Wouldn't you prefer an amicable seperation?

[Wiggen]

Sweet Jesus! That is the best post I've ever read on DP! Well said.

How bad is it when campaign money raised, by candidate, in every state and national election is ALWAYS reported throughout and after each election? If people are really and truly tired of the system they'll vote the bastards out. I vote against the incumbant in every election.

It amazes me that people still talk about passes laws regarding term limits. LOL! You still hear it and read about it from time to time. It's no different than asking the mafia to police itself. The People have the power, but most people are too weak and frightened to use it. Don't vote for the ****ers after two terms. Simple as that. Use the system to change the system.

And one more thing, this insane bull**** of family running for office is worse than wrong. No more Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Obamas or any of that crap. America doesn't need political dynasties. Stop voting them. Stop encouraging them for christsake.

Obama is a family political dynasty? What, did his daughter announce her canidacy for President? She might have problems meeting the age restriction.

 

[Captain America]

I didn't say the blacks were liberals but the folks in midtown are. Fascinating comprehension skills you have. Perhaps if No Child Left Behind had been passed earlier, you would have had a real shot in life........

Your previous post alluded that blacks will all move to liberal (Midtown?) places where they can get a free ride. You killed to birds with one stone. You suggested blacks are lazy and shiftless and want a free ride and liberals are stupid enough to give them that free ride.

That's how I read it. Did I miss something?

When I read it, I kind of giggled and thought, "Racist much?"

 

[Risky Thicket]

No, actually blacks enjoyed equal rights in many areas long before they did in the South. Jackie Robinson played college football for UCLA before World War II. When was it again that blacks began attending southern universities?

Wiggen, you are a one trick pony. You say the same thing even on the sports threads! We got it. Your posts are not relevant, again. Your blatant trolling is tiresome.

 

[Wiggen]

Wiggen, you are a one trick pony. You say the same thing even on the sports threads! We got it. Your posts are not relevant, again. Your blatant trolling is tiresome.

Merely responding to the historically challenged. I'd suggest you put me on ignore if you find me tiresome.

 

[Gina]

With all due respect...I don't think it can work again. Actually, it would be impossible because of the natural resources that each state has. Texas alone would hold many other states financially hostage by controlling so many resources. And I promise you that education systems would all but disappear for so many people who lived in areas of any given state because they don't have the financial resources.

I can think of a lot of other things...like MILITARY. Each state would have to be responsible for its own military...and that's a costly proposition.

The cost of creating and maintaining highway infrastructural is crazy costly.

Most states wouldn't be solvent going it alone. That's not how the UNITED STATES works...like it or not.

During the time period talked about as "It worked before"...didn't have all of the issues we live with today.

I agree. The globalization of the world would be a great impediment. Military, education, trade agreements and not just international world that already exists, but the newly created "countries". Those onus on companies landing in one country or another, would be great as they have to arrange for transportation agreements with each new sovereign government. Also there would be the matter of ports belonging to the coastal states and control of pipelines crossing from one jurisdiction to another. Many companies incorporated in Delaware, though they are based in other states. That would be a conundrum and what about the NYSE, NASDAQ and such? So many entanglements would be hard or nearly impossible to unmake without some serious economic repercussions. Those states receiving more federal dollars than they pay, would be hurt if not crippled.

 

[Gina]

Yeah, but your college team has those crappy uniforms!:2razz:

Blame Nike and Phil Knight. He dresses the team like a girl would Barbies. :2razz: At least they are highly nationally ranked Barbies though.

 

[Wiggen]

Blame Nike and Phil Knight. He dresses the team like a girl would Barbies. :2razz: At least they are highly nationally ranked Barbies though.

Sadly for the rest of us in the Pac 12, they're also really good.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Yes, we all know that no Conservatives draw Social Security....:roll:

Who said anything about conservatives you hack? If you paid in, no reason not to draw.

But this is irrelevant, I spoke of being able to opt out, which if allowed many young Americans and conservatives would.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

We "looters" support you red states. You red staters use more welfare dollars than you contribute.

We'd LOVE for you to go away.

So you would support allowing people to opt out?

 

[Gina]

Sadly for the rest of us in the Pac 12, they're also really good.

The Ducks and microbrews (and fine local wineries). Gotta have something to live for in this horrible climate. :2razz:

 

[Gardener]

Blame Nike and Phil Knight. He dresses the team like a girl would Barbies. :2razz: At least they are highly nationally ranked Barbies though.

Speaking of the man who owns the university, have you seen the floor of the Matthew Night Arena? :doh It's like 70s taste in things has returned. Yuck!

I really miss Mac Court.

 

[Gina]

Speaking of the man who owns the university, have you seen the floor of the Matthew Night Arena? :doh It's like 70s taste in things has returned. Yuck!

I really miss Mac Court.

No, I haven't had a chance to get to a game in a long while. I just Googled to see it. Ew! There is no accounting for the taste, or lack of it, of the insanely rich. :2razz:

 

[JayDubya]

If we followed the 10th Amendment, this would not be neccessary.

Unfortunately, it is absolutely neccessary.

 

[Diving Mullah]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we could come up with some kind of amicable and reasonable division of the USA. Yes I know that would be difficult, but let's assume we can manage it.

One side for the liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, Greens, etc...

Another for the conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and so on.

If you find yourself on the wrong side of the line, vote with your feet.

Each with full autonomy, "internal sovereignty"... and just an Alliance between us to settle matters of foreign policy perhaps. Or not even that if you don't like it.

If it were actually do-able (and I'm not saying it is... in fact it seems unlikely to ever be accomplished peaceably, but set that aside for the moment)... if it could be done peaceably, would you?

I'm curious how many would or would not support it. I'm particularly curious how many of those more to the Left would or would not favor it.


Think about it. For those of you on the Left, you'd never again have to worry about those Red states and their electoral votes, or conservative congressmen or judges, or voters who are diametrially opposed to your agenda making their wishes felt in the political arena. No more opposition to higher taxes, gay marriage, social programs, environmental regulations, global warming solutions, gun control, anti-war policy, etc etc etc.... you can pass all that stuff to your heart's content, all you have to do is convince people who are already relatively like-minded to support it.

So... would you? Why or why not?

Interesting point...but given the fact that Blue States have the highest GDP in the union, centers of cultures, education and technologies and the world still flocks to their colleges and universities. Not to mention for every dollar of their tax payer money 20% goes to these ingrates Red States with their hands out and mouths open and living off the Blue States' good graces.
Sadly despite all of that, they still remain the most backward, poorly educated and illiterate with the highest poverty level, violence and rampant teenage pregnancy, racism and bigotry, they are nothing but a one legged man in an ass kicking contest and blue state are carrying them to the 21st century and beyond be it kicking and screaming.

It is easy to stand on a soapbox and preach about state's Independence but given for every disaster they all flock to federal government for hand outs and they can not function without federal money which essentially comes from blue States, I don't see a bright future for them if they decide to secede, we just going to have whole bunch of Bangladesh Sates between our two oceans.

Diving Mullah

 

[rocket88]

I didn't say the blacks were liberals but the folks in midtown are. Fascinating comprehension skills you have. Perhaps if No Child Left Behind had been passed earlier, you would have had a real shot in life........

No you said that ALL the blacks would move North where they could get welfare. Since ALL of the black people have no job...For the record, here's the quote from you:

The blacks will ALL move north where the Midtown liberals will gladly give up all their fortunes to feed them.

 

[rocket88]

Who said anything about conservatives you hack? If you paid in, no reason not to draw.

But this is irrelevant, I spoke of being able to opt out, which if allowed many young Americans and conservatives would.

Sure, but they do take government welfare checks from the Ponzi scheme that Liberals couldn't support on their own. Of course, they'd have all sorts of money to feed the entire African-American population...

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Sure, but they do take government welfare checks from the Ponzi scheme that Liberals couldn't support on their own. Of course, they'd have all sorts of money to feed the entire African-American population...

I don't see welfare as a Ponzi scheme, social security is for example, welfare is just wealth redistribution.

I also never said "Liberals couldn't support" said Ponzi schemes, I said looters.

 

[sangha]

The policies of Washington, in particular the way free trade is implemented, make it possible to ship jobs overseas.

Wrong again. Technology makes shipping jobs overseas possible.

If you think it's the law, then name the law

 

[sangha]

Yet if I'm not mistaken, the US gov't has voiced diplomatic support for at least some seperatist movements... including at least one member of the Russian Federation IIRC.

Hypocrisy on our part, perhaps?

Since those members of the Russian Federation are there due to coercion, there's no hypocrisy at all

 

[Ontologuy]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we could come up with some kind of amicable and reasonable division of the USA. Yes I know that would be difficult, but let's assume we can manage it.

One side for the liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, Greens, etc...

Another for the conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and so on.

If you find yourself on the wrong side of the line, vote with your feet.

Each with full autonomy, "internal sovereignty"... and just an Alliance between us to settle matters of foreign policy perhaps. Or not even that if you don't like it.

If it were actually do-able (and I'm not saying it is... in fact it seems unlikely to ever be accomplished peaceably, but set that aside for the moment)... if it could be done peaceably, would you?

I'm curious how many would or would not support it. I'm particularly curious how many of those more to the Left would or would not favor it.


Think about it. For those of you on the Left, you'd never again have to worry about those Red states and their electoral votes, or conservative congressmen or judges, or voters who are diametrially opposed to your agenda making their wishes felt in the political arena. No more opposition to higher taxes, gay marriage, social programs, environmental regulations, global warming solutions, gun control, anti-war policy, etc etc etc.... you can pass all that stuff to your heart's content, all you have to do is convince people who are already relatively like-minded to support it.

So... would you? Why or why not?

Sadly, the misperception, thanks to the media, is that the two groups here make up a majority of Americans.

They don't.

Together they comprise about 25% of all Americans.

Given an accurate presentation of the issues, most Americans take a centrist stance, and both of the two OP groups are near the wings.

Better would be to oust both groups from power and have the remained empowered.

Then we'll finally stop both the left and right -wing agendas that together are killing America, and instead restore prosperity to American citizens.

 

[Zyphlin]

Moderator's Warning:

Lets try and stop the baiting/trolling going on in this thread and stick to debating the topic

 

[Muhammed]

One side for the liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, Greens, etc...

One side?

LOL

The very extreme leftists such as socialists and communists tend to hate each other and commit mass murder, rape, etc.. Ever hear of WWII?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Well, there IS an answer that doesn't involve splitting the country in two and dictating which region has which ideology... as Harry pointed out, Federalism.

As in, let each State be internally sovereign; let most laws and domestic policy be decided and enforced on the State level with lots of input from the People who reside in the State; reduce the Fedgov to its Article III Section 8 duties and no more. Each person can choose their State and try to influence that State's laws, and vote with their feet if they don't like it bad enough.

It worked fairly well once; it could work again.

I dont buy that BS about voting with your feet. The reason being is that you are asserting that we should switch too dictation by the majority on the state level. I mean if we used that logic we could easily just be racist pigs because hey dont like our state leave it! Also it allows political groups to take over a state. Then comes the alliances and next a war to take over other states.

Yep your plan sucks.

 

[rocket88]

Yet if I'm not mistaken, the US gov't has voiced diplomatic support for at least some seperatist movements... including at least one member of the Russian Federation IIRC.

Hypocrisy on our part, perhaps?

It's not the same situation at all. The Russian Federation is made up of various nations with distinct cultures and languages. The Tatars are not the Bashkirs are not Chechens are not Mari-el. Or Russian.

These are different nations, the States of the US are not. While there are regional differences, you'd have a hard time convincing me that Alabamans are genetically or culturally distinct from Oregonians. Hawaiians would have a point, but they are a minority on their own islands now.

As Harry Guerrilla pointed out, the US backing other separatist movements is usually about geo-political games. Some seperatist movements we support, some we do not. Ever wonder what the difference is between Kosovo and Abkhazia? Easy, we don't like the Serbs but want to be friends with the Georgians.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I dont buy that BS about voting with your feet. The reason being is that you are asserting that we should switch too dictation by the majority on the state level. I mean if we used that logic we could easily just be racist pigs because hey dont like our state leave it! Also it allows political groups to take over a state. Then comes the alliances and next a war to take over other states.

Yep your plan sucks.

Is mob rule of the state really worse than mob rule of the nation when you can at least chose which mob you suffer under?