America should be divided into two nations.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Dreamz
Honestly the only people who need a country of their own are anti american "americans".

Very typical, because I believe in freedom, I am anti-american, you're the first person to say that!

Freedom isnt shutting down the evangelical vote because you disagree with it.

You think you know politics and you think that because you didnt get your way you can impose your hatred amongst others.

Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House, what more is there to know? You have not expressed your infinite knowledge that I can see. Know what a filibuster is? Know that democrats can stop anything that they want if they really wanted to? Know that the Senate and house isnt a straight majority win?

Your whats wrong with America and ill let you know 99% of democrats will agree with me.

Well thanks for letting me know, too bad it's BS, let's see, where's the 99% of democrats that agree with Dreamz that it's un-american to speak your mind? Please post in response. I didnt say they would agree with speaking your mind, im talking about your far fetched idea of splitting the country. And Im sorry, while ATS has some critical thinkers, it seems by the posts that the majority are very partisan.

Your thinking is what splits the country, your lack of knowledge about politics is what splits this country, its blind hatred on stuff you obviously know nothing about.

Free thinking splits the country? Then it needs to be split. Your people are the ones who advocate hatred, I'm trying to do away with it. But that means you have to hate the haters, if that's what you want to call it, by pointing out they're wrong and you want no part of it. I guess that's what splits the country. My people please explain to me what my people are?? For your information, I voted for Bush for President, Russ Feingold for Senate and havent been to church or prayed since i was about 4. So please inform me on what my kind is. Im pointing out that your statement of splitting the country is a joke, not to mention you say you would have a free democracy yet evangelists couldnt have any say. Real free there bud.







[edit on 4-11-2004 by Dreamz]

Dreamz, when did I say in any posts that evangelicals would not get any say? They would have the same rights as anybody else, but the main difference would be there would not be any issues put forth that would deny ANYBODY ANY rights, everybody would be equal. The fact that 11 states had an issue on the ballot to ban gay marriage or unions, is un-american IMO. And I don't know why you seem to think I am literally calling for the U.S. to divide, I stated in my first post and several since that it was just a nice thought. And the you and your people do not have to be religious, just intolerant of others who are different, and supportive of measures to ban their rights because you disagree with their way of life. I will never agree with that, and I will fight tooth and nail to stop this country from going backwards, because I know that there is no way we will split officially, but we are already split fundamentally, and I have no desire to unite with your people. I don't care if everybody else disagrees with me.

Originally posted by 27jd
Well, according to your map, and the population centers of this country, the majority of gophers and field mice prefer Bush, I guess America has spoken!

How astute, precisely the condescending attitude that just got the Democrat Party HAMMERED on November 2nd (yes, you got hammered, losing seats in the House and Senate, including your Minority Leader, plus a Presidential election, for shame). You just don't get it, it's America... The liberal mindset, secure in their "Ivory Towers", has no idea what America is thinking, they deluded themselves right up until about 2:00 am EDT, on the 3rd. RANT himself crowed about the exit polls, I watched as Democrat operative, after Democrat operative promised the reversal in Ohio, it never came.

For anecdotal purposes I'll relate a recent pre-election occurrence. I was invited to a posh Sunday get-together at a prominent individuals home (this is in Columbus, OH), I was only familiar with a couple of people attending (as I am new to the area), so I made my rounds, chatting up the folk, getting t know people (I�m in medicine, and it was a mix of OSU docs, professionals, and Columbus social elites)� Rubbing elbows if you will. I came across one group that was isolated (and �unique�), not talking to anyone else. I stepped up to the plate, introduced myself, and within a minute and a half I was put on the spot about my political affiliation (no other group or individual had done this to me prior), I joked about discussing religion and sexual preferences first, but was met with icy stares. They persisted, so I informed them I was a Republican, they drew back in horror, asked why I would do such a thing and I responded with my usual litany (a little religious �lingo� for you), which includes being a veteran (upon which they assumed liberal defense formation �alpha� which is falling to the ground in the fetal position sucking their thumbs). After assuring them that I meant neither them, nor any nearby babies or village huts any harm the confrontation continued. I was pilloried with: I was the only �Republican here� and �how dare you�, �why are you here?�� I looked around, the rest of the party�s guest seemed regular people (in an upscale way), I didn�t feel out of place, so I gambled on instinct (I knew the person who invited me was a Bush supporter), and asked a couple of the nearest guests (who I did not know, and now probably think I�m a flake) who they were supporting in the election, I got a rather annoyed look, and a quick �Bush�, and they went back to their original conversation. Now, in near panic, they reached out to the hostess of the party, a beautiful and vivacious woman (who brought a wee bit of envy to Mirthful�s heart), I thought my goose was cooked, surely I would be seen as the malcontent. They were aghast when she informed them that she was a staunch supporter of Bush, and was going to make damn sure her soon to be husband was going to do the same. Denial set in, nervous quips of �she�s only joking� and �what a kidder� were made (one member of the group even intimated that my stance was a ruse, to make things interesting at the party). The group reverted to it�s isolationist orientation, and left early, I remained and enjoyed myself to no end� Wine and cheese, but neither cheese nor whine.

The moral of my anecdote (and you don�t have to believe the story), is that these people were long time acquaintances of the entire group, yet by their cliquish behavior they were clueless to the groups beliefs and political orientation (they must assume everyone is as �smart� as they are). I was at a complete disadvantage, but I had faith in my ability to read the group, and understand that I was not alone.

The Democrat Party, and their supporters are participating in this same head in the sand attitude, and will reap the same results in two, and again in four years if they don�t wake up. Now for the kicker, I think this is a BAD thing, the GOP unchallenged (any form of government unchallenged) is not with the citizenry�s bets interests� Ever. Get your act together. Find a viable candidate that can lead, and appeal to a national electorate, or we�re going to get where the GOP can throw ANY candidate at a particular race, and win. And you think things are bad now�

Well Mirthful you, that was an interesting story, but it sounds like you need new friends. I'm far too poor to hang out at "posh" gatherings, and I guess I have never "rubbed elbows". I am not a democrat, I personally do not like either party particularly. I voted for John McCain for Sen. here, I like McCain. Too bad he's not president. The only reason I allow people to call me a Dem. or liberal is because I do not wish to correct everybody who thinks America should be Rep. or Dem. I just disagree with morality being forced, and I disagree with the current war, both issues are being beaten to death on this board, naturally. I have nothing against the religious, but how can anybody support denying rights to anybody? It's like we've been taken back in time, just a different target of biggotry. Sorry to hear that those Dems were such douches, I personally can get along with anybody, they can even share their thoughts on values with me, as long as they don't expect me to adopt them. I don't consider myself a sore loser because I didn't lose anything, my fear is what WE (America) WILL potentially lose, and there's alot IMO. Just wait, see what Bush does now that he doesn't have re-election to worry about, hopefully I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. I guess time will tell. As far as instructing me as to what the Dems should do, honestly I voted against Bush, not for Kerry, so in 2008 I'm a winner either way! Provided this country still stands. *fingers crossed*

I think those of you upset with 27jd are purposely missing a point here. I think what he's trying to emphasize is the fact that if Kerry had won, then maybe we wouldn't have as many rights taken from us. The republican party has been more and more proactive at imposing it's beliefs upon people, such as money for churches, religious sacraments in federal buildings and parks, taking away people's voices via the first amendment, taking away the right to due process, the right to be safe from law enforcement unless there is reaonable cause, the right to privacy, the right to know that we are brothers and sisters with the rest of the world, not an imposing force to be reckoned with.

Now we are more than likely to see the patriot act 2 which I'm sure will erode more civil liberties in the spirit of it's predecessor. That's why he's advocating the split, not "to whine" or because he's a sore loser, but because in his America and mine, people have the right to be free, in your world, freedoms are a toleration which is allowed by the PNAC neo-conservative administration. And if you think that's a good thing, then your world will come crashing down when something you like to do is deemed illegal or a family member dies while serving in a military that grows less just and more of a tool for profit every day.

Thanks ledbedder, finally somebody understands what I am saying, we are far from anti-american, we are pro-american, and I'm 100% sure the founding fathers would agree with us.

A truly free country allows people to do what they want (within reason). That's all people are concerned about. Just because you don't like what someone else does doesn't mean they shouldn't do it, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or anything, what's the problem. I'll tell you what the problem is, when someone starts to realize that a truly utopian society is at our fingertips, the government shuts them up.

We could all do what we want (again within reason), have no pollution, be at peace with the rest of the world and be happy. Will the government ever let us think that we'll be safe again? No, b/c then they lose voters. As long as Americans think there is an enemy to be afraid of, they will react unreasonably to certain subjects b/c of that fear. We are more vulnerable now than ever, just b/c there are lines at the airport doesn't mean America is safer now!

The Bush administration is one that preys on fear, doesn't answer relevant questions and is slowly depriving us of our rights, that's the difference. Maybe Kerry would have been the same, but we don't know, we do know that Bush let America be attacked, he has not found the perpetrator (although I could argue that it was our own govt.) and he invaded a country based on something that isn't true. He has established a humongous deficit, caused mass unemployment and poverty, made the cost of living go up and has not raised minimum wage and he has let millions of Americans lose healthcare! America had also become very hated by most of the world and not b/c they're "euro liberals" (whatever that is) but b/c they see what's going on. If people just hated Aerica for the hell of it, why have we done pretty well for the past few decades? Now I know we haven't gotten along with everybody, but American opinon hasn't been this low since it's birth!

Bush has proven that he has not been good for America and if you say he has, please tell me how, b/c I have not heard one person tell me what he has done for America.

BTW don't say anything about protecting us from terrorism, we were attacked on his watch, with his administration's knowledge of a danger. He has yet to bring the supposed perpetrator to justice and his blatantly criminal actions overseas have only strengthened people's resolve to hurt us. The war on Iraq was unjustified, as we all know. No WMD's, no ties to Al Qaeda. We did not go over there to spread freedom, there are many leaders throughout the world that are not good, some worse than Saddam ever was and the only thing we brought Iraq were death and injuries.

no problem jd, can't let someone advocating peace and freedom be labelled anti-american. I think you know tha this country was founded by people seeking true freedom of speech, religion and expression, that's all we want today, true freedom, not mass-manipulation under the illusion of freedom.

I see there being no big deal in splitting the nation into 2 territories. I love this country, but what I don't love is living through other's agendas.

We can still be one country, but we could also be one country with 2 provinces. As you can plainly see it, the votes were broken up predominately like the old line's from North and South. We have no reason to fight each other, there is strength in unity. Our 2 provinces can choose to live under the same constitution which had made our country great, but agree that the 2 provinces can legislate themselves but defer to it's leadership in times of needed unity. We should share our strengths militarily, and we should share our economics. But we should not share 1 sentiment when clearly we have more than one.

I do not want to impose my "freedoms" on those who would suffer under it, and I'm sure no one else would want to make me suffer under their freedoms.

It really can be done, we can have 2 provinces and once country. 2 national leaders, and one president. A triumverate if you will. Both sides must agree on the President, but each side has their own respective leader. Kind of Having a President with 2 vice presidents. The vice presidents represent the will of their provinces separately, and the president makes decisions regarding our foreign policy, and laws which concern both sides.

Our Congress can be split and still be usefull, 2 congress groups of Reps, and Senate. Our provincial congress has the right to propose laws for our own province, and offer the same law to their contemporaries at the other congress. Our supreme court need not change at all.

It honestly can be done with forward thinking and the will do to so, anybody who says it can't and it would cause to many problems are stuck in the thinking "If it was good for our ancestors it is good enough for us."
There is no need to rely upon Draconic old styled thinking when clearly a person with vision and not coddled by fear beholden to a little system shake up.

We are a progressive country, without change their is only stagnation. Look at The Roman Empire for instance. Rome split up into the Eastern and Western Empire, the Eastern Empire lasted another thousand years after the dissolution of Rome. Had we not grown so complacent and bloated and stuck in the old ways, Rome Would have continued. When something becomes Complacent, Stagnant, and comfortable in unyeilding structure it slowly erodes the foundations of strength it was built upon.

It can be done, and we can love our neighbor, and we can be one country still. Just now is the time for those that wish to be lead in a different manner speak up and rule themselves the way they see fit, and always remember the founding principles which our country was built upon. The freedom of the first amendmant.

-ADHDsux4me

Originally posted by ledbedder20
I think those of you upset with 27jd are purposely missing a point here. I think what he's trying to emphasize is the fact that if Kerry had won, then maybe we wouldn't have as many rights taken from us. The republican party has been more and more proactive at imposing it's beliefs upon people, such as money for churches, religious sacraments in federal buildings and parks, taking away people's voices via the first amendment, taking away the right to due process, the right to be safe from law enforcement unless there is reaonable cause, the right to privacy

What a crock of crap. Just ask Roy Moore about religious sacraments or symbols on federal property. How about the fact that muslim and jewish displays are allowed on public property, but nativity scenes are not because we need to level the religious playing field? That is your idea of tolerance, isn't it?

Money for churches? Are you talking about faith based initiatives? Would you rather have the government fix every problem at ten times the cost?

And please give me one concrete instance of where your voice has been taken away, "via the first amendment" as you put it?

, the right to know that we are brothers and sisters with the rest of the world, not an imposing force to be reckoned with

The right to know? How does someone take away your right to know? Makes no sense at all.

And please tell your brothers and sisters to stop flying planes into our buildings and beheading innocent people while videotaping it, OK?

That's why he's advocating the split, not "to whine" or because he's a sore loser, but because in his America and mine, people have the right to be free, in your world, freedoms are a toleration which is allowed by the PNAC neo-conservative administration.

That is one of the most absurd statements I have heard in a long time. Where do you get off saying that in my vision of America, freedoms are to be tolerated? You, sir, are a fool for drawing such a conclusion.

#1 - I see plenty of nativity scenes during the holiday season. Roy Moore got what he deserved under our constitution, my friend. And I would never tell someone or support a president who did tell someone not to display a scene of the nativity.

#2 - Money for churches situation. Ever heard of the Presidential Prayer Team, the Christian Coalition or Ralph Reed? How about the White House Fatih-Based and Community Initiatives seminar at which George W. spoke in Dec. of 2002 in Philadelphia. Heads of national church groups and associations were invited to attend. The whole purpose of the seminar was to show churches how they could apply for and subsequently receive grants without getting in trouble. The president and his FBCI reps specifically told preachers and pastors how to get around the legalities and that they could basically do what they want with their money. How do I know? I was there, it was at the Market St. Marriot.

#3 - First amendment violations.
www.aclu.org...
If that's not enough examples, let me know, I'll find more for you.

#4 - I think you know what I was getting at b/c of your next beligerent comment.

"And please tell your brothers and sisters to stop flying planes into our buildings and beheading innocent people while videotaping it, OK?"

If you're trying to say that the rest of the world committed/commits these crimes, then I think you kust proved your own argument as ridiculous and unfounded. We're all humans and we can't crucify the international community for the acts of one group, pretty foolish thing to say buddy.

#5 - My conclusions are based upon fact, anyone that supports Bush and his administration basically okays his actions. If you think that the Patriot act, Iraq, Guantanemo Bay, the illegal arrests of peaceful protestors at the RNC and other GOP rallies constitute freedom, then I think you're the fool.

Instead of proving me right with your knee-jerk reaction to post retorts based on illogical emtions, why don't you relax, find some facts to support your beliefs and show me why I'm wrong. If anyone had showed me one reason to vote for Bush I would have, but no one has been able to respond to the facts, period.

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
. As you can plainly see it, the votes were broken up predominately like the old line's from North and South.

This is how it was broken down not as clearly cut as you might think.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
. As you can plainly see it, the votes were broken up predominately like the old line's from North and South.

This is how it was broken down not as clearly cut as you might think.

So are you saying that nobody in the red counties supported Kerry, and nobody in the blue counties supported Bush? Just because Rove convinced enough sheep that Jesus wanted them to get out the vote for Bush, does not mean there is nobody in the red counties that supported Kerry, they just were not as motivated. Most of the red counties are rural counties anyways, they should have no say over metro population centers, most of them have no clue about the city, just as I am alien to the heartland mindset. It's wrong for either side to dictate the lives of the other, that's the point of this thread. Of course we will never actually split, once again, it's just a thought. But I honestly believe the differences will not iron themselves out, if Bush thinks his new "capitol" gives him the freedom to trample our rights, he'll find out it does not. True Americans will not hand over our freedoms, conservative or liberal. I know if Kerry was elected and (of course he wouldn't have) tried to take away everybodys' guns, let's just say it would not have gone over well. You'll find we are just as passionate about the rest of our freedoms.

Im not saying that at all I was trying to show that those blue and red states were not full of support for one person.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Im not saying that at all I was trying to show that those blue and red states were not full of support for one person.

Oh, my bad, I guess we agree on that.

Originally posted by ledbedder20
#1 - I see plenty of nativity scenes during the holiday season. Roy Moore got what he deserved under our constitution, my friend. And I would never tell someone or support a president who did tell someone not to display a scene of the nativity.

Not on public property you don't. Your friends at the ACLU are making sure of that.

Re: Roy Moore

Remember who brought up this ridiculous assertion first:

The republican party has been more and more proactive at imposing it's beliefs upon people, such as money for churches, religious sacraments in federal buildings and parks,

#2 - Money for churches situation.

Which religions were excluded?

#3 - First amendment violations.
www.aclu.org...
If that's not enough examples, let me know, I'll find more for you.

Please give me examples other than routine protest march arrests which are nearly always thrown out of court. And please furnish proof that this is a Republican attempt to take away your free speech.

The ACLU is a joke these days. I could give you countless examples of their shenanigans, but I'm sure you're aware of them.

We're all humans and we can't crucify the international community for the acts of one group, pretty foolish thing to say buddy.

You are the one calling them your brothers and sisters. Not me. The difference is that I call them terrorists. You don't want to offend them, so you call them freedom fighters, and brothers in arms.

#5 - My conclusions are based upon fact,

No they are not. They are based upon half-baked sound bites from protest rallies. That's why they are not to be taken seriously.

:shk:

Great thoughts from great thinkers:

"This is the land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy" - Z dl Rocha.

"You cannot call it the land of the free until you are willing to let someone yell at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." President Andrew Shepherd.

"I should have paid more attention to my Latin classes in school. Then I could talk to you in your own language." Vice President Dan Quayle on a trip to Latin America (it was colonised by the Romans, don'tcha know!).

"It's not the pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in the air and water." President George W Bush.

"Dude, what the hell is wrong with your country?"
"Hey, you guys voted for John Howard" - conversation overheard between colleagues last night.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

"You cannot call it the land of the free until you are willing to let someone yell at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." President Andrew Shepherd.

Well, as long as we're quoting great Presidents of the United States, let us consider one of the great speeches by the esteemed former President Andrew Shepherd:

President Shepherd: For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being President of this country was, to a certain extent, about character. And although I've not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation being President of this country is entirely about character.

For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter that I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago.

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it!

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism -- you tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a whore.

Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, represent the interests of public school teachers, and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, 'cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league.

I've loved two women in my life. I lost one to cancer. And I lost the other 'cause I was so busy keeping my job, I forgot to do my job. Well that ends right now.

Tomorrow morning the White House is sending a bill to Congress for it's consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a twenty percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and hand guns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns.

We've got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up.

My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I AM the President.

www.americanrhetoric.com...

[edit on 04/11/5 by GradyPhilpott]

Thankyou for correcting my hazy paraphrase. I still stand by it as a great quote.

President Bartlett is doing a great job of carrying on his predecessor's legacy of compassionate liberalism!

You liberals need to use your brains...you anti-gun leftists would never wanna start a "civil war" with the pro-gun right. Bush is president and it sucks for you, nothing in your life is going to change in these 4 years that wouldnt have happened anyways, lemme quote a small fragment from a book about your homey John sKerry.

"Nepotism runs deep in The Order as seen in the fact that mordern finances of the Russell Trust were handled by John B. Madden Jr., a partner in Brown Brothers Harriman, formed by a merger of Brown Bros. & Company and W,A, Harriman & Company in 1933. Madden started there in the 1940s working under Senior Partener Prescott Bush, father of former president George Bush, all of them members of Skull and Bones. A More recent example of members fierce loyalty was shown in the 1980s scandal of Presiden Bushs connection with the criminal activity of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). As the banks illegal activities came to light--involving many prominent names--attempts were made by the Bush Administration to block or blunt any meaningful investigation. Finally a formal investigation of the BCCI was launched by the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and Internation Operations headed by Massachusetts senator Jon Kerry. Kerry was chairman of the Democratic Senate Subcommittee, which had recieved signifigant BCCI contributions, and he was also a member of Skull and Bones. The Kerry led investigation floundered. Jack Blum, a speical counsel to Kerry's subcommittee stated, " I had proposed a serious investigation of BCCI and was brushed aside." A high level cover-up of everything concerning BCCI was set into place after customs stumbled across their money laundering operation in Miami, and its still in place."

Look for a map of this country showing the countys and how they voted, then you will see why Bush is president.