It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Forget Red vs. Blue -- It's Slave States vs. Free States in 2012

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by badgerprints

As far as any personal "attack" you may have perceived from me, I apologize.
I will not, however, apologize for my position on this article.
It is divisive garbage intended to vilify a present day demographic based on race, location and historical events.

Point taken. I don't disagree with you.
Like I said, yes, it is definitely divisive.

As for ancestry, I can't help where I was born, to whom, or when. I know I don't understand everything about what's going on in politics.

And, I know I don't agree with many of the points of view of my "ancestors".

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 10:16 PM
Yeah freedom....HAHAAH You gotta be kidding me op. Seriously! If you are rich then you are free, if you are poor then you are a slave. Be republican!

Free to not pay taxes, free to employ illegals, free to cut medicare-medicaid by 43% as said by gary libertarian. BE FREE with ME!

You go america. Lets make the middle east free too. Make it CAPITALIST free.

bunch of morons!

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 11:22 PM

Originally posted by wildtimes I hope you are not intending your response as a snide dig.

Heaven forbid that their precious ability to get rich by exploiting the powerless should be toppled!

Yeah, wildtimes, we'll leave the snarky, snide digs for you to make.

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 07:19 AM
It seems that some find it hard to look at how your "side" thinks, and what it "means." I vote unaffiliated, although earlier this year I switched to Republican so that I might have a shot at promoting Ron Paul. He's not the candidate, so I switched back to Unaffiliated.
EDIT TO ADD: Now I've changed my mind about Ron Paul anyway, btw.
Politics and platforms are hard to grasp. I think maybe some people vote a party line without regard to what the candidates are actually saying. In my opinion, it's the individual's character, not where he's from or what his "affiliation" says. That is why those who are "moderate" on either party are more likely to get my support.

I don't really know much about the "fringe" parties, either. So, maybe I've no business voting at all.

The party lines do change over time, and it's hard to keep up with. So, saying "I'm a Dem" or "I'm a Repub" and voting that way just based on what any candidate claims is easier; "Don't want to investigate? Just "vote your party." Is that a good system? If we happen to live in a "red" or "blue" state, what if then we were obliged to vote "red" or "blue", or, just have to leave it up to the electoral college and delegates to vote on ALL our behalves when we simply live in those regions. ??

We need to be watchdogs, to make sure those candidates are really upholding what we ourselves believe. We are all free to change party affiliations, and with that freedom comes responsibility to make sure those with whom we affiliate are really representing us. Maybe it would be better if we weren't allowed to "affiliate", but in order to vote we had to actually learn what the candidates want to do. I think everyone can agree that "cliques" are divisive. The parties are gigantic "cliques", aren't they?

reply to post by hotintexas

Whatever. It seems there are folks who took great exception to this story, took it "personally", and don't want such things spoken about.

At one time, it was largely the "South" that were the Democrats, and the "Yankees" were the Republicans. That's how I always thought of it.

This article brought up a few points that twisted that (my) previous understanding. I happen to live in a "Red" state, that borders on a "Blue" state, and I'm not offended by this article. I am disappointed that there are people who have no interest in "helping" others, or in looking at how things actually developed in the short century and a half since the Civil War, and I stand by that. Those now living in those "red" states are not the same individuals who lived during the Civil War and in the time leading up to it.

I can't stand "party lines", actually, and keep hoping for some progress to better mutual understanding and care for fellow country-men.
You all can hate and condemn me if you like; I'll still want those things.

You are also free to debunk the article in its entirety, which would be more productive than just jabbing at me for posting it. Can you provide articles or research that dispute what it says? I'd be more than happy to read them. Meantime, I'll still be for more equality at the expense of some "privileges", versus more "privileges" at the expense of equality.

Thanks again to ElohimJD for his contributions to rephrase the issue.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Your post indicates agreement with the article. I was not disputing it, so I'm not sure why you said "you've got to be kidding op".....

I do understand the issues, as stated by Elohim here, on page 1, who put it beautifully.

edit on 16-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Ack. This thread was painful. Feedback noted. I'll work on curbing my snide digs; especially since it seems I'm quick to "disallow" them from others.
edit on 16-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:41 PM
New Hampshire has the 'Free State Project' where there is a large community of liberty/freedom lovers fighting to get into the government so they can stop any unconstitutional federal mandates. New Hampshire is one of the few states that has it in their state constitution where they don't have to succumb to declaration of 'martial law'.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in