Is the US splitting up?

Originally posted by DrGod

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
IMO, we do need to split the country into at least 2 parts. The "statists"(aka liberals, democrats and many republicans) and the individualists(those desiring real freedom with the personal responsibility it entails). That would be my suggested division.

I second that.
Where should the border be?
I'm going to draw up a map...

EDIT:
Here is a start

edit on 4-11-2012 by DrGod because: (no reason given)

I was going to star you til i saw you added michigan to new new england. Youll walk the plank for that one...lol...
The "shotgun zone" in michigan is way full of statists. However, youll find the rifle zone to be much different. Very country or backwoodsy. The southern third of michigan probably has 90% of the population. Just like canada. Most canadians live on the 401 and what is it...autoroute 20 when it enters FRANCE?

Darn near every house in michigan is armed.

Also how is interstate 96 an interstate when it doesnt leave the state? Goes from g rap to da hood lol

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
The government has been cheating on the people with whores like the UN, the EU and China, and the people are getting more than a little angry.

This sentimate might hint at why
the rest of the world thinks we are
about to split up.

Originally posted by DrGod

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
IMO, we do need to split the country into at least 2 parts. The "statists"(aka liberals, democrats and many republicans) and the individualists(those desiring real freedom with the personal responsibility it entails). That would be my suggested division.

I second that.
Where should the border be?
I'm going to draw up a map...

EDIT:
Here is a start

edit on 4-11-2012 by DrGod because: (no reason given)

The first move would be to land lock the Red States.

This will force them to work with their Mexican neighbors.

How are Mexican Red State Relations since Joe Arpaio became
Zero Immigration Czar?

And since he installed that wall, Red Staters now have to
sneak into Mexico to receive Shipments of Black Market Chinese Wal-Mart
crap.

consider this - there is only 11 white Democrat house member from the South - and if you read that article the local PTB are working hard to ensure he won't last long!!

And ther is only 1 black GOP representative.

If/when those people lose, retire or fail to gain selection the south's political landscape will be completely racially divided.

that can't be a good thing!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
so did the BBC correspondant make an accurate assessment of the state of the USA today?

Yes! Americans love to think in stereotypes and extreme opposites. For many, there is only black OR white, and nothing in between.

The bad news is, that many Americans are really acting as to entirely satisfy those extreme stereotypes. You just need to read ATS to get an idea. The fact that some presidential candidates are resembling the very same picture book stereotype (eg. Romney as the classic Republican) doesn't make things easier either.

It's really a divided world with two extreme opinions where the OTHER point of view is not even looked at or worth thinking about. This goes for both sides, by the way.

Originally posted by ecapsretuo
reply to post by DrGod

 

EDIT:
Here is a start

edit on 4-11-2012 by DrGod because: (no reason given)

I can already see a bias there and therefore reject that map Note how the red states (by some amazing coincidence) are the ones called "America". Is this implying that only the red states are true "Americans" but the others are not? Pretty lame attempt at subliminal brain washing

reply to post by rickymouse


You wouldn't get New York. They wouldn't go with you, and the people there are too tough for you to fight with shotguns and pick up trucks. Judging by the looks of the map posted earlier, you guys would get about 21% of the US GDP, and would end up a marginal third world country with a lot of country music stations.

Just point me in the direction of the so-called Libertarians and the rest of us social liberals yet fiscal conservatives. We can probably all fit into Vermont. Just DONT come by asking to borrow any money dammit.

reply to post by wildtimes

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

I suppose some people are natural born collectivists, would not exploit each other, and would live in perpetual harmony and comfort. They would make thier own place in an individualistic society.

Correct! Thanks for acknowledging that we exist, even here in America.

Sadly, we are too few. And since most people seem to think "things will never change", I am forced to say I agree. As long as there are people who refuse to even entertain the idea, things won't change.

Worse still, there are people who entertain the idea, and then say, "HELL, no! Not in my five multi-million-dollar backyardS, or the marina where my yacht sits, or the hangar where my jet's parked, or the garage where my seven luxury automobiles are garaged, or the country club and golf course where I lounge! NO WAY!"

*sigh*
It makes me sad.

edit on 5-11-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Those people will always get control of the collective eventually. IMO

That in particular is why I favor smallest possible government as a real neccessity.

There is another argument in favor of small government from an economic point of view, but everyone needs to know Econ 1A to really decide about it.

I think this dichotemy of "statists" or "collectivists" vs "individualists" or "libertarians" has gone to stupid extremes.

huuman beings are social animals - you cannot possibly live in any kind of comfort without the aid of others, and if you are living with anyone else then you automatically are governed by a set of agreed (or tolerated!) laws or mores.

ther is certainly room for discusion about how much joint activity/responsibility cis best - I like "as much as necessary but as little as possible" - but that doesn't eally set a subjective line.

But in the USA I would havethought it is patently obvious that some social services are desireable - Americans should not be starving or dying of easily preventable sickness because they are too poor to eat or have medical attention, regardless of employments status.

social welfare dose not have to be so generous as to be a "good" income choice, but it should also be enough to be a "safety net" to stop the worst problems of poverty.

But of course people should also be allowed to carry on any way they like that does not actually impinge on the rights of others, and as much as possible be allowed the free and unfettered use of their own property.

And if you want to be a super power and spend 40%+ of your federal budget on defence then pretty much by definition you do NOT get "small government"!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


The united states disappeared in 1913 with the creation of the fed reserve. NOT ONE U.S. CITIZEN IS A STOCK HOLDER IN THE FED (ALL STOCK HOLDERS ARE OVERSEA'S) WE CANT EVEN PRINT OUR OWN MONEY.
WE ARE NOW BEING PARTED OUT LIKE SOME OLD CAR.

reply to post by supergravity


Yawn......

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


That's how this country fell apart ......people sleeping on the job.

When we defeated Britain there general leaned over to george Washington and said they would take over the U.S. financially by the year 2000, he was way off ,they did in 1913.

reply to post by Semicollegiate

Yes communism will happen someday. It might be called free will by then.

If you can find people to run a collective as it should be run you might as well have a feudal monarchy.

I over stated that communism thing. Communism means that the individual has no rights-- only dole from the government. But the natural Marxian final evolution of communism would have very few laws, as any human system will have eventually.