NationStates Jolt Archive

The recent election has shown that the United States has become a very divided country, this division seems to be widening and displays spatial auto-correlation.

Already people in California are talking about leaving the country, and there are small fringe groups on both the right and the left that are campaigning for devolution and even independence in various states, Maine, South Carolina, California, etc.

Anyone who has studied history will tell you that no state society, no matter how powerful and stable it may be, lasts forever. I could invision an America divided into 4 nations, the 2 coasts, the South, and the Rest in as little as 250 years.

What do other people think?

I think it will happen in the next 200 years as pretty much a mutal hate between the liberals and consevatives. But I think it will split in 3 regions the red states, the New England area, and then the West coast. My 1000th post.

Anyone here ever heard of Shadowrun? US has got a few decades of unity, then there's gonna be breakaway states.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

The geographical dispersion of the various political ideologies currently are not structured in such a way as to make secession possible. If you look at the link posted below you will see that even within "blue states" most of the geographic area is still heavily conservative. I guess the big cities might decide they want to leave the union, but it would be a bit hard. Furthermore, secession is apparently unconstitutional, see the US Civil War.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7902


Finally, I can't believe that the left is being such whiners. The conservatives have been out of power for the last 60 years and even when we've been in power the left has used the Senate to block many items on the agenda. Now at the first sign of having to compromise all the liberals want to take their toys and go home? Real mature guys...

maybe so but the senate is also falling to the republicans as well and if there is a division it will splinter the country sparking another civil war

I thin people just like to be right all the time, and the election was a good opertunity to be right once again.Choosing between Bush and Kerry is essentally like coke and pepsi. Whatever president there is half the nations gona hate him just for the sake of it. To my point of view, an official opposition is a good thing, the put the ying in the yang together. Democrats need someone to call nutjobs, and republicans need someone to call sissies. Democrats need the republicans to kill recesions, republicans need recesions so their cut tax policy gets them elected. Its the circle of life people!

PS sorry for poor spelling

The recent election has shown that the United States has become a very divided country, this division seems to be widening and displays spatial auto-correlation.

Already people in California are talking about leaving the country, and there are small fringe groups on both the right and the left that are campaigning for devolution and even independence in various states, Maine, South Carolina, California, etc.

Anyone who has studied history will tell you that no state society, no matter how powerful and stable it may be, lasts forever. I could invision an America divided into 4 nations, the 2 coasts, the South, and the Rest in as little as 250 years.

What do other people think?
It's far more likely that the US will become part of a much larger regional coalition which will gradually morph into some sort of "super-national" entity.

Personally, I keep hoping that some genius will discover a way to apply the rigors of science to sociology, and we all discover someday how to live together. Then again, I'm just a dreamer. :(

maybe so but the senate is also falling to the republicans as well and if there is a division it will splinter the country sparking another civil war

70% of the military is Republican. Almost all cities have gun bans in place so most guns are concentrated in the rural Republican states. The cities have no ability to feed themselves, all the nation's food comes from the Republican states. Even if the cities were inclined to try to fight, which I find utterly laughable, they wouldn't have the means to.

The political atmosphere in this country has become more heated each election. Now it has reached the point that people are threatening to leave the US. This is kind of like the kid that doesn't get his way, throws a tizzy, then stomps off with the football. Only trouble is, it isn't his football. The people who want to leave for Canada need to wake up to a few facts.

1. Canada has an unemployment rate twice the US's
2. Government run medical care isn't readily available and the whole system is crumbling.
3. Inflation is much higher in Canada. Have you checked out the price of a gallon of gas?
4. Canada isn't exactly welcoming them.
5. By leaving the country they would be further weakening their political base assuring this country would have basically a one party government.

Here is the alternative..

1. Step back and take a look at the reasons the majority voted Republican. It isn't a takeover by Christians as claimed. There were many reasons. First of all, Bush wasn't doing as bad as claimed. He was given lemons and managed to make a rather sour lemonaide. Kerry was just a bad choice. He's a liberal from New England (visions of Ted Kennedy), he had a lot of baggage from Vietnam, he didn't exhibit any consistency in major issues, he pandered to whichever group was making the most noise at the time, his wife was a major handicap, he chose a pretty boy trial attorney as a running mate instead of a seasoned politician, and he never laid out a firm detailed agenda. In hindsight it seems that when Democrats got Dean off the internet and into public, he was a madman that no one could support. They immediately jumped on the Kerry bandwagon without looking to see what they were buying.

2. Realize that there are many trains of thought and that it is almost impossible to get a majority of the people to follow the most extreme from the left or the right. Dems do well when they are led by their moderate members.

3. Prepare a game plan that highlights your candidate's assets. When you spend your time and energy pointing out your opponents shortcomings people wonder what you are hiding. You've heard of smoke and mirrors?

3. Set your priorities and work constructively to achieve them. Bring the football back and learn how to play the game as a team.

[Quote from Imardeavia: Anyone here ever heard of Shadowrun? US has got a few decades of unity, then there's gonna be breakaway states.]

Yeah, but that had a lot to do with Goblinization, Native Americans, and the return of magic. Although, I could really enjoy a Shadowrun America in the year 2060. I might still be alive.

It's far more likely that the US will become part of a much larger regional coalition which will gradually morph into some sort of "super-national" entity.




I fail to see why you assume that the US would want to incorporate any of the socialist Canadian system or the corrupt inefficient Mexican system into our system. Perhaps the Canadians or the Mexicans will want to become US territories someday, but excepting that I can't imagine the US ever engaging in some kind of extra-national entity.

70% of the military is Republican. Almost all cities have gun bans in place so most guns are concentrated in the rural Republican states. The cities have no ability to feed themselves, all the nation's food comes from the Republican states. Even if the cities were inclined to try to fight, which I find utterly laughable, they wouldn't have the means to.
that is quite widely known and yeah i wasn't thinking of that at the time, the food supply is a major issue

I fail to see why you assume that the US would want to incorporate any of the socialist Canadian system or the corrupt inefficient Mexican system into our system. Perhaps the Canadians or the Mexicans will want to become US territories someday, but excepting that I can't imagine the US ever engaging in some kind of extra-national entity.
There are already serious proposals for a free trade zone which will encompass the entire of the Western himisphere. Economic union is almost always the first step toward unions which become ever more political.

I fail to see why you assume that the US would want to incorporate any of the socialist Canadian system or the corrupt inefficient Mexican system into our system. Perhaps the Canadians or the Mexicans will want to become US territories someday, but excepting that I can't imagine the US ever engaging in some kind of extra-national entity.
Just because Canada Has a good health care system and Education system... And the Air quality is better.. There is more greenspace... F*ck it, Canada Rocks. Screw you. "Socialist" my ass...

Just because Canada Has a good health care system and Education system... And the Air quality is better.. There is more greenspace... F*ck it, Canada Rocks. Screw you. "Socialist" my ass...
ROFLMAO!!! Now, now! Tsk! ;)

I do see a politcal divide, but if you take a look at the country by county, you'll see that acre by acre its really not that divided. Its the cities that would be breaking away from those who support the cities.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

ROFLMAO!!! Now, now! Tsk! ;)
Is that suggestive winking o_O

There are already serious proposals for a free trade zone which will encompass the entire of the Western himisphere. Economic union is almost always the first step toward unions which become ever more political.

If the politics of other nations want to conform to American politics then possibly. The US will not easily or quickly abandon its Constitutional system, nor dilude its sovergn power by allowing other states a say it its internal and external political policies.

Finally, I can't believe that the left is being such whiners. The conservatives have been out of power for the last 60 years and even when we've been in power the left has used the Senate to block many items on the agenda. Now at the first sign of having to compromise all the liberals want to take their toys and go home? Real mature guys...
The Democrats have never been as far to the left as the Republicans are far to the right now. "Compromise" is not even in the Republican vocabulary, and with the US becoming a one-party state it's not going to enter it anytime soon.

Do you really think that Bush compromises? Surely if he did he wouldn't be making liberals feel like they're no longer welcome in their own country. When people are leaving their country just because of who is in power, there is something seriously wrong that must be addressed.

100-200 years I say.

3. Prepare a game plan that highlights your candidate's assets. When you spend your time and energy pointing out your opponents shortcomings people wonder what you are hiding. You've heard of smoke and mirrors?
Actually, around 30%-40% of the Kerry campaign's ads were attack ads against Bush. Around 60%-70% of the Bush campaign's ads were attack ads against Kerry. Looks like attack politics works.

The political atmosphere in this country has become more heated each election. Now it has reached the point that people are threatening to leave the US. This is kind of like the kid that doesn't get his way, throws a tizzy, then stomps off with the football. Only trouble is, it isn't his football. The people who want to leave for Canada need to wake up to a few facts.

1. Canada has an unemployment rate twice the US's
FALSE

2. Government run medical care isn't readily available and the whole system is crumbling.
FALSE

3. Inflation is much higher in Canada. Have you checked out the price of a gallon of gas?
FALSE

4. Canada isn't exactly welcoming them.
We aren't saying they are not welcome either. :eek:

Then again, I'm just a dreamer. :(But you're not the only one.

The country fragment?

Probably not.

We may fight and we may think the other are crazy but we still stick together.

The current tiff is nother more then that.

Look at Iraq. Many for it and many against. In the past, there were the same situations and people fought about it and killed each other(for example, protesting the war of 1812).

The Liberals will be bitching about this goverment and the conservatives for the next four years. Then the Conservatives and Republicans will be bitching about the liberals and the goverment the following for years. Then.....

Ah well. What do I know?

Won't be long and, it's liable to take the rest of the world down with it.

Checked out Reuters yet?

Link (http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=616225)

Fri November 05, 2004 01:30 PM ET

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning their homeland after President George W. Bush's election win this week.

"When we looked at the first day after the election, November 3, our Web site hit a new high, almost double the previous record high," immigration ministry spokeswoman Maria Iadinardi said on Friday.

On an average day some 20,000 people in the United States log onto the Web site, www.cic.gc.ca -- a figure which rocketed to 115,016 on Wednesday. The number of U.S. visits settled down to 65,803 on Thursday, still well above the norm.

Bush's victory sparked speculation that disconsolate Democrats and others might decide to start a new life in Canada, a land that tilts more to the left than the United States.

Would-be immigrants to Canada can apply to become permanent resident, a process that often takes a year. The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which requires a work permit.

But please spare the sob stories.

Asked whether an applicant would be looked upon more sympathetically if they claimed to be a sad Democrat seeking to escape four more years of Bush, Iadinardi replied: "There would be no weight given to statements of feelings."

Canada is one of the few major nations with an large-scale immigration policy. Ottawa is seeking to attract between 220,000 and 240,000 newcomers next year.

"Let's face it, we have a population of a little over 32 million and we definitely need permanent residents to come to Canada," said Iadinardi. "If we could meet (the 2005) target and go above it, the more the merrier."

But right now it is too early to say whether the increased interest will result in more applications.

"There is no unusual activity occurring at our visa missions (in the United States). Having someone who intends to come to Canada is not the same as someone actually putting in an application," said Iadinardi.

"We'll only find out whether there has been an increase in applications in six months."

The waiting time to become a citizen is shorter for people married to Canadians, which prompted the birth of a satirical Web site called www.marryanamerican.ca.

The idea of increased immigration by unhappy Americans is triggering some amusement in Canada. Commentator Thane Burnett of the Ottawa Sun newspaper wrote a tongue-in-cheek guide to would-be new citizens on Friday.

"As Canadians, you'll have to learn to embrace and use all the products and culture of Americans, while bad-mouthing their way of life," he said.

Won't be long and, it's liable to take the rest of the world down with it.
I disagree. Other empires fell before the US and didnt take down earth with it. If the US did, it would be extremely selfish and irresponsible to their own people, who will not disappear all of a sudden. Rather, the country would reform as something else. A new order.

The Democrats have never been as far to the left as the Republicans are far to the right now. "Compromise" is not even in the Republican vocabulary, and with the US becoming a one-party state it's not going to enter it anytime soon.

Do you really think that Bush compromises? Surely if he did he wouldn't be making liberals feel like they're no longer welcome in their own country. When people are leaving their country just because of who is in power, there is something seriously wrong that must be addressed.

100-200 years I say.


Actually, around 30%-40% of the Kerry campaign's ads were attack ads against Bush. Around 60%-70% of the Bush campaign's ads were attack ads against Kerry. Looks like attack politics works.

The dems have had majority control for about 60 years. Do you think there was any compromise? If there had been we wouldn't still be debating abortion, massive government entitlements, cuts in defense and intelligence spending, government meddling in religion, and recognized marriage issues. It looks like they pushed liberal agendas once too often and people let it be known they had had enough. There has always been a fairly equal split between the 2 main parties. The dems have left a large portion of the population behind with more and more liberal ideals.

I was including all of the ads put out by the left. When you include ads by moveon.org, democracynow, and the other 527's and compare their frequency and vitriol to the conservative groups', there is no contest. CBS and NY Times attacks on the president that were proven to be bunk also raised red flags in a lot of peoples' minds.

The Democrats have never been as far to the left as the Republicans are far to the right now.

I'm not sure where you draw the arbitrary line, but I disagree. The Republicans are currently much further to the left than their ideological ancestors were (compare Goldwater to Bush). The Democrats on the other hand are further to the left than their ideological ancestors ever dreamed of being (compare Kennedy to Kerry).

"Compromise" is not even in the Republican vocabulary, and with the US becoming a one-party state it's not going to enter it anytime soon.

The Republicans have done nothing but compromise. They now embrace social progams like prescription drug plans. Bush let Ted Kennedy write the education bill. Bush signed the campaign finance reform bill which was supported mainly by Democrats and centrist Republicans like McCain. Do the examples need to go on? You've let yourself be hood-winked by the leftist media and their daily accusations of Republican partisanship.

Do you really think that Bush compromises? Surely if he did he wouldn't be making liberals feel like they're no longer welcome in their own country. When people are leaving their country just because of who is in power, there is something seriously wrong that must be addressed.

There is something seriously wrong, but it isn't with the Republicans, its with the Democrats. They've been in control of the country for so long that they can't mentally handle the fact that their ideology has been rejected. Furthermore, the number of people supposedly leaving the country is tiny. In case you hadn't noticed millions of people try to get into the US every year, not out. Some of them even risk death to do so.

I fail to see why you assume that the US would want to incorporate any of the socialist Canadian system or the corrupt inefficient Mexican system into our system. Perhaps the Canadians or the Mexicans will want to become US territories someday, but excepting that I can't imagine the US ever engaging in some kind of extra-national entity.

hehe, everyone seems to want to quote you :)

Anyway, I really really really want to respond with a flame as to why you could be so pig headed and offensive, but I hold my tongue because that is no way to win an argument, although I suppose that by even acknowledging the existance of your own offensive outburst I am only inflating your own ego and giving you incentive to continue to post in such a childishly insular and threatening manner.

Damn it, you really are an a-hole for presenting me with such a conundrum and for that I despise you. However, you are a fellow human being so I will try to give you a measure of doubt and not write you off as a total loss. Please would you explain to me why your ( republican american) views should be mine, in a responsible and sensible manner and I will be able to recant my oppinions.

And I am serious, I really want to hear what the republicans have to offer me in the form of a sensible, justifiable and above all balanced policy which really does benefit us all as a planet and not just the top 20%

And if you're going to flame me don't bother - I seriously want to be persuaded.

*looks at watch*


About another 6 1/2 hours, give or take. :D

70% of the military is Republican. Almost all cities have gun bans in place so most guns are concentrated in the rural Republican states. The cities have no ability to feed themselves, all the nation's food comes from the Republican states. Even if the cities were inclined to try to fight, which I find utterly laughable, they wouldn't have the means to.

I wasn't thinking of an actual war, I was thinking of peaceful devolution by popular vote. Besides it doesn't matter how many guns or men you have, this isnt 1864, you just need the money to buy missiles, planes, etc. A lot of the arms manufacturing and aviation industries are in California, one of the most liberal states.

Secondly, 70% of the food we eat is imported from foriegn nations anyway, very little of the food you can buy at the supermarket comes from "Republican States", unless you eat a lot of bread. I think liberals avoid carbs, and when they do dabble, they're much more inclined to go for rice, which is readily available in abundance from China.

The only real problem I can invision is that a lot of California's water supply is piped in from Colorado. But they could obviously sort out a contract to keep the pipes in operation.

And I am serious, I really want to hear what the republicans have to offer me in the form of a sensible, justifiable and above all balanced policy which really does benefit us all as a planet and not just the top 20%

And if you're going to flame me don't bother - I seriously want to be persuaded.


Its not a matter of you wanting a more American system, its about Americans wanting a more Canadian or Mexican system. We simply do not. That says nothing about your own political tastes, or your own political likes and dislikes. It simply says that in order for the US to engage in an extra-national system we would have to give up parts of our own system and I don't see us doing that anytime soon. I sooner see other nations wanting to join us than us wanting to join them, if you catch my meaning.

Now then, to address your typical jab regarding the US only favoring the rich. The US is a system founded on equal justice for all, not the modern concept of fairness. It is just that the rich are just as entitled to their vast wealth as I am entitled to my tiny wealth. This is a government based on equality under the law, not equality of outcomes, or equality of opportunity, or any other type of equality. You seem to be adverse to equality under the law, instead favoring equality of outcome judging by your statements. I have no problem with that, but I don't want it forced on me and most Americans still feel the same way so don't expect us to be changing our system to join up in the US of Canada anytime soon.

1. Step back and take a look at the reasons the majority voted Republican. It isn't a takeover by Christians as claimed. There were many reasons. First of all, Bush wasn't doing as bad as claimed. He was given lemons and managed to make a rather sour lemonaide. Kerry was just a bad choice.

I think how poorly he is/was doing is a matter of viewpoint. As a person who never thought he should have gone to war with Iraq I think the entire thing is one oversized mess. Also a large percentage of people(read christians) voted for bush based on "moral" issues.

The dems have had majority control for about 60 years. Do you think there was any compromise? If there had been we wouldn't still be debating abortion, massive government entitlements, cuts in defense and intelligence spending, government meddling in religion, and recognized marriage issues.....The dems have left a large portion of the population behind with more and more liberal ideals.

First of all as to the mention of the majority control, I don't think it was ever to the level where dems controlled all branches of gov't (Executive: president, Legislative: control of senate and house of reps, Judicial: supreme court.) Secondly, I don't thinkthe third sentence had any validity. Each side wants what they want. In the case of abortion, republicans want to do away with it entirly, which isn't really a compromise. On certain issues like that, as wellas the religion and marriage issue, there isn't a lot of middle ground. Secondly, as to the last sentence, so have the republicans. A 51 to 48 percent victory is not what I would call decisive, especially due to the sheer number of people who came out and voted.

I wasn't thinking of an actual war, I was thinking of peaceful devolution by popular vote.

If a state can leave the Union by popular vote then what prevents a county from leaving a state by popular vote? Then you've immediately come back to only the few blue counties in each state attempting to leave. Furthermore, you set a dangerous principle of progressive regression which would tend to heavily fragment the nation over time to the overwhelming economic and social harm of everyone.

Besides it doesn't matter how many guns or men you have, this isnt 1864, you just need the money to buy missiles, planes, etc. A lot of the arms manufacturing and aviation industries are in California, one of the most liberal states.

Those factories are not in downtown L.A. though, for the most part. You need trained people to operate planes and missles. Most of those trained people are Republicans in the army.

Secondly, 70% of the food we eat is imported from foriegn nations anyway, very little of the food you can buy at the supermarket comes from "Republican States", unless you eat a lot of bread.

I'm not sure where you dug this figure out of, but the logic is flawed in any event. Grain and corn is used to feed animals, make cereals, etc. If the cities were confined within their own limits they would starve, end of story. Even if they tried to import all the food they needed they would be unable to get many staple items like parishable foods developed domestically. I guess they could all have fun chowing down on rice and beans.


The only real problem I can invision is that a lot of California's water supply is piped in from Colorado. But they could obviously sort out a contract to keep the pipes in operation.

That and 90% of their landmass leaving the state to rejoin the US.

First of all as to the mention of the majority control, I don't think it was ever to the level where dems controlled all branches of gov't (Executive: president, Legislative: control of senate and house of reps, Judicial: supreme court.)

The Democrats controlled Congress ever since Roosevelt almost without exception. Everytime they won the Preisdency they had complete control. The rest of the time they had the lion's share of control since the Congress is more powerful than the President. The Democrats currently control the Supreme Court basically 6-3. Renquest, Thomas, and Scalia being the only reliable right wing judges.

I wasn't thinking of an actual war, I was thinking of peaceful devolution by popular vote. Besides it doesn't matter how many guns or men you have, this isnt 1864, you just need the money to buy missiles, planes, etc. A lot of the arms manufacturing and aviation industries are in California, one of the most liberal states.

Secondly, 70% of the food we eat is imported from foriegn nations anyway, very little of the food you can buy at the supermarket comes from "Republican States", unless you eat a lot of bread. I think liberals avoid carbs, and when they do dabble, they're much more inclined to go for rice, which is readily available in abundance from China.

The only real problem I can invision is that a lot of California's water supply is piped in from Colorado. But they could obviously sort out a contract to keep the pipes in operation.

OK, you don't need the rice, wheat, soybeans, oats, and other grains from Redland. Yoy're gonna miss peanut butter, though. I suppose California could supply the citrus demands for Blueland, but imagine the tarrifs shipping it across all those Redland states. Whoa!! Almost all of the domestic oil comes from Redland states, so the Blues are gonna be stuck dealing with the mid-east oil producers. Whew!! Vegetables. Do you eat your veggies? Say bye-bye to fresh ones. The ones that come in from overseas are gassed to retard spoilage. Phew!! Meat! Well, there's always Brazilian beef. It's tough, stringy, but most of it isn't infected with mad cow. Poultry, pork? If they freeze it real hard before loading it on the freighter it will be safe to eat.
Yuk!! Gulf shrimp and soft shell crabs. Can you really live without gumbo? I can't! Trucks to haul your goods from one west coast Blueland to east coast Blueland? You're gonna have to get those trucks in NYC to moving faster than 50 mph!!

Face it, the commodities and functions we all need are created and performed all over this country. We ALL depend on each other.

The country will end in 9 days when somebody from Diebold admitts they rigged the election and all hell breaks lose. To arms fellow Blue-State Comrades! The hour of reckoning grows close!

I don't believe the US would split, because after all, it was tried once before, and the North, with superior population and industry whooped the South's ass.

In that war it was decided that no state could leave the Union Constitutionally.

I'd have to say that the US in its current form won't be around in one thousand years, but it won't be because of dissolution.

I'd see the potential spread of humanity out into space as the motivating factor for the dissolution of the modern system of individual nations. I'd suspect to see a regional rule, similar to the US in North America, but it wouldn't be the US as we know it.

Food!

I'm not sure where you draw the arbitrary line, but I disagree. The Republicans are currently much further to the left than their ideological ancestors were (compare Goldwater to Bush). The Democrats on the other hand are further to the left than their ideological ancestors ever dreamed of being (compare Kennedy to Kerry).

The Republicans have done nothing but compromise.

There is something seriously wrong, but it isn't with the Republicans, its with the Democrats. They've been in control of the country for so long that they can't mentally handle the fact that their ideology has been rejected.
Goldwater was more right-wing than Bush, but he was on the fringe-right of the GOP. Bush's ideology is the one that appears to be shared by most Republicans. While not as far to the right as Goldwater, it is still far-right and it is a lot more mainstream. I don't know a lot about Kennedy's positions, but try comparing FDR to Kerry. Try a comparison between FDR and centre-right Clinton. The Dems used to be further to the left - and that was in the "Red scare" days!

Maybe I was a bit harsh on that one. I have insufficient knowledge to fully argue this point. Quotes like "You're either with us or with the terrorists" (Bush) and "I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" (Rick Santorum [big government-loving psycho!]) certainly don't give the impression of willingness to comprimise.

Maybe you're right about this one, but I would still argue that Bush governs for his conservative base and not for the rest of America. I mean, a federal ban on gay marriage? What Democrat ever proposed something so unacceptable to Repubicans? Clinton even cut a token few million people off welfare to keep them happy!

Goldwater was more right-wing than Bush, but he was on the fringe-right of the GOP. Bush's ideology is the one that appears to be shared by most Republicans. While not as far to the right as Goldwater, it is still far-right and it is a lot more mainstream. I don't know a lot about Kennedy's positions, but try comparing FDR to Kerry. Try a comparison between FDR and centre-right Clinton. The Dems used to be further to the left - and that was in the "Red scare" days!

The entire point is that past Republicans were more radical than present Republicans while past Democrats were more moderate than present Democrats. FDR was not radically more left than modern Democrats, including Kerry. FDR was a hawk, he had American destroyers shooting at U-Boats before the war started, he was the advocate of Lend-Lease, his Social programs were mere experimentation to try and end the Depression. After they failed to do so he basically gave up on furthering them. Kennedy was very centrist, he even advocated tax cuts, and was quite hawkish as well(remember the Bay of Pigs?). Clinton was not "center-left" by American standards, he tried to completely socialized America's health care system, remember? Today's Democrats on the other hand are extreme left wing socialists by American standards. Maybe they look "center" to the Europeans though.



Maybe I was a bit harsh on that one. I have insufficient knowledge to fully argue this point. Quotes like "You're either with us or with the terrorists" (Bush)

You take the rhetoric too seriously and fail to take a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis of his actions into account. Bush clearly was indicating that nations which knowingly and willingly harbor or otherwise support terrorism will be held just as responsible as the terrorists themselves.

"I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" (Rick Santorum [big government-loving psycho!]) certainly don't give the impression of willingness to comprimise.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if you are talking about gay marriages then Santorum would be correct. The Constitution doesn't give you a "right to sex" per se. It has long been the tradition of American law to prohibit socially deviant behavior including pre-marital sex, homosexual sex, animal sex, etc. You may disagree with this, but it would still fall somewhere near the realm of "common law" in that it is traditional interpertation. For a court to just descend out of the blue and revoke ancient American tradition is unacceptable in our representative system of government.

Maybe you're right about this one, but I would still argue that Bush governs for his conservative base and not for the rest of America. I mean, a federal ban on gay marriage?

The same arguement could be made about the Democrats and both would be true. Of course you govern for the people who elect you. This has been the case of every President after Washington.

What Democrat ever proposed something so unacceptable to Repubicans? Clinton even cut a token few million people off welfare to keep them happy!

Clinton tried to socialize the entire medical system! It was only the fact that his actions so repulsed the average American that they took away Congress from Democratic control that checked Clinton's leftist agenda during his term. Don't mistake inability for unwillingness.

It's far more likely that the US will become part of a much larger regional coalition which will gradually morph into some sort of "super-national" entity.
This seems far more likely than secession. Regardless of the disagreements we all have, no one would tolerate any state leaving.

The geographical dispersion of the various political ideologies currently are not structured in such a way as to make secession possible. If you look at the link posted below you will see that even within "blue states" most of the geographic area is still heavily conservative. I guess the big cities might decide they want to leave the union, but it would be a bit hard. Furthermore, secession is apparently unconstitutional, see the US Civil War.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7902


Finally, I can't believe that the left is being such whiners. The conservatives have been out of power for the last 60 years and even when we've been in power the left has used the Senate to block many items on the agenda. Now at the first sign of having to compromise all the liberals want to take their toys and go home? Real mature guys...

Wait, what world do you live in? It's the conservatives that have been in power the last 60 years. The liberals have been blocked and flamed to the point that "liberal" has become a dirty word.

Its not a matter of you wanting a more American system, its about Americans wanting a more Canadian or Mexican system. We simply do not. That says nothing about your own political tastes, or your own political likes and dislikes. It simply says that in order for the US to engage in an extra-national system we would have to give up parts of our own system and I don't see us doing that anytime soon. I sooner see other nations wanting to join us than us wanting to join them, if you catch my meaning.

Now then, to address your typical jab regarding the US only favoring the rich. The US is a system founded on equal justice for all, not the modern concept of fairness. It is just that the rich are just as entitled to their vast wealth as I am entitled to my tiny wealth. This is a government based on equality under the law, not equality of outcomes, or equality of opportunity, or any other type of equality. You seem to be adverse to equality under the law, instead favoring equality of outcome judging by your statements. I have no problem with that, but I don't want it forced on me and most Americans still feel the same way so don't expect us to be changing our system to join up in the US of Canada anytime soon.

So why do the rich deserve their wealth and political power over me because they cheated and stole from my great-grandparents? That was 100 years ago damn it! A person is entitled to make their way in the world and earn their fortune, but not by trampling and exploiting others.

This seems far more likely than secession. Regardless of the disagreements we all have, no one would tolerate any state leaving.
I agree with this. In fact, as time goes on, I see the world gradually intermeshing. Ethnic, cultural, economic, even religious divides have been slowly dissapating. My prediction is that Mexico, most of the Carribean, and the US will form one nation by 2050, and Canada a few decades later. The EU will be a state, not just a super-national organization, and maybe even parts of Asia will join together. It is inevitable, I believe.

What I want to know is when other nations are going to join us as states?

You know what I think. I think that you guys are a bunch of morons for even considering that the nation would ever divide into seperate nations. First of all believe it or not we are one of the most stable nations in the world. Theres nothing wrong with the way our nation is run. As far as running away to Canada go right ahead. If you freaking whiners wanna leave this great country for some piece of crap country like Canada that never gets any respect then go right on ahead and do it. Heck all your doing is giving us Republicans more power. Then maybe we can get something done unstead of you stupid liberal idiots always demanding that things always go your way and when it doesnt you piss and moan untill you get your freaking way. You democrats need to get over yourselves and either leave the country or stop freaking whining. Like I said all you stupid city folk may think that you can just up and leave the Union but I would love to see how you guys are gonna feed yourselves. I mean seriously most of you city folk dont even know the diffence between a cow and a horse. Since almost every rural state voted Democrat then you guys couldnt get hardley any food. Plus most every body in the military is also a Democrat so if there was a civil war between the two parties then that would be a pretty pathetic fight. Sorry if I have offended any body but I'm just sick and tired of hearing you people come up with stupid predictions. Again sorry to any body I may have offended.

Wait, what world do you live in? It's the conservatives that have been in power the last 60 years. The liberals have been blocked and flamed to the point that "liberal" has become a dirty word.

Simply asserting a position doesn't make it true. We can look back over the period of time since FDR started pushing social programs, though the Great Society, and onward, each step bringing on bigger more intrusive government. Social spending now makes up the largest share of the budget, followed by non-defense discretionary spending. Defense spending, the main Constitutional duty of the federal government, is not even hardly a quarter of the budget. If you want to paint a different picture you'll have to do better than making empty claims and hollow protests.


So why do the rich deserve their wealth and political power over me because they cheated and stole from my great-grandparents? That was 100 years ago damn it! A person is entitled to make their way in the world and earn their fortune, but not by trampling and exploiting others.

Again you assert a claim without even bothering to issue a shred of proof. This time such a vague claim that I can't respond except in vague terms, namely that the overwhelming majority of the wealthy earned their wealth by wholly lawful non-coercive means in an open and free market.

I'm not sure where you dug this figure out of, but the logic is flawed in any event. Grain and corn is used to feed animals, make cereals, etc. If the cities were confined within their own limits they would starve, end of story. Even if they tried to import all the food they needed they would be unable to get many staple items like parishable foods developed domestically. I guess they could all have fun chowing down on rice and beans.

Most countries in Europe get by fine by importing food and resources, the whole point of the global economic world system is so that countries do not need to be self-sufficient. During mad the mad cow desease, Britain imported all its beef and its economy is still one of the strongest in Europe.

There are a few examples of countries that are mainly urban that get by ok:

Singapore
Luxemborg
Monaco
Barbados

Rural Californians would not neccesarily be against succession, think of the economic advantages of being part of one of the richest states. Hispanic voters in California tend to vote Democrat and they are the largest growing group in Californian rural areas so, when you are talking about 100s of years into the future, well anything could happen really.

Those factories are not in downtown L.A. though, for the most part. You need trained people to operate planes and missles.

Well, under an ultra-liberal education system, those inner city kids in LA will get the training they need to operate planes or do whatever else they want.

Hahahah who cares about what state leaves this ignorant nation. They will get bombed by us almost an infinite number of times.

is how the left has gotten so out of whack with the american people who don't live in a few concentrated areas. as someone from the upper midwest where it is very much almost 50/50 on modern definitions of conservative and liberal, as misleading as both are (i do not feel present repubs are real conservatives, and especially don;t think the left is "liberal" by definition anymore....here are some common reasons why the left is being rejected in America right now in my opinion.

Dems are slowly becoming the perceived party of the college professor, media/newspaper editor and reporter, government worker/pundit, anyone who wants to get something FROM society rather than assume repsonsibility for it, abortionists, gays, and activists. The left needs to wake up and realize the red states reject their philosophy for two major reason....not work for the rich, BUT WORK ETHIC is still strong and important in these areas. Why was welfare reform so popular? people who don;t work truly do not deserve anything, in many peoples' opinions including mine....anything else is charity, not a right. The dems need to return to the attitude of pollicy driven to reward those who work hard and do the right thing, something Clinton was skilled at, and turned a lot red states blue..... Also, realize that for a majority of Americans, anti-Christian bigotry and a condescending attitude based on nothing in particular never results in an accommodation nor does it qualify as a leadership skill, so many leftists wonder why they get so badly rejected while displaying these qualities.....Every society that has adopted the modern left's philosophies IS DECAYING AND DYING...look at France, Spain, Italy.....birth rates unsustainable, unproductive economies with high unemployment.....lads forgot to attach the responsibility part to their economic plans of "compassion".....The point is, the people who understand that a fair wage for good work, a place to raise and educate their kids safe from physical and mental harm, and a place where faith and belief is still respected is only the only tolerable atmosphere, and the left just doesn;t project this at all.....Repubs stole one on the dems by making the economic questions and tax policy fade in the background to terror/iraq war and values.....they don;t need to be separated.....but the secular/atheist european style left wing way of thinking has been and will be continued to be rejected in this individualistic society, sorry.....and gay marriage was only an issue because a court in mass and a mayor in san fran decided to push their state onto peoples' church by pushing the envelope just as support for civil unions was gaining ground, getting a majority for the first time in history, that i am aware of.......abortion is not an issue, in these households, the big issue is third trimester abortion and using abortion as a method of birth control, notice Bush rarely even brings it up? to most even considering themselves conservative, they don't want it outlawed, just don't want it encouraged......nor do they want law being created from the bench like crazy outside their democracy...roe v wade will not be overturned in our lifetimes, folks, probably ever.....but partial birth is disgusting, but the law has to make allowances for the health of the mother, which the presetn law does not sufficiently...anyway, the type opf people who tended to go dem.....singles, urbanites, gays, etc., just have to wake up and realize very few but them see their "superiority" and society cannot thrive if is everyone is a single urban childless supporter of gay marriage and and abortion, lol, in fact, that society dies in, oh, a generation. the fact is, dems have to learn to embrace a regulated capitalism that respect traditional values....after all, it is traditional values that this country was built and gained hyperpower staus on, not the values that the dem party projects presently......and the UN? most americans will never submit to authority they never elected. we want to work with other nations, not provide all the funding and muscle to UN decisions while sharing authority for no greater reason than most nations lack the muscle and resources, that's just dumb......the fact is, it isn't the red states fault they rejected another dem, it is the out of touch, intellectual ignorance of the left that assumes they are right on every issue....cause they simply aren't, again, the societies where these philosophies have been adiopted are a colossal failure and have to change.....we can do better than the present neocons, much better.....but the present alternative of the left just isn't any better, it is in fact worse....


sorry to have spouted so long. as a libertarian i find this astonishment of the left amusing, they love to tout everyone else's ignorance, and yet it is their own that keeps them from wielding influence and in fact weakens their influence in the hyperpower of the world......but we'll never split, we just have to keep trying to figure out how to get the balance of right and left correct......

Most countries in Europe get by fine by importing food and resources, the whole point of the global economic world system is so that countries do not need to be self-sufficient. During mad the mad cow desease, Britain imported all its beef and its economy is still one of the strongest in Europe.

You can't import highly parishable goods readily or at all in a situation where trade is cut off from the rest of the states.

There are a few examples of countries that are mainly urban that get by ok:

Singapore
Luxemborg
Monaco
Barbados


Singapore - Has ready access to a mainland food supply. In our scenario the cities would be having to import food over water from a rather great distance away.
Luxemborg - .5% of their economy is agriculture. (The US is 1.4% agriculture) They also have access to whatever imports they need which the urban areas would not under our scenario.
Monaco - Same as Singapore
Barbados - 6% of GDP agriculture, over three times as much as the US.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Rural Californians would not neccesarily be against succession, think of the economic advantages of being part of one of the richest states.

Think of all the higher taxes as they now are required to do things all by themselves that they used to share with the rest of the country. Think of the inability to sell their goods due to tariffs, etc Think of being politically overpowered at every turn by the cities.

Hispanic voters in California tend to vote Democrat and they are the largest growing group in Californian rural areas so, when you are talking about 100s of years into the future, well anything could happen really.

This is a great fear many Americans have. We need to retool our immigration, acculturation, and citizenship laws to prevent the Mexicans from getting that kind of hold.

Well, under an ultra-liberal education system, those inner city kids in LA will get the training they need to operate planes or do whatever else they want.

Are you kidding me? Just when can we expect that ulta-liberal education system, which we already have in case you didn't realize, to start functioning?

over 40% of hispanics voted for Bush this election....yipes

The US may split, but not in the near future nor in any any predictable way.
It certainly isn't going to split over any of the issues at hand now. Abortion isn't even nearly as divisive an issue as slavery and states rights were. And without a defining issue, it just isn't going to happen.

Abortion would be the closest thing to such an issue. But to think thta the US would split over abortion is laughable. Certainly there have been a few wacked out anti-abortion terrorists, but nothing like "Bleeding Kansas" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2952.html).

And there are problems with both sides of the sub-debate on the feasability of a division.
1) There is an assumption that trade would be cut off between the Redland and Blueland. Nobody has explained why this would be the case.
2) There is an assumption that Redland and Blueland would be easily divisible. The maps posted above show this is not the case.

1) There is an assumption that trade would be cut off between the Redland and Blueland. Nobody has explained why this would be the case.

The assumptions are based on two distinct scenarios contrived for the purpose of discussion. First, that there would be civil war between the blue counties (major urban centers) and the rest of the nation which would preclude trade. Second, that there would be no civil war, but that protectionism and other general tariffs would throw up such impediments to trade such as would make it unduly expensive if not prohibitive
.


2) There is an assumption that Redland and Blueland would be easily divisible. The maps posted above show this is not the case.

A division would most logically be made between the geographic regions trending heavily Democratic (ie urban areas) and those trending heavily Republican (most everywhere else).

The States would never split, least of all along a liberal/conservative line for one simple reason - as soon as the fighting began there would be no liberals there to fight. They would be too busy protesting their own war or running to Canada.

Got a challenge for everybody here. If you had to divide the continental United States into five administrative regions, how would you do it?

Anyone here ever heard of Shadowrun? US has got a few decades of unity, then there's gonna be breakaway states.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

It's already very Shadowrun right now. I am not happy about this. I dont' like what's coming out about the election and I like the supine passivity of the American people about it even less.

I'm not sure where you draw the arbitrary line, but I disagree. The Republicans are currently much further to the left than their ideological ancestors were (compare Goldwater to Bush). The Democrats on the other hand are further to the left than their ideological ancestors ever dreamed of being (compare Kennedy to Kerry).

The Republicans have done nothing but compromise.

There is something seriously wrong, but it isn't with the Republicans, its with the Democrats. They've been in control of the country for so long that they can't mentally handle the fact that their ideology has been rejected.
Goldwater was more right-wing than Bush, but he was on the fringe-right of the GOP. Bush's ideology is the one that appears to be shared by most Republicans. While not as far to the right as Goldwater, it is still far-right and it is a lot more mainstream. I don't know a lot about Kennedy's positions, but try comparing FDR to Kerry. Try a comparison between FDR and centre-right Clinton. The Dems used to be further to the left - and that was in the "Red scare" days!

Maybe I was a bit harsh on that one. I have insufficient knowledge to fully argue this point. Quotes like "You're either with us or with the terrorists" (Bush) and "I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" (Rick Santorum [big government-loving psycho!]) certainly don't give the impression of willingness to comprimise.

Maybe you're right about this one, but I would still argue that Bush governs for his conservative base and not for the rest of America. I mean, a federal ban on gay marriage? What Democrat ever proposed something so unacceptable to Repubicans? Clinton even cut a token few million people off welfare to keep them happy!

Are we talking about the same Barry Goldwater who said the GOP would "go down in a shambles" if the expected anti-abortion plank was adopted in the GOP platform in 1992? Who was a member of the National Republican Coalition for Choice? Who commented to Bob Dole that they were now the liberal wing of the GOP?

Got a challenge for everybody here. If you had to divide the continental United States into five administrative regions, how would you do it?
Southwest (More Hispanics)
Northwest (Calm and tranquil)
Deep South (Former Confederacy, minus Texas)
Far East (States running along the Atlantic Coast)
Middle Earth (Everything else...I chose the name because I hate LOTR and I dislike the states that fall under this category, Wisconsin, Kansas, blah!)

The geographical dispersion of the various political ideologies currently are not structured in such a way as to make secession possible. If you look at the link posted below you will see that even within "blue states" most of the geographic area is still heavily conservative. I guess the big cities might decide they want to leave the union, but it would be a bit hard. Furthermore, secession is apparently unconstitutional, see the US Civil War.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7902


That's fine. Just have that be written into the constitution. Its not like its a perfect document. everyone wants to write new things into it these days.


Finally, I can't believe that the left is being such whiners. The conservatives have been out of power for the last 60 years and even when we've been in power the left has used the Senate to block many items on the agenda. Now at the first sign of having to compromise all the liberals want to take their toys and go home? Real mature guys...

And vice versa when the dems were in power. I think this is the first time in quite a while (if ever) when a single party controlled ALL levels of government. The Repubs control it ALL, so stop whining yourself.

What's this garbage about compromise? Filibustering is the only DEFENSE the Dems have now. The Repubs don't have to court the Dems for ANYTHING now.

BTW don't ya think the conservatives were being whiners when they started that whole impeachment thing on Clinton? Sorta lacked class and only made him look better.

*WAH* The de-mi-crats have a popular president and it could rob us of power for years *WAH* Lets drive everyone nuts with a devious impeachment plot *WAH*

Are we talking about the same Barry Goldwater who said the GOP would "go down in a shambles" if the expected anti-abortion plank was adopted in the GOP platform in 1992? Who was a member of the National Republican Coalition for Choice? Who commented to Bob Dole that they were now the liberal wing of the GOP?

One issue does not a moderate make. The preponderance of Goldwater's political stances were much more conservative than Bush's. You'd never have seen a Goldwater Prescription drug program, or a Goldwater education bill authored by Ted Kennedy, or a Goldwater signature on campaign finance reform, etc. Even the extreme leftists have a few conservative stances now and then, so you have to take a expansive view of the respective party's agendas and not do a narrow case by case focus.

The assumptions are based on two distinct scenarios contrived for the purpose of discussion. First, that there would be civil war between the blue counties (major urban centers) and the rest of the nation which would preclude trade. Second, that there would be no civil war, but that protectionism and other general tariffs would throw up such impediments to trade such as would make it unduly expensive if not prohibitive.

The first would be temporary. The second wouldn't make sense economically for Redland. Oh, and what of Canada and Mexico? Both are agricultural producers that would happily sell to Blueland.

A division would most logically be made between the geographic regions trending heavily Democratic (ie urban areas) and those trending heavily Republican (most everywhere else).

You must not have seen the map I was speaking of, so here you are:
http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap3.gif

Note how the blue counties are sprinkled about, not simply concentreated in the urban areas. There really isn't a way to coherently put Blueland together.
Also, if you simply Blueland

70% of the military is Republican. Almost all cities have gun bans in place so most guns are concentrated in the rural Republican states. The cities have no ability to feed themselves, all the nation's food comes from the Republican states. Even if the cities were inclined to try to fight, which I find utterly laughable, they wouldn't have the means to.

Yeah, there's no guns in urban areas. Drug pushers have been using spit wads all these years. And we've all heard reports of the magic invisible Wall of the Fairies that keeps guns out of urban areas.

Gun Running. Smuggling.

The fact that there are plenty of Dem supporters in all states (and vice versa) would mean that there would be some support in all areas. Hell some people in the north fought for the south (and, again, vice versa) in the last Civil War.

over 40% of hispanics voted for Bush this election....yipes

Really? Wow!

That includes East Coast hispanics (Cubans and Venezualans in Florida and the like).

I dont know the figures but I would guess that in California its much lower.

Colodia, I like the way you broke it down. Who here wants to maintain America's freedoms and history?

That's fine. Just have that be written into the constitution. Its not like its a perfect document. everyone wants to write new things into it these days.

While not perfect it is a construction which would be considered a lost art to those now living. None of us have the wisdom or the foresight to craft such a system of government and therefor we should be exceedingly wary of making changes, for fear that we may do immense, yet innocent, harm by our tinkering.



And vice versa when the dems were in power. I think this is the first time in quite a while (if ever) when a single party controlled ALL levels of government. The Repubs control it ALL, so stop whining yourself.

No Republicans went around pining to leave the country. In case you've forgotten, the Democrats controlled all of the government during the first two years of Clinton's term, and during most of all the other times when a Democrat held the White House.

What's this garbage about compromise? Filibustering is the only DEFENSE the Dems have now. The Repubs don't have to court the Dems for ANYTHING now.

The Democrats can lock up the Senate and prevent all legislation from passing. I'm not sure why you dismiss this power as paltry, but it is clearly an ill informed assertion.

BTW don't ya think the conservatives were being whiners when they started that whole impeachment thing on Clinton? Sorta lacked class and only made him look better.

Bill Clinton had obstructed justice, perjured himself, misused government resources and employees, and generally conducted himself in a manner not befitting the President of the United States.

The first would be temporary. The second wouldn't make sense economically for Redland. Oh, and what of Canada and Mexico? Both are agricultural producers that would happily sell to Blueland.


If you glanced at my map of counties you would see that most of the blue counties do not adjoin either Mexico or Canada, especially on the west coast. If a war were on the red states could effectively blockade, assuming that such a conflict lasted any amount of time. Might I suggest you go back and read previous posts since I believe much of this has already been addressed.



Note how the blue counties are sprinkled about, not simply concentreated in the urban areas. There really isn't a way to coherently put Blueland together.


The overwhelming population of the blue areas are concentrated in a very few counties which are home to the major urban areas. The few rural blue counties can be safely ignored for the purpose of this discussion.

Yeah, there's no guns in urban areas. Drug pushers have been using spit wads all these years. And we've all heard reports of the magic invisible Wall of the Fairies that keeps guns out of urban areas.

Gun Running. Smuggling.


Guns are banned in almost every major city that I'm aware of so we can safely assume that all law abiding citizens are disarmed.


The fact that there are plenty of Dem supporters in all states (and vice versa) would mean that there would be some support in all areas. Hell some people in the north fought for the south (and, again, vice versa) in the last Civil War.

Indeed, some switchover would occur, but not enough to make a real difference. If 20% of the cities went into the rural areas and 20% of the rural areas went to the cities their would be little change (or possibly positive change for the rural areas in terms of population).

One issue does not a moderate make. The preponderance of Goldwater's political stances were much more conservative than Bush's. You'd never have seen a Goldwater Prescription drug program, or a Goldwater education bill authored by Ted Kennedy, or a Goldwater signature on campaign finance reform, etc. Even the extreme leftists have a few conservative stances now and then, so you have to take a expansive view of the respective party's agendas and not do a narrow case by case focus.

True, Barry was much further right on economics and the position of government, but well to the "left" on issues of freedom.
Would you have seen a Goldwater anti-gay marriage amendment? No! Barry was infamously opposed to the take over of the GOP ('I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass'') by a ''bunch of kooks'' (the authoritarian far-right the Christian fundamentalist).
(Note: he even considered himself left of the new GOP. Why else would he say to Dole 'We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?'')

True, Barry was much further right on economics and the position of government, but well to the "left" on issues of freedom.
Would you have seen a Goldwater anti-gay marriage amendment? No! Barry was infamously opposed to the take over of the GOP ('I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass'') by a ''bunch of kooks'' (the authoritarian far-right the Christian fundamentalist).
(Note: he even considered himself left of the new GOP. Why else would he say to Dole 'We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?'')

So to you all that matters is that he was pro-abortion and he might have supported gays? Two issues does not a moderate make either. Goldwater said things like he was in favor of using nukes in Vietnam, that he was for making Social Security voluntary, etc. Dole is quite middle of the road in contrast. Also, Goldwater mellowed somewhat in his later years; he married a younger woman who was more liberal and he had a stroke in 1996. In any event you are attempting to use the exception to disprove the rule; Democrats are far more radically left compared to their ideological ancestors, while the Republicans, especially Bush, are far more moderate than their ideological ancestors.

Are you kidding me? Just when can we expect that ulta-liberal education system, which we already have in case you didn't realize, to start functioning?

As soon as the chicken-hawks in the administration stop waisting all our tax money bombing the third world.

As soon as the chicken-hawks in the administration stop waisting all our tax money bombing the third world.

We have one of the largest per capita student expendatures of any nation in the world. The money to fund education comes overwhelmingly from the states, not the federal government. Clearly funding isn't the problem, the system is the problem.

Just imagine what the U.S.A. would be like today if Barry Goldwater had won the election of 1964.

Just imagine what the U.S.A. would be like today if Barry Goldwater had won the election of 1964.

Victory in Vietnam, smaller government, no Nixon fiasco, and who can tell how much bigger the economy would be.

So to you all that matters is that he was pro-abortion and he might have supported gays? Two issues does not a moderate make either. Goldwater said things like he was in favor of using nukes in Vietnam, that he was for making Social Security voluntary, etc. Dole is quite middle of the road in contrast. Also, Goldwater mellowed somewhat in his later years; he married a younger woman who was more liberal and he had a stroke in 1996. In any event you are attempting to use the exception to disprove the rule; Democrats are far more radically left compared to their ideological ancestors, while the Republicans, especially Bush, are far more moderate than their ideological ancestors.

I wonder if we aren't just missing each others points because of a confusiuon of definition of "right". Are you counting Goldwater as more right than Bush on the social issues? He wasn't. As I said above, Bush is more moderate (yes, to the point of being almost a lefty) on issues such as big government, foreign intervention, and economics. But Bush is way more "right" than Goldwater was on almost every single "moral" or social issue: abortion, gay rights, religion, drugs, pornography, and even (as I see it) race. (I wish I could find an online copy of Goldwater's Playboy interview back in the 70s. He had a great line in there about being allowed to sell drugs, guns or whatever you wanted out of the back of your car. The mere idea of that would make the "Christian right" spontaniously combust.)

Just imagine what the U.S.A. would be like today if Barry Goldwater had won the election of 1964.
Victory in Vietnam, smaller government, no Nixon fiasco, and who can tell how much bigger the economy would be.


Yep. And (hopefully) less influance in the GOP from the Christian nutcases. :::smiles at the thought of what might have been.:::

Victory in Vietnam, smaller government, no Nixon fiasco, and who can tell how much bigger the economy would be.

Does anyone else think that Goldwater would despise what happened to the Republican party?

Does anyone else think that Goldwater would despise what happened to the Republican party?


I don't think he would, I know he did (at least from his statements, some of which I've brought up above). He was horrified by the take over of the party by Christian rightists, who he saw as "kooks". He also said 'I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass''. AMEN, brother Barry!

Why not a confederacy* that includes all States and all provinces of Canada?


*or a confederacy of federations or confederacies.

I wonder if we aren't just missing each others points because of a confusiuon of definition of "right". Are you counting Goldwater as more right than Bush on the social issues? He wasn't. As I said above, Bush is more moderate (yes, to the point of being almost a lefty) on issues such as big government, foreign intervention, and economics. But Bush is way more "right" than Goldwater was on almost every single "moral" or social issue: abortion, gay rights, religion, drugs, pornography, and even (as I see it) race. (I wish I could find an online copy of Goldwater's Playboy interview back in the 70s. He had a great line in there about being allowed to sell drugs, guns or whatever you wanted out of the back of your car. The mere idea of that would make the "Christian right" spontaniously combust.)

Well, you've missed the point so many times now that I'm beginning to think you're just willfully ignoring it. Goldwater was more conservative, in totality, than Bush or most any Republican is today. Kerry and the Democrats are more liberal than most any Democrat in the not recent past. In any event, I'm a member of the "Christian right" you so loath and I have no problem with any of these issues except abortion, which I view as murder, and the attempted hyjacking of the religious term marriage by the homosexual community. If they want civil unions thats not a problem, but marriage is a religious institution that the government should get out of entirely.

I think a return to Federalism would be the best solution for national unity. If Oregon want's state health care and civil Unions for gay folks....why should Texans care? If Georgia outlaws abortion, why should that matter to Californians? We are all Americans...what's wrong with the freedom to live more or less as we choose and in a society that reflects our values?

Well, you've missed the point so many times now that I'm beginning to think you're just willfully ignoring it. Goldwater was more conservative, in totality, than Bush or most any Republican is today. Kerry and the Democrats are more liberal than most any Democrat in the not recent past. In any event, I'm a member of the "Christian right" you so loath and I have no problem with any of these issues except abortion, which I view as murder, and the attempted hyjacking of the religious term marriage by the homosexual community. If they want civil unions thats not a problem, but marriage is a religious institution that the government should get out of entirely.

Alrighty. I've stated several times why I consider Goldwater left of Bush on social and moral issues. Please tell me why you consider him right of Bush on these issues, especially in light of his statements to the contrary, quoted above.

(And please note I don't loath Christians, even the Christian right. I only fear those who feel they are empowered to, and are intent upon, imposing their vision of morality on all people, at the expense of liberty, and who go about spreading hate - the likes of Falwell, Robertson, and Phelps. And I find humor in the obvious clowns - such as Bakker and Swaggart. However, I have the utmost respect for people such as Billy Graham. But, as Goldwater's statements on the Christian right's relationship to the GOP speak for themselves, and I find myself in agreement.)

The problem that you two are having is the the left-right paradigm doesn't work well for Goldwater. If you see Conservatism as representing small government as a principle applied both socially and fiscally, then Goldwater was an uberconservative. If you see social liberalism (meaning the government stays out of the personal business of sexuality, abortion, drug use) as being "left of center" than Goldwater was extreme "left of center". Goldwater seemed to be for a more "libertarian" or "classical liberal" view of the state.

The problem that you two are having is the the left-right paradigm doesn't work well for Goldwater. If you see Conservatism as representing small government as a principle applied both socially and fiscally, then Goldwater was an uberconservative. If you see social liberalism (meaning the government stays out of the personal business of sexuality, abortion, drug use) as being "left of center" than Goldwater was extreme "left of center". Goldwater seemed to be for a more "libertarian" or "classical liberal" view of the state.

Exactly what I've been saying all along!

Alrighty. I've stated several times why I consider Goldwater left of Bush on social and moral issues. Please tell me why you consider him right of Bush on these issues, especially in light of his statements to the contrary, quoted above.

I've never said that Goldwater is right of Bush on every issue, but that he is right of him on a totality of issues. The Democrats on the other hand are left of their ideological ancestors on a totality of issues.

(And please note I don't loath Christians, even the Christian right. I only fear those who feel they are empowered to, and are intent upon, imposing their vision of morality on all people,

We as a society impose morality on each other in the form of legislation on a daily basis. To suggest that something which has been done since the founding of the nation, and even before that, is somehow illegitimate simply won't work. You may advocate that the moral standards upheld by society change to reflect your views, but so long as the majority disagree it is you who is attempting to impose your morality on others.

Corporate Republican politicians wouldn't allow it, because then they would have less liberal tax money to steal.

Can't happen soon enough for me. Only civil war will straighten this country out again. States rights will be the issue again, and this time won't be crapped up with slavery.

Corporate Republican politicians wouldn't allow it, because then they would have less liberal tax money to steal.

LOL, at last! A screen-name and post match perfectly!

Meh, I doubt it, we like eachother too much to let politics get in the way. They're really more grounds for polite teasing and meaningless pranks really. Politics don't matter much to me.

The country will end in 9 days when somebody from Diebold admitts they rigged the election and all hell breaks lose. To arms fellow Blue-State Comrades! The hour of reckoning grows close!

Oh damn we lefties let our state legislate all our guns away!

Bill Clinton had obstructed justice, perjured himself, misused government resources and employees, and generally conducted himself in a manner not befitting the President of the United States.

And W hasnt? I bet if we "whiny liberals" were as whiny as you reds were back in 1996, we would have found evidence against Bush.

Besides, Hillary forgave Bill. If the victim forgives the accused, that's good enough for me. I doubt Saddam would forgive W for invasion, and i doubt the islam fundamentalists are going to forgive W for occupying what they see as their territory.


anyway, my own thoughts:

If W were to invade Israel, our credibility in the middle east would skyrocket. George Warmonger Bush wouldnt have a problem invading other countries anyway. In W's Christian Conservative America, where all non-christians are second-class people, W wouldn't have a problem going after "those damn Jews", except for the fact that it isnt original enough (Hitler), and because then all the Jewish Americans would rally together with us "dirty liberals" to bring W down.

Bottom line: Bush is trying to get into holy wars with anyone who is not white male christian, while he should be tolerating other religion. There's no further right you can go before falling off the right-hand cliff (and into the right-hand hell where Bush and the KKK live)

PS: I am white male christian. I also happen to be tolerant of just about everything except intolerance. Yes, I know, that's an oxymoron, but there is no better way to explain it in English.

The recent election has shown that the United States has become a very divided country, this division seems to be widening and displays spatial auto-correlation.

Already people in California are talking about leaving the country, and there are small fringe groups on both the right and the left that are campaigning for devolution and even independence in various states, Maine, South Carolina, California, etc.

Anyone who has studied history will tell you that no state society, no matter how powerful and stable it may be, lasts forever. I could invision an America divided into 4 nations, the 2 coasts, the South, and the Rest in as little as 250 years.

What do other people think?

Your assumption is that the United States must break up and fragment into other nation states. However, I do not think that is the next step in the development of political society.

Keep in mind that nations, as we understand them (a people with common customs, history, language, and sense of identity under a single sovereign government), have only exist for the past 500 years. What makes us assume that nation-states will continue to be the organizing principle for future societies? I think it is far more likely that nations will eventually be replaced by internationalist corporate entities (ala Rollerball - the 1975 movie). Already we have multinational corporations with budgets and power that eclipse many smaller nations. When the power of these multinational exceeds that of the largest countries then nations will become as insignificant in defining people's identity as individual American states have become.

I think it will fragment in, say, about a hundred years or more, but not much more than a hundred years. I think the breaking away of states will be sporadic at first with individual states and small blocks of states with similiar backgrounds being the first to go way before whole regions like the Midwest or South, etc. I even think maybe some of the states like California could secede in about 25 years; I think many Hispanics will be the ones pushing for that. The upper Northeast will also go much sooner than regions like the Midwest or Southeast. It's ironic that the South will probably be among the last areas to go, or not go at all, if something like that happens.

Of course the US is gonna fragment. California is gonna break off and go hang out with Hawaii :p

I wasn't thinking of an actual war, I was thinking of peaceful devolution by popular vote. Besides it doesn't matter how many guns or men you have, this isnt 1864, you just need the money to buy missiles, planes, etc. A lot of the arms manufacturing and aviation industries are in California, one of the most liberal states.




and the M-1 and M-1114 are produced in Ohio. whats your point?

Of course the US is gonna fragment. California is gonna break off and go hang out with Hawaii :p
Alaska can come too.

Alaska can come too.

Not anymore they can't. Until they learn to vote responsibly, they can be whored out for their oil and deal with it :p

1. Canada has an unemployment rate twice the US's
FALSE

Well it's not twice the US rate (currently 5.5%), but it is certainly higher:

Canadian Unemployment Rate Drops Slightly
Friday October 8, 9:39 am ET
Canadian Unemployment Rate Drops Slightly in September, Another 43,000 Jobs Created


OTTAWA (AP) -- Canada's economy created another 43,000 jobs last month, pushing the unemployment rate down to 7.1 percent from 7.2 percent in August, the government agency Statistics Canada said Friday.
The increase came after two months of stagnant job growth.

The statistics agency said employment has grown by 1.0 percent so far this year, with 156,000 full-time jobs added. The number of part-time jobs has fallen by 74,000.

In September, 72,000 people found full-time work, but 29,000 part-time jobs disappeared, leaving the net gain of 43,000.Canadian Unemployment (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041008/canada_jobs_2.html)

And W hasnt? I bet if we "whiny liberals" were as whiny as you reds were back in 1996, we would have found evidence against Bush.

Besides, Hillary forgave Bill. If the victim forgives the accused, that's good enough for me. I doubt Saddam would forgive W for invasion, and i doubt the islam fundamentalists are going to forgive W for occupying what they see as their territory.


anyway, my own thoughts:

If W were to invade Israel, our credibility in the middle east would skyrocket. George Warmonger Bush wouldnt have a problem invading other countries anyway. In W's Christian Conservative America, where all non-christians are second-class people, W wouldn't have a problem going after "those damn Jews", except for the fact that it isnt original enough (Hitler), and because then all the Jewish Americans would rally together with us "dirty liberals" to bring W down.

Bottom line: Bush is trying to get into holy wars with anyone who is not white male christian, while he should be tolerating other religion. There's no further right you can go before falling off the right-hand cliff (and into the right-hand hell where Bush and the KKK live)

PS: I am white male christian. I also happen to be tolerant of just about everything except intolerance. Yes, I know, that's an oxymoron, but there is no better way to explain it in English.
So if somebody slept with your wife, lied to your face about it, perjured himself on the stand about it, then came and apologised, that would make everything hunky-dory? Last I checked, the US criminal system does not accept apologies as a substitute for punishing the crime.

The US will fragment and fall apart once the war of indepence is forgotten, once hardly anyone feels a stirring in their chest anymore when they see Old Glory, after all the achievements of this country have been forgotten and all the blood that was spilled to make it what it is now.

Frankly speaking: The US will falter once the last red-blooded American patriot dies and I'm gonna spread my seed like mad to push that date out into the far future.

Actually, the most likely scenario is that Texas might secede. It is the only state that has the legal right to do so.

Unless a great deal of states suceed at one time, i think the rest of the states would try stop it. Also, aside from maybe texas, sectionalism doesnt seem to be really that strong. I never hear anyone say " HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE GREAT STATE OF NEBRASKA!"

I think it will happen in the next 200 years as pretty much a mutal hate between the liberals and consevatives. But I think it will split in 3 regions the red states, the New England area, and then the West coast. My 1000th post.
Congrats on the 1,000th (he said with his 1,000th)

Two hundred years is a long time for the current political map to endure. So much can happen. Where were we in 1804 politically?

The political atmosphere in this country has become more heated each election. Now it has reached the point that people are threatening to leave the US. This is kind of like the kid that doesn't get his way, throws a tizzy, then stomps off with the football. Only trouble is, it isn't his football. The people who want to leave for Canada need to wake up to a few facts.

1. Canada has an unemployment rate twice the US's
2. Government run medical care isn't readily available and the whole system is crumbling.
3. Inflation is much higher in Canada. Have you checked out the price of a gallon of gas?
4. Canada isn't exactly welcoming them.
5. By leaving the country they would be further weakening their political base assuring this country would have basically a one party government.

Here is the alternative..

1. Step back and take a look at the reasons the majority voted Republican. It isn't a takeover by Christians as claimed. There were many reasons. First of all, Bush wasn't doing as bad as claimed. He was given lemons and managed to make a rather sour lemonaide. Kerry was just a bad choice. He's a liberal from New England (visions of Ted Kennedy), he had a lot of baggage from Vietnam, he didn't exhibit any consistency in major issues, he pandered to whichever group was making the most noise at the time, his wife was a major handicap, he chose a pretty boy trial attorney as a running mate instead of a seasoned politician, and he never laid out a firm detailed agenda. In hindsight it seems that when Democrats got Dean off the internet and into public, he was a madman that no one could support. They immediately jumped on the Kerry bandwagon without looking to see what they were buying.

2. Realize that there are many trains of thought and that it is almost impossible to get a majority of the people to follow the most extreme from the left or the right. Dems do well when they are led by their moderate members.

3. Prepare a game plan that highlights your candidate's assets. When you spend your time and energy pointing out your opponents shortcomings people wonder what you are hiding. You've heard of smoke and mirrors?

3. Set your priorities and work constructively to achieve them. Bring the football back and learn how to play the game as a team.

I agree with your premise. The Dems give the appearance of having been hijacked by the extreme left. To some extent it is true that the Reps have been taken with the far right. Yet the election was close.

The middle American voter may not necessarily be crazy for the Reps but they are aghast at the extreme left (the 'L' word). The Dems have been losing election after election because they do not have centerist appeal. If left to choose between the familiar and the strange, middle America will go with the familiar every time.

I assume you are basing this lunacy on election result so I'd like to point out that in most states the magin of victory for Bush was a few percentage points. Ideologically the US may be devided but the division is spread throughout the country. There were very few places in which the percentage of vtes was more than 15% in either direction. Even if our country were as factional as some are saying, who ever said that we must all agree to live in one nation?

I assume you are basing this lunacy on election result so I'd like to point out that in most states the magin of victory for Bush was a few percentage points. Ideologically the US may be devided but the division is spread throughout the country. There were very few places in which the percentage of vtes was more than 15% in either direction. Even if our country were as factional as some are saying, who ever said that we must all agree to live in one nation?
Not sure who you are responding to but since my post is the one above yours . . . The term middle America is not a geographic reference.

I think instead of states actually leaving the union you'll see the fromation of more extreme political parties. Different areas of the US are specialized and rely on the other areas for what they don't produce. Makes more sense for everything to stay whole to allow easier trade.

Not sure who you are responding to but since my post is the one above yours . . . The term middle America is not a geographic reference.
What sort of reference is it?

What sort of reference is it?
I may have overestimated you. It is a political reference meaning people who are (to use the common hyperbole) neither arch conservatives or flaming liberals.

I may have overestimated you. It is a political reference meaning people who are (to use the common hyperbole) neither arch conservatives or flaming liberals.
Oh, you mean those swing voters that are the only people who matter to our politicians.

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933-45 (D)
Harry S. Truman 1945-53 (D) 8
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-61 (R) 8
John F. Kennedy 1961-63 (D) 2
Lyndon B. Johnson 1963-69 (D) 6
Richard M. Nixon 1969-74 (R) 5
Gerald Ford 1974-77 (R) 3
James E. Carter 1977-81 (D) 4
Ronald W. Reagan 1981-89 (R) 8
George H.W. Bush 1989-93 (R) 4
William J. Clinton 1993-01 (D) 8
George W. Bush 2001-09 (R) 8

That's 28 years for the Democrats and 32 for the Republicans.

Oh, you mean those swing voters that are the only people who matter to our politicians.
Absolutely! The base is considered a given. It is the swing vote that determines elections.

Absolutely! The base is considered a given. It is the swing vote that determines elections.
There are so many ways people use the term "middle America" it is tough to determine which is intended. I don't think the base is a given. With a dynamic candidate and a message that includes parts of the country that are traditionally not won by the candidates party, any candidate can win.

is how the left has gotten so out of whack with the american people who don't live in a few concentrated areas. as someone from the upper midwest where it is very much almost 50/50 on modern definitions of conservative and liberal, as misleading as both are (i do not feel present repubs are real conservatives, and especially don;t think the left is "liberal" by definition anymore....here are some common reasons why the left is being rejected in America right now in my opinion.

Dems are slowly becoming the perceived party of the college professor, media/newspaper editor and reporter, government worker/pundit, anyone who wants to get something FROM society rather than assume repsonsibility for it, abortionists, gays, and activists. The left needs to wake up and realize the red states reject their philosophy for two major reason....not work for the rich, BUT WORK ETHIC is still strong and important in these areas. Why was welfare reform so popular? people who don;t work truly do not deserve anything, in many peoples' opinions including mine....anything else is charity, not a right. The dems need to return to the attitude of pollicy driven to reward those who work hard and do the right thing, something Clinton was skilled at, and turned a lot red states blue..... Also, realize that for a majority of Americans, anti-Christian bigotry and a condescending attitude based on nothing in particular never results in an accommodation nor does it qualify as a leadership skill, so many leftists wonder why they get so badly rejected while displaying these qualities.....Every society that has adopted the modern left's philosophies IS DECAYING AND DYING...look at France, Spain, Italy.....birth rates unsustainable, unproductive economies with high unemployment.....lads forgot to attach the responsibility part to their economic plans of "compassion".....The point is, the people who understand that a fair wage for good work, a place to raise and educate their kids safe from physical and mental harm, and a place where faith and belief is still respected is only the only tolerable atmosphere, and the left just doesn;t project this at all.....Repubs stole one on the dems by making the economic questions and tax policy fade in the background to terror/iraq war and values.....they don;t need to be separated.....but the secular/atheist european style left wing way of thinking has been and will be continued to be rejected in this individualistic society, sorry.....and gay marriage was only an issue because a court in mass and a mayor in san fran decided to push their state onto peoples' church by pushing the envelope just as support for civil unions was gaining ground, getting a majority for the first time in history, that i am aware of.......abortion is not an issue, in these households, the big issue is third trimester abortion and using abortion as a method of birth control, notice Bush rarely even brings it up? to most even considering themselves conservative, they don't want it outlawed, just don't want it encouraged......nor do they want law being created from the bench like crazy outside their democracy...roe v wade will not be overturned in our lifetimes, folks, probably ever.....but partial birth is disgusting, but the law has to make allowances for the health of the mother, which the presetn law does not sufficiently...anyway, the type opf people who tended to go dem.....singles, urbanites, gays, etc., just have to wake up and realize very few but them see their "superiority" and society cannot thrive if is everyone is a single urban childless supporter of gay marriage and and abortion, lol, in fact, that society dies in, oh, a generation. the fact is, dems have to learn to embrace a regulated capitalism that respect traditional values....after all, it is traditional values that this country was built and gained hyperpower staus on, not the values that the dem party projects presently......and the UN? most americans will never submit to authority they never elected. we want to work with other nations, not provide all the funding and muscle to UN decisions while sharing authority for no greater reason than most nations lack the muscle and resources, that's just dumb......the fact is, it isn't the red states fault they rejected another dem, it is the out of touch, intellectual ignorance of the left that assumes they are right on every issue....cause they simply aren't, again, the societies where these philosophies have been adiopted are a colossal failure and have to change.....we can do better than the present neocons, much better.....but the present alternative of the left just isn't any better, it is in fact worse....


sorry to have spouted so long. as a libertarian i find this astonishment of the left amusing, they love to tout everyone else's ignorance, and yet it is their own that keeps them from wielding influence and in fact weakens their influence in the hyperpower of the world......but we'll never split, we just have to keep trying to figure out how to get the balance of right and left correct......
Very nicely put.

In W's Christian Conservative America, where all non-christians are second-class people, W wouldn't have a problem going after "those damn Jews", except for the fact that it isnt original enough (Hitler), and because then all the Jewish Americans would rally together with us "dirty liberals" to bring W down.

Bottom line: Bush is trying to get into holy wars with anyone who is not white male christian, while he should be tolerating other religion. There's no further right you can go before falling off the right-hand cliff (and into the right-hand hell where Bush and the KKK live)

Yep, that post was just loaded with ignorance. :rolleyes:

Bush would NEVER invade Israel, because, unlike what you think, Christians SUPPORT Israel. Hitler was certainly not a Christian. He used the murder of the Jews as a tool to try to get some whackjob countries on his side, which ultimately didn't work.

Very nicely put.
From where did you quote that? I'd love to post it in a thread that I started, if I can get the writers permission.

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933-45 (D)
Harry S. Truman 1945-53 (D) 8
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-61 (R) 8
John F. Kennedy 1961-63 (D) 2
Lyndon B. Johnson 1963-69 (D) 6
Richard M. Nixon 1969-74 (R) 5
Gerald Ford 1974-77 (R) 3
James E. Carter 1977-81 (D) 4
Ronald W. Reagan 1981-89 (R) 8
George H.W. Bush 1989-93 (R) 4
William J. Clinton 1993-01 (D) 8
George W. Bush 2001-09 (R) 8

That's 28 years for the Democrats and 32 for the Republicans.

Don't you mean 40 for the Dems and 32 for the Reps? You forgot to include Roosevelt.

Are we talking about the same Barry Goldwater who said the GOP would "go down in a shambles" if the expected anti-abortion plank was adopted in the GOP platform in 1992? Who was a member of the National Republican Coalition for Choice? Who commented to Bob Dole that they were now the liberal wing of the GOP?
The same Goldwater that supported the use of Nukes in Viet-Nam?

From where did you quote that? I'd love to post it in a thread that I started, if I can get the writers permission.
You're asking the wrong guy. Try asking Antileftism.

Don't you mean 40 for the Dems and 32 for the Reps? You forgot to include Roosevelt.
The discussion was since Roosevelt. The past 60 years.

Oh, ok. Didn't read what prompted it. :p

OK, [...]
You're gonna have to get those trucks in NYC to moving faster than 50 mph!!

Face it, the commodities and functions we all need are created and performed all over this country. We ALL depend on each other.

the silliest discussion i ever heard. american farmers actually don't feed even themself with the food they produce, it comes almost completely from south america, africa, east europe, asia... :confused:

by the way stop playing Civ3 by forum and get to the serious stuff. don't really think any "Repubblican" would ever shoot any Dem just because he thinks slightly diffent. Here in Italy they put BOMBS because of different political ideas, still the country runs. And i don't say it with pride.

Maybe America is, like Europe some 50 years ago, starting to became more and more "extremist". That's why people is voting more than the past elections (except for JFK, the true one, not kerry). That's the real danger, to have a left-right debate doesn't give really any good to the country, it only deepens differences.

er, that was my writing, from start to finish.....use away, if you want, lol. just my srous thoughts on it.

Wow. I don't know who is more offensive, insulting and downright hopeless in this thread... my fellow Americans make me ashamed to be counted as part of the same country... and everyone else just makes me want to found an isolationist nation of one. And I thought the "gays are unnatural" thread was an all-time low in human intelligence.

Why dont you all just look at each other and say "stfu n00b" and get it over with instead of wasting so much time and text? It amounts to the same thing.

er, that was my writing, from start to finish.....use away, if you want, lol. just my srous thoughts on it.
Deeelo meet Antileftism, Antileftism meet Deeelo. Deelo expressed an interest in using the post that I agreed with and complimented you on.

People the rest is up to you. One suggestion, play nice.

Its not just the US thats becoming more 'extremist' it seems to be happening across the Western world, a general apathy towards political parties all pushing roughly the same policies are seeing more voters turn to the extremes for something to believe in, be it socialist, isolationist, nationalist, far right etc.

Its not just the US thats becoming more 'extremist' it seems to be happening across the Western world, a general apathy towards political parties all pushing roughly the same policies are seeing more voters turn to the extremes for something to believe in, be it socialist, isolationist, nationalist, far right etc.

Since when is Socialism extreme?! I sure don't see scandinavia causing a big mess.

Actually, the most likely scenario is that Texas might secede. It is the only state that has the legal right to do so.

Wrong. Another Texas-related legend holds that the Texans negotiated an annexation treaty which reserved to them the right to secede from the Union without the consent of the U.S. Congress, but the terms of Texas' annexation contain no such provision. (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp)

Wow. I don't know who is more offensive, insulting and downright hopeless in this thread... my fellow Americans make me ashamed to be counted as part of the same country... and everyone else just makes me want to found an isolationist nation of one. And I thought the "gays are unnatural" thread was an all-time low in human intelligence.

Why dont you all just look at each other and say "stfu n00b" and get it over with instead of wasting so much time and text? It amounts to the same thing.

Well if homosexuality isnt unnatural then what is it?

Humans evolved to have sex with members of the opposite sex - thats why our gentiles fit together, if you understand me. Homosexuality cannot create babies (surprisingly enough) and therefore nature would place no incentive for people to be homosexual. It is no coincidence that you feel pleasure when having sex - thats an incentive placed by evolution so that people will want to breed in order to obtain pleasure. And you can only breed with members of the opposite sex so therefore nature has no need for homosexuality. Hence 'unnatural'.

I think homosexuality isn't so much a genetic thing but a cultural thing. You often notice (and I apologise for this sweeping generalisation) that gay people are generally those crying out for attention. Thats why they tend to wear brightly coloured clothing and speak in odd ways. They are generally the sort of people who have to distinguish themselves from society via anyway possible or in this case homosexuality. In Britain there is a popular comedy show here called 'Little Britain' - one of the sketches shows a gay man in a Welsh village who proclaims to be the only gay in the village. He sits in the pub wearing spandex, complaining about how there are no gays. However whenever he is presented with a chance to have even a conservation with another gay person, he mysteriously turns it down. Although this is a comedy and as such is sterotypical, I think it does demonstrate my above point. And it is observational comedy - observing the trends of society.

The only other (and far more unpopular) reason for homosexuality is because of a mental defect.

Well if homosexuality isnt unnatural then what is it?

Humans evolved to have sex with members of the opposite sex - thats why our gentiles fit together, if you understand me. Homosexuality cannot create babies (surprisingly enough) and therefore nature would place no incentive for people to be homosexual. It is no coincidence that you feel pleasure when having sex - thats an incentive placed by evolution so that people will want to breed in order to obtain pleasure. And you can only breed with members of the opposite sex so therefore nature has no need for homosexuality. Hence 'unnatural'.

I think homosexuality isn't so much a genetic thing but a cultural thing. You often notice (and I apologise for this sweeping generalisation) that gay people are generally those crying out for attention. Thats why they tend to wear brightly coloured clothing and speak in odd ways. They are generally the sort of people who have to distinguish themselves from society via anyway possible or in this case homosexuality. In Britain there is a popular comedy show here called 'Little Britain' - one of the sketches shows a gay man in a Welsh village who proclaims to be the only gay in the village. He sits in the pub wearing spandex, complaining about how there are no gays. However whenever he is presented with a chance to have even a conservation with another gay person, he mysteriously turns it down. Although this is a comedy and as such is sterotypical, I think it does demonstrate my above point. And it is observational comedy - observing the trends of society.

The only other (and far more unpopular) reason for homosexuality is because of a mental defect.


Your comments (especially the last one) show you have no understanding of evolution. Homosexuality is a complex behavior with in genetic, environmental, and behavioral roots. Genetic homosexuality probably does have a beneficial point, but one which has not entierly been made clear. Many other supposed "defects" are actually expressions recessive genes that provide some benefit when not expressed or partially expressed - tay-sachs and sickle cell anemia are two famous examples (both provide disease resistance when not expressed - ie one recieves only one of the recessive genes). Otherwise the "defective" DNA sequences would not have been reproduced. It is far more likely that homosexuality is a result of the expression of a beneficial recessive, probably in combination with other complex factors (womb environment is thought to be a large contributing factor).

British Glory, go directly to jail for the crime of thread hyjacking. While you're there, fill a cage with mice and watch them for a couple of months. When the cage becomes overpopulated, please note that the behaviors of said mice will change. Nature takes steps to balance things out, some drastic, some not so drastic. All effective. Homosexuality among animals often becomes more frequent when they've overbred their ecosystem.

Humans are not more than highly evolved primates, no matter how much many of us might wish to pretend otherwise. Nature always finds her way... even in the face of humanity's overwhelming ego and hubris. Thus, homosexuality, in today's current state of overpopulation is a completely natural and beneficial evolutionary measure to ensure we, the amazingly stupid, hairless apes that we are, do not breed ourselves into an untimely extinction. How marvellous.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled idiocy... the premature celebration at the fragmentation of the corrupt, evil and horrible United States of America. Would you like some fries with that? Please drive through.