping welfare queens.

While my point is correct, I posted the wrong link to support it. Courtesy of The Economist, here is a map of America, colored according to the difference between federal taxes paid in and federal benefits received. As you see, the correlation with blue vs red states is imperfect; there is a positive correlation, though.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110806_WOM959_0.gif
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2012 11:27 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
My, what big antlers you have, too bad they are not ears.

What I said was :
Quote:
1) Just in passing~ Livestock don't eat corn unless they are starving for ANYTHING to eat.


When you take beef cattle off of grass pasture and put them in feedlot pens, they will starve themselves for up to a week before eating the mixture of corn, soy and antibiotics poured in the troughs on the pen's boundaries. They get fatter on that feed, but they get sick to their stomachs almost right away. The cattle burp and fart more methane into the air then the gas and oil fields do.

We should do a simple test, Finn, you pick ten cattle, steers or heifers, doesn't matter. I'll find us ten acres of pasture. You put all the cattle feed you want to out in the pasture in buckets or troughs or in ribbon-bedecked baskets.

Throw in a dozen chickens and a place for them to roost at night.

I'll be you anything that neither the chickens nor the cattle will touch the stuff in those troughs as long as there is grass to eat (or grass and bugs for the chickens).
All winnings go to charity.

I didn't say livestock wouldn't eat corn, I said they wouldn't eat it unless they were starving.

Joe(at the end of a year you and I will split a big grass-fed beefsteak and some really good BBQ chicken.) Nation


 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 11:38:45