I know you've thought about it. Why don't we just split the country?

I would have to move to California, but, what the hey.

strong, prosperous, and resourceful as they are now.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But the reality of splitting the country in two halves according to ideology would be disastrous - forced Exoduses usually are. Just ask the Palestinians.

I lived in the South for ten years. I often joked that "The North should have let the South secede," but the real-life version of that scenario would be a nightmare.

and all the best universities, cultural institutions, etc would be in "Blue-land" or whatever you want to call it. But wait, the Dumbfuckistanians don't like any of that intelleckshual, elitist bullshit anyhow.

I have to step in here. The South: Charleston, Savannah, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Miami, Key West, New Orleans (what is left of it), Baton Rouge, Nashville, Memphis, Orlando, Houston, Dallas, Austin...

Duke, William and Mary, Georgetown, Emory, GA Tech, FSU, University of Florida, U of VA, Clemson, Howard, John Hopkins, Rice, Texas A&M, Tulane, U of Alabama, U. of North Carolina, The Citidel, Vanderbilt....

Dumfuckistanians?

Get real.

:applause:

A variation of...

http://www.projectsomewhere.com/img/1/5507,534,800,80.jpg

I'm fine with becoming part of The United States of Canada.

I get your point.

But I need to point out that Georgetown University is in Washington, D.C.

And D.C is one of the bluest places there is.

The poster referred to "the South" as a third world country.

Dumbfuckistan, they won't get funding and will wither away. Those responsible for whatever good comes from them now will have moved to America.

I live in the deepest Bible belt and in my day-to-day life I know absolutely no fundamentalists.

Let's not tar and feather the entire south. It is an exercise in uselessness and it divides us even more.

graduate of one of those universities (UNC-CH) - I'm basically kidding around - the concept of Dumbfuckistan cracks me up.

relatively speaking. and i am in no way trying to belittle you and your's. i just can't fathom why people do what they do.

the first 45 years of my life was out in the country, in north florida, just off the suwannee river. i am a true country boy. (until i was 10, we had an "outhouse". :-) )

i finally escaped in 1996.

there are tons of good people there. good, "salt of the earth" people who will eagerly step forward when help is needed.

BUT...

those good people are either in the minority, or they don't care enough to do something about it.

when you look at the map of "red" vs "blue", it is obvious that there ARE good people in all those states.

but apparently they aren't good enough.

they are eagerly willing to compromise on the issues that are the foundation of this country, just to promote their own prejudice and bigotry.

i have lost most all of my family in florida. after i left, i went back only for funerals, and i am sickened by what has happened to that once great state.

the people there may care, but they don't care enough, or they wouldn't tolerate it.

yes, it's a changing state, but look at the demographics.

lot's of northerners, who should be more progrssive. "should" is the operative term there, since most northerners have already been exposed to more diversity. exposure usually leads to a least a tad more tolerance.

lot's of senior citizens, who should be worried about being taken care of, if needed. democrats would be the obvious choice over republicans, right?

the common element between those two communities is money. both tend to be well off, and now that they have their's, they vote their pocketbook, which is republican.

the locals are a dwindling percentage of the populace. still, they are willing to vote against their own self interest, in order to support their own prejudice (read guns, god and gays). drive a ways outside of gainesville (an oasis of blue in a sea of red) and you can still hear people use nigger, spics, goddamn jews, fags and queers. and they will use those terms while clutching their bibles to their hearts.

but that seems to be typical of all the red states.

they think real highly of god, then actually use him to promote hate.

that IS the republican way.

american will change for the better when these hate filled christians change their own ways, which is not going to happen if the republican party has any say about it.

all those "good" people LOVE the republican party. for obvious reasons.

:shrug:

now, as i read about what is happening in my home state, i am just aghast at what it has become. and very saddened.

it will change when the people change. and i am not holding my breath. "blue in the face" is SO not my color.

Bush instead of their own hometown boy, Al Gore.

After that, I just don't have fond feelings for all that good-old-boy culture.

Look what they did to our country.

For God's sake, look what they did.

was right up there in the"questionable results" dept, but didn't get as much attention as FL. It may well have gone for Gore in actuality. Lots of fraudulent and vote-suppressing activities.

n/t

Virginia Tech or North Carolina State or Georgia Tech, then.

I guess you've also never read a book by Mark Twain or James Agee - two of the best American authors ever. Heck, we can even claim Patricia Cornwell and Ann Rice. We have Ted Turner, Bill Clinton, Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, Max Cleland, James Carville and Molly Ivins. We have the Bloodworth-Thomasons, Quentin Tarantino (from my hometown), Samuel L. Jackson, Morgan Freeman, the Dixie Chicks - hell, even Lynard Skynard are big Democrats.

What utter bullshit your post is.

and half in Tallahassee, FL.

I would have to say that there were more people of, shall we say, limited perspective, up north than I have found here in the deepest south.

The North has Princeton and Harvard and Columbia, but it has it's share of jerks as well. However, I will also say that the Northerners I knew from those esteemed institutions (and I knew a lot, including family) or from the oh-so-chic cities, had very high opinions of themselves.

I am reminded of Beetlejuice where the silly lady sculptor purchases the young couple's house. The Day-O scene at the dinner table is my favorite in moviedom and a fine parody of that sort of elitism.

Maybe we should write a diatribe called "F**k the North" and include such examples as yours and the fact that they keep giving us these stone candidates with nasal accents that could never relate to a Southerners or a mid-Westerner (most of the country, in other words) if their high-tipped pinky fingers depended on it.

One caveat: I'm married to a New England liberal, lest their be any question that I'm bigoted against the North, because, obviously I'm not. But, I know my own New England liberal agrees with my assessment that our Democratic candidate needs to either come from the South or mid-West or has spent a lot of time there. He says our best hopes for 2008 are either Clark or Gore because the Bidens, Sen. Clintons, Kerrys, etc. of the campaign simply don't translate well to 2/3rds of the country, despite the fact that they are competent, intelligent and hard-working. Sadly, since the Kennedy/Nixon debate in, was it 1959 or 1960?, set the stage for appearances and how they drive elections.

(Edited to dismiss the curse word so as not to infringe up DU rules regarding slandering a region).

Two of the finest forms of music ever created. Music that is pure American, but has inspired thousands of musicians worldwide.

Who gets the Pentagon?

Would the South keep DC? Would we have to set up a new capitol in the North somewhere?

Who gets Hawaii?

Too many unanswerable questions.

(tongue-in-cheek, as was I - I know this scheme would never happen, but sometimes it's fun to dream):

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=3184

which divides things into "Red"/"Blue" rather than South/North. D.C is blue, very blue.
So, "New America" or "The United States of Canada" gets John Hopkins (plus all of the Ivy League, U. Of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, etc.)
Dumbfuckistan/Jesusland gets Ole Miss, plus others mentioned here. Symphony orchestras? World-class museums? Afraid Dumbfuckistan wouldn't fare very well here. But that's elitist intelleckshual stuff anyway. Them muzeeums have too many nekkid picshers in 'em, and that offends Jeebus. (The art museum in Oklahoma City actually has little warning signs posted at the entry to each gallery that contains nudity, and sometimes only semi-nudity. No lie.)

(The pervasive anti-intellectualism of the US is one of our worst qualities, IMHO.)

And wouldn't it be sweet to be rid of the Theocrats?

You're an idiot, and a bigot to boot.

Now let me explain why you're wrong:

TGran mentioned that many of the best universities in the country are in the South, and others cited some of our best Democrats. This is true.

There's plenty of culture in the South, if you actually open your eyes and look for it, and ignore the fact that people have a slightly different accent. I'll cite a few random examples:

Georgia has one of the best aquariums in the country (the ONLY aquarium with juvenile whale sharks), and I can personally attest that Florida and South Carolina aren't far behind in terms of quality. Pity there's no way for you to intimately make the acquaintance of the anaconda in the SC aquarium's Amazon exhibit.

There's beautiful architecture all throughout the region. Charleston (which actually has a no-skyscrapers policy), New Orleans, Atlanta, Savannah, for starters. Florida's architecture has been sadly depleted by jackass developers, but we've still got some excellent examples. Go visit Ca'd'zan in Sarasota sometime.

Most places in the South have local culture: Ca'd'zan, as mentioned above, the Dali Museum in Tampa, etc... Do some research online if you don't believe me.

I'm going to bed-got to get up at 10.

P.S. Southerners are the only ones allowed to make "South" jokes. Didn't you get the memo?

It only points out the bad things in the South and the good things in the North. There are bad and good in both.

We don't need to divide our nation. And I detest California, so I really wouldn't want to move there. I'd rather work on flipping my red state back to blue - where is was when Gore was my senator and later, when Clinton was my president.

I wouldn't have even known about it except I saw it ON DU originally.

And if I posted the content of that in a "rant", it would likely stay. Huh? :shrug:

called "Fuck the South."

http://www.annotatedrant.com/

You can get them all there. I like the fact that he provides a link to everything he bitches about.

Why?

I certainly argue on the side of the South and make no bones about it, but I don't see why we should restrict anti-Southern postings. I think it's more helpful to debunk the misconceptions of the South and mid-West than it is to ignore it.

But, that's just me.

But I still think, barring some totally absurd crap, that it's better to air out the differences.

Oh well.

.....time to try for something/anything else.:wow:

Sure, the economy's in the toilet right now, but imagine if the deficit were to stay at its insane level, while we added the costs of transporting large groups of people from state to state for relocation, meanwhile adding to the costs of security to squelch the inevitable riots, uprisings, and protests that would occur. Not to mention the increased military budget needed to keep both Americas from attacking the other. Then we'd have two Americas in a major depression.


It'd be interesting if we COULD have two different countries, each governed by the two major economic/political American philosophies, just as an experiment - which would fail, which would succeed, the libertarian model vs. the welfare state, etc. But the costs of carrying out such an experiment would be greater than the benefits.

ANd yes, I know we're only speculating here.

I don't think the competing ideologies are 'libertarian vs. welfare state'.

I think they split is fascist theocrats vs. republican democrats.

Ideologically, yeah, it'd be fascist theocracy vs. some mild form of socialist democracy (with far less socialism than Europe).

But the economic battle would be between the libertarian "no regulation, ever; every corporation for himself" corporate free-for-all vs. a highly regulated, nationalized welfare state.

At least in my shoebox scenario, it'd be. :evilgrin: Who knows, though? I just know that secession = disaster.

Hmmm, I'll be up front here and say that there are times I peruse DU even though I am a loyal Freeper. I'm waving a flag of truce here and just say I find this discussion interesting to say the least, please hold your fire, I'm not here to jeer, call names and so on, I will be respectful as any guest should be, but I will offer some observations from "the other side." First off conservatism is not a single philosophy, the same is true with liberalism. Myself, I see myself as very "Red State" on social, moral and military issues whereas on the economy, I'm more of a "Purple Stater" moderate. Even so, on the first, I'm sure many people here would disagree with me on my Red State issues but I don't want to discuss them too much. I'm not as big on economic libertarianism and I do see the need for some sort of welfare state but that should be geared to give a hand up, not a hand out. I don't believe that the free market can cure everything either, sure it has a purpose and a place but I am also open to public and/or private public combinations to solve some of our problems like having health-care for all. Also, I don't believe the economy is as good as they say it is, I've seen my share of people struggling as well as my own struggles. To be fair, I was just as critical on the economy under President Clinton as it is under President Bush. A lot of people are left behind with our jobs going offshore and the manufacturing base disappearing.

I think Red vs. Blue is too simplistic as you probably can tell from where I'm coming from, I would feel not as home in a free market over all system as much as I would under a social liberal system so you can call me a maverick. So for your idea of an experiment between laissez faire capitalist society vs a socially liberal welfare state would be interesting to see although in reality, you might have to include other forms, perhaps a 4 or 5 way (or more) division to accommodate people like myself to see who does best. In sort, think of something like a national version of Sid Meier's "Alpha Centauri" game where you have 7 or 8 factions in competition.

About dividing the US, well, I had similar views myself, just to keep us from hurting each other. I know myself and many here, we will find plenty to argue about and we tend to dig ourselves in to the point to where civil discussion goes out the window. Even some of the liberals I've debated do agree on that one but the problem is how do you do it? Logistics aside, who knows what the future holds and let's say it does happen, we can still be friends as separate nations, work together on many things like space travel, be part of NATO and so on and trade with each other, we do not have to be hostile to each other.

It seems like we are being pushed into corners on many things I see it on my side as well as yours and all it takes is someone who had their last straw and it will explode. I admit there are some principles I will never compromise on as well as I'm sure you have the same on your side. I don't hate anyone, DU or Freeper, I know myself, I've gotten into huge fires on Free Republic because I don't always tow the economic line but I do feel at home there.

I just wanted to weigh in saying that it is more complex than just left vs. right.

:thumbsup:

I mean that, sir. Welcome to DU.

The idea of splitting the country between ideologies is just nonsensical - too many variables. However, like you said, I'd be intrigued if there was some way to set up certain areas of the country to carry out the experiment re: competing economic/political models. Have one areagreen/socialist welfare state, and a neighboring state theocratic or libertarian (or whatever - rightist), give them a level playing field as regards to resources, then see which would succeed. I think that'd be fascinating to observe.

The right's talker class often speaks of wanting to engage in a "war of ideas" with the left - this'd be the perfect way to see those ideas compete against eachother in real life.

Of course, it'd never happen. Best for now to work on finding common ground. It's true that I'd never back down on certain principles (a living wage, environmental protection, women's rights, etc.), but it never hurts to see things through "the other side"'s eyes once in a while, if only to know what you're up against.

Thanks for coming over. :hi:

as we were when the criminals took over in 2000.

...should send a representative to a new council of American presidents. Meaning of course that major decisions are not being made by one knucklehead but 5 or 7 knuckleheads. The odds of better administration would get better, eh?

And, we wouldn't be able to bully..er, help, the world find it's way to our splendid version of oligarchy..er, democracy.

Aren't there any fighters on DU?

I'm curious to know your reasoning.

... have thought was worth dying for...

Seems like every other thread is "i'm running away!" or "let's just split the country" or "let's be just as bad as republicans to get power".

Sheesh.

And I want my country whole and united again as it once was. Only, however if it's a country that's true to our constitution. If we can't ever have that back again then I'm at a loss.

I go down fighting.

We lost TWO elections! Or maybe they were stolen! Time to pack up and leave! Run for your lives!

we like to think it is.

I know of the "purple" map a DUer came up with and this one also tells the story.



County by county really tells the story:


The truth is, I may despise the way the country is being run now, but when there was a balance of political power, the country was in much better shape than it is now.

My hometown is blue! In East Texas!

:woohoo:

... maps was a DUer tho - cool!

predominantly Republican so I don't think that county map is that accurate.

I think this is the accurate one

And glad to see my area of Florida blue!

We sit here and complain that our leadership isn't listening and does things that we don't approve of, so why do we assume the other side doesn't do the same? The media and some politicians find it convenient to make the divide as wide and as real as possible but most of us on both sides don't really fit the extremes. Once we get past the partisan crap and ask them what they want as an ideal goal it turns out that we differ more on how to get there than on where we want to go. The business libertarians have all but taken over the repubs, but that leaves an awful lot of social libertarian types as upset as we are about it. Check their polls among their own supporters.

We don't need to further divide the nation, we need to work our way past the people who find it convenient to keep us involved in easy fights for their own gain and see if we can't work around them and solve something.

In the course of human events differences arise amongst people of a nation. When those differences are irreconcilable they become a source of dis-harmony and dis-union. Factions also arise amongst people and they too are a source of dis-harmony and dis-union. When factions arise citing irreconcilable differences those factions are themselves irreconcilable. The nation in which those factions reside will not be at peace with itself unless one of the factions is incredibly small. However, when the factions are significant or equal in size, they must be separated mutually that they may enjoy life, liberty and may pursue happiness.

Such a situation of irreconcilable factions equal in size exists in these United States of America. Dis-harmony exists as well, and dis-union will eventually occur. When dis-union occurs the Constitution requires it be resolved in order to form a more perfect union. A single union is no longer possible. The factions must be separated into unions of their own with an amendment to the United States Constitution. The drastic nature of this action requires an explanation of the irreconcilable differences.

They cannot agree upon the time at which life starts.

They cannot agree about the importance of religion and it's place in society.

They cannot agree upon the rights of this free people.

They have abused the method of impeachment and advocated in cases wherein the seriousness of the charges was in doubt.

They cannot meet and discuss in a civil manner.

Individuals from either faction have threatened violence against one another.

They have become so unified that the separation of powers between the political branches is in doubt.

They have abused the oversight functions of the Legislative upon the Executive; whether that abuse be overuse or under use.

They have resorted to petty parliamentary procedure to gain advantage over one another.

They have repeatedly accused each other of being "unpatriotic" when clearly both sides were loyal to this nation.

They have used the instruments of government to deny the profound needs of one another.

When differences number so highly and are so profound separation is required. It is the only solution to the problems of this nation. No longer will it be acceptable for either faction to gain power and use that power to deny the wants of the other. The Constitution demands that a more perfect union be formed; a more perfect union will be one that is amicably separated.

I am not attempting to be radical, I am attempting to prevent violence, and thusly tyranny. Debt could be apportioned to the population of the states broken off. Each person would have to carry the approx 30,000 we owe each, when the new nation was formed the debt could be nationalized. The assets would be divided along with the territory. Non-territorial assets would apportion based upon the percentage of population in each new country. On that matter of Balkanization I think that it is inevitable that people have difference of opinion. I think that for a while this would occur. I think however the differences would be about reconcilable things. There unfortunately would have to be a mass migration of people from states wherein it was settled that certain a culture or nation would have jurisdiction, and those people did not wish to be apart of that jurisdiction. People would have to weigh their happiness with the economics of the matter. They may have to be a relocation board.

This appears at first to be very radical, but it will in the long run prevent great loss. Stability has been declining, I had been preparing a document similar to this one which actually was less radical and called for a second President or even a executive council, but I saw a silly little thing that convinced me this has to happen. Bob Beckel was talking on Hannity and Colmes (don't rib me now) and he was talking about how he had suffered death threats. Then I think it was Sean said it was apart of the business and that Beckel wasn't special. I realized they were both right to some degree. There are always a bunch of nuts out there that will go crazy and stalk someone, but I have a feeling both Hannity and Beckell had received more threats than non-partisan figures. I started think about terrorism and how we got to al-Qaeda and 9/11. I realized that even though most of the population is just having fun scoring points on the other side, that there are those crazies out there who make death threats. What would America be like if those people started carrying out terrorist attacks? It would be far worse than al-Qaeda; why? Think about it, with al-Qaeda people, if they don't live in a big city, don't need to worry much about terrorism. Liberal Kansas isn't going to get hit by terrorists, they make think so, but it ain't happenin'. However, domestic terrorism could happen anywhere at any time. People couldn't live their lives fearing terrorism all the time.

The people would try to give up more and more freedoms to protect themselves from the domestic terrorists, and this would eventually lead to someone taking over this country and making it a dictatorship. (Many think this is happening now with threat from al-Qaeda, it is certain to happen if this scenario is to come true.) The violence doesn't even have to go beyond a couple of nuts each year, just a few, that is the problem. I don't really think that most normal people want war or terrorism so they would be shocked away by this violence, but that wouldn't change enough of the radicals.
Of course this may not happen and the violence could escalate much in the way it did after Bleeding Kansas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas ). Really bad.

Or we could resolve the issues. I think that this is impossible because they are yes and no kinds of things. Either you have abortion or you don't. Now, there are people in either party who share mixed beliefs, but there is historical precedent for these mixed beliefs having little impact.

Look at the American Revolution from Britain. I mean, really, if you look at some the issues it was just a bunch of old white men who were pissed off because they had to pay taxes. Some of the concerns were very valid however.

We can look at the cultural divide today (which is the primary issue) and compare that to the divide between the USA and Britain. The first Americans were religious extremists. They were, don't go there with me. They made the British look like party-boys. They were only the first and soon followed more "normal" kinds of people and the society in America turned away from extremism and as it did so, it also diverged from that of Britain. Americans developed their own lives, their own accent, own language in some senses, own food, and their own political ideologies. Britain tried to repress them and in fact didn't take them seriously (when Ben Franklin went to Britain he was treated as a country bumpkin.) This drove America away from Britain. There was a sort of culture war. There were some people in the colonies that supported Britain, but the vast majority of people eventually turned against them.

This is much like the cultural divergence in America today. I personally believe cultural divergence is one of the unresolved issues of the Civil War. Just look at the debate over the Confederate flag as an example. There are people who believe it represents their culture, and there are people who believe it represents slavery. Look at all the silly conservative talk shows about the "war on Christmas." The thing is that it really doesn't matter if there is a war on Christmas, if people think there is one it is a part of their culture. To some degree people are more secular these days that is if they live in big cities. This is the divide. Urban vs. Rural. A lot of people hate country music if they live in the city and don't take it seriously; country folks love it and are offended when people insult it. This is just like Ben Franklin when he went to Britain. Cultural devaluation is a catalyst for cultural divergence. Simply put, if you don't like something you don't listen to it, or read it, or in general participate in it. This has been happening for a while in America.

The real and recent problem is political instability. Look at Bill Clinton's impeachment. Look at the 2000 election. Look at how conservatives are lock step on 99% of the issues. Now, Democrats are also becoming lock step. The factions have divided and are radicalizing as we speak. That brings me back to the Beckel Hannity & Colmes bit. These people were being completely calm, but they were completely outraged at each other. If the calm people feel that way, what about the nuts? I just am very worried about this. Screw al-Qaeda, we may have a freakin' Civil War. You know how awful that would be? Iraq in America people. The horror (I don't mean that comically.) I just wish we would back away from this radicalism, but it isn't just that simple. Dr. King, a man of peace, said people should be judged upon their character not their skin color. I take that to mean that people should judge each other because their ideals, not because of stupid irrelevant differences. This isn't about that though. These are ideas we are talking about not just arbitrary physical differences. If there is only one thing in this world worth fighting for, it is what we believe in. Obviously Dr. King was non-violent, but he was dealing with a resolvable problem. If we remain in the same political system the only way this is to be resolved is through domination. This has been happening and will continue to happen. Domination may start with a D but it is not democratic. People, when they have chosen destinies far apart, must separate to get where they are going. We must separate, or face perpetual tyranny and unhappiness.


Hopefully the mere publicizing of this will cool people down. The core unresolved issues will still remain, I guess we just be kicking the can down the line.

tougher to split the United States into two than it would be do just gain a majority in the government.

in the 1800s

time.

Divide and conquer. After the split they would continue to do the same and eventually have it all. The people (demos) must hang together or hang separately.

I wholeheartedly agree. I will fight to the death. Live free or die.

BUT

The 'other side' will NEVER be responsive to logic. We can NEVER really resolve many of our issues (abortion being the best, and easiest-pointed-to example). And THEY will not stop until we are all living in a fascist theocracy. This will go on and on and on.

Wouldn't you rather live in a more Canada-like place?

Canada has it's own problems.

The things you mention will be contentious forever because people honestly disagree. You can't live in a society where everyone agrees.

However, it IS possible to find pockets of folks who mirror your political views here and there. You don't find a whole lot of fundamentalists living in Manhattan, for example...or Boston.

I love the South. Have no desire to live anywhere else, as I've discovered (except perhaps to move back to the UK some day).

But I don't fit in here. Having said that, despite politics, I think I might fit in LESS someplace else. Someplace where people don't understand that football is a religion, fried chicken is manna from heaven, and "y'all" is the best word in the English language.

This was obviously a devil's-advocate type of OP. I do think there are irreconcilable differences, though. The shame would be that Austin, New Orleans, etc (all named above) would be lost forever to the theocrats.

and to hell with the rest of us?

Unthinking, elitist, inhumane........:puke:

I'm really tired of this, I'm no longer inclined to even grace it with a thoughtful reply.

EDIT: Funny misspelling.

So be it. Who usually uses that word? McCarthy...? Get a grip.

I am a citizen of the world. American is not a shining city on a hill. Get over it.

... this country, and would want to protect it from those who explicitly seek to divide it, are labelled "McCarthy".

It's hard to improve a country that's been destroyed. I believe improvement is possible, and that the pessimistic "let's just put the country outta its misery" is a both awful and cowardly idea.

is a ridiculous thing to hurl at other DUers. Makes you sound like a freeper. That was my point.

I don't want to "put the country out of its misery". I just want to leave the fascists to themselves, so the rest of us can get on with it. They will never be stopped. Unless you advocate a philosophical cleansing...?

Edited to add: I don't even mind being called unamerican, anyway. Like I said, I'm a citizen of the world. I'd rather be HUMAN. America is just another empire, now waning.

:shrug:

"Unamerican" !?!?!

You are the one being elitist. Only YOU can define what "American" is. Psh. I am as American as you. Firstly, because I was born here by an accident of fate and am a citizen of this country. And second, because the only authority I respect is the Constitution. An idea most so-called 'patriots' would do well to latch on to. It's all about the Constitution, stupid. That's it, as far as I am concerned. Beyond that, I am free to believe, think, say whatever the hell I want. It makes me no less American.

You saying that is like a freeper saying liberals are 'unamerican' because we don't share their values/beliefs.

I completely support your right to talk about how you want to split the country up - I've never said, suggested, or implied otherwise, regardless of your claims to the contrary.

An idea. To be discussed. Preferably without flinging the term "unamerican" at people.

:shrug:

My point in response to your reaction is that America is just another country, it's not sacred, it's not permanent. Like everything else in the universe. Yin. Yang. Etc.

It was unamerican when the south did it. It's just as unamerican now.

I don't see how that's even remotely close to a debatable issue.

the UNITED STATES of America, it would be, therefore "unAmerican" to discuss dissolving the union.

thanks for crystalizing it!

a shining city on the hill for many of our ancestors. Not perfect. But salvation from (in my family) the coal mines of Lancashire, the mills of Manchester, the famine of Ireland, the death camps of Germany.

When we give up on being the shining city it is over. We should always have that goal in mind. It is what we could be again.

Oh, to have stayed in Britain, where people are, comparatively, sane. :eyes:

It's possible such DUers might find another country more suitable to their hopelessness, per your own suggestion.

Screw you, this is my country, too. I ain't going nowhere.

And I did live for four years in England. Which, in most ways, IMHO, is superior to the USA, a big country filled with tiny, tiny brains.

Au revoir, fascists.

The shining city is just a metaphor. Every country should strive to be a shining city on the hill.

What does that mean? Although you're ready to divorce the southern half of the US, you're prepared to hold hands and drink coca-cola with peoples who practice female genital mutilation and incarcerate homosexuals?

I so love a well thought out philosophy. :eyes:

... that'll pass through the red states.

They're just begging for it.

What a wonderful citizen of "the world".

:sarcasm:

I was just trying to clarify my original intention and thoughts for the OP.

Liking the South is now elitist? That's a new one.

I love how you can't post ANYTHING without the flame-throwers coming out. :eyes:

The point is, It's not just about our individual likings. Hell, I've got no use for any spectator sport, hate okra and have a Grand Dragon living 1/2 a mile from me. But there are plenty of good people living here, many of color, would you make them and me refugees? As to voting trends, what has the Democratic Party done for working people in recent decades? THe repubs offer stuff and nonsense, and apparently that beats nothing.

Sorry if I came off harsh but this meme has been going around for too long and does not help the Democratic Party one bit, all it does is reinforce the image of the elitist liberal.

It's arrogant elitist bullshit.
Worse yet, it divides us.
Maybe that's the point.

Hello. I asked has anyone else thought about this? I didn't even say I wanted to do it.

And now disliking fascist theocrats is elitist?! Guess I am one, then.

Did you not SEE that I am from TEXAS?!

I will be sending that one around

engines of the country (NYC, LA, SF, Boston etc.) are mostly in "our half" of the country, the absolute truest bluest parts.

Some of the heavy hitters are in the "deep red" part also, but it's no contest really.

Would not be chopping up or off any part of the country, but a defined split off of those who would allow this regime to remain in power long enough to have to be recognized by the world!
Whatever will be-

This has been kicked around since the early days of DU, the fictional nation of Pacifica or Cascadia was created then. I'm all for splitting the nation into east and west at the continental divide. Depending on how the wind blows on DU we can sometimes discuss it and at other times the threads get locked and removed.

I personally think we need to go to a parliamentary system or at least a run off voting system so that every vote counts not just a winner or loser, and that breaks down to our side and their side. This isn't really very good for democracy as the last thirty years have proved.

However, as a Californian and a member of the fifth largest economy in the world, I often think that all our money is going back east to Bush's war machine. We remain sitting here with all our problems that no one can solve except with that money and yet we can't use it for ourselves. At these times secession looks tempting.

now!

:)

I'm all for the breakup. Not along political lines, so much as the allure of not being #1 (in the minds of the "patriotic"). I think it would be delightful to live in a country that doesn't need to bully the world to keep afloat and prove it's testosterone count.

Most of Western Europe seems to get by without flexing it's muscles and trumpeting it's "leadership".

Because Frankly, I am sick of fighting the other sides bullshit-it is fucking endless! Let em have at it with each other, because you know those narrow minded reich wing idiots gotta have it their way or else! :puke:

As long as you keep on purchasing whether you need it or not and keep paying all taxes when you could stop paying even federal for several months- -

and leave the north to the progressives. Who is going to feed the north? What armies will protect them?

And finally, when via election and representation another right winger gets elected in the north, then what? Split MA down the middle?

The only solution is to work it out. States based on ethnic groups and religious beliefs haven't worked out so well, either. There are always differences. Always. Then you are back to square one with half the resources.

I don't see those resources helping the people of this country get health care or job protection or better schools or cars that don't pollute the planet etc. Canada doesn't have a big ole army and they are getting along fine without the chaos, bullshit and lies the rethuglicans bring to the table while they spend each passing day whittling away at the constitution in their dogged determination to destroy it.

Me, I'd prefer to see this country actually function and soar on the ideals it was founded upon which starts with the separation of church and state. I absolutely despise the religious whack-jobs that have twisted every important issue in this country into one giant clusterf*ck. Those idiots don't seem to love or want the same kind of america that the founding fathers intended for this country to be. Nor do those nuts want the kind of country that the MAJORITY of the population wants, so why not let em have a go at founding the kind of country they want?!

Meanwhile the rest of us can get on with having the kind of country we want-we would be so much happier without them-and vice versa.

... taking your ball and running home whining to one's mommy.

"I'll never play with him AGAIN! nyah!"

Damn childlike cowards.

It is you who are the coward who must cling to a system that is broken and can never be fixed. What's in for you to insist that nothing should change, when that change would be for the better?!

It is much braver to face the unknown than cling to something that is over and done, useless and broken; just like a toddler with it's blanket or pacifier who is unwilling to part with something they do not "need". :eyes:

... that's ALL you making shit up.

I'm all for improving this country. A sine qua non for that, though, is that the country EXIST. Which is contrary to your suggestion.

And you're right - cowardice is NOT the only possible reason for one to be pro-dissolution of the country. Hopelessness is another reason for someone to be pro-dissolution - and that seems to cover your "broken and can never be fixed" sentiments.

Of course, there's a fair bit of self-fulfilling prophecy about it all - the more people say how unfixable the country is, the more it becomes true. Which is one of the biggest reasons pro-dissolution people get crapped on by those of us with hope - pro-dissolution people make out job even harder.

Is being hopeful childlike? Maybe. But I'll take THAT kind of childlike-ness over your hopeless pro-dissolution throw-it-in-the-trash "adult" view any day of the week.

I hoped we wouldn't go to war.
I hoped that Kerry would win the presidency.
I hoped that Kerry would fight the stolen election and save us from *.
I hoped that Congress would fight for the people and not pass the bankruptcy bill.
I hoped that Congress would Impeach * for his illegal war.
I hoped that the media would finally turn against * once and for all after Katrina.
I hoped that the people would raise up and Impeach the bastards in office.

Oh how I hoped and hoped and hoped!

You want to talk hope?! Well, every single one of MY HOPES for saving this country and it's good people have all been dashed. Every time. Every single fucking time!

Who doesn't want this country to come together and fix what is broken?! But how can it be fixed when GREED is the only thing that matters to the powers that be? How do you change anything when the bastards responsible for all the destruction and the infighting have control of the voting machines?!


I LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND WANT WHAT'S BEST FOR IT.

But what is the best for this country anymore? What will bring us all together? Has the war? Has Katrina? Has the crappy economy? Has Outsourcing? Has the high gas prices? Has the fear of global warming? NO!

NOTHING has brought us all together because most people are too busy frowning upon other people who are different than they are-be it race, religion, income, education, looks, weight, health-that they don't stop and see the humanity in EACH & EVERY ONE OF US!

And it's only getting worse: When religious wackos stomp all over other people by insisting they be able to pray in public places like schools-we got a problem. When people don't care that others are getting outsourced/insourced out of their jobs and are now the working poor-we got a problem. When other people decide what is best for a woman and her OWN body-we got a problem. When people don't care that some people don't get to vote-we got a problem. When the government spies on us-we got a problem. When 2 people who love each other can't get married because of their gender-we got a problem. The damn list is endless!

Do you see a solution EVER to any of it? Because I don't. Not with the whack-jobs that have bought and paid for and now control the government and the media!

Make no mistake, the powers that be like it this way because while we are all fighting among ourselves, we can't properly fight them!!! :grr:

... while those of us who AREN'T hopeless try make these UNITED states a lil more united? And a lil better off generally?

Or is that too much to ask?

A few points.

My Canadian cousins tell me Canada has a very nice army, thank you very much. They are visiting from Ottawa.

So when we encounter ideals we don't agree with we say, "Here ya go, here's half the country."

And let's talk a little about realities. Your labor pool is going to be rather skewed. Go into an Assembly of God church and take a poll. They are the truck drivers, the retail workers, the secretaries, the blue collar folks. Our United States of Metropolis is going to be very heavy in performance artists, and university professors. (all productive folks, but ....)

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. We have a Constitution. We have elections. We just need to use the systems that are in place.

And I am not sure I want every person I encounter in life to be a progressive Democrat. Sometimes you learn more from people you disagree with than you do from the echo chamber.

whomever we buy food from (and now we won't be paying for every meal twice, once as taxes to pay farmers and then again when we go to eat it.)

What Armies would protect us? State National Guards (we would bring them home), the Coast Guard, and the Navy (look at the major Bases.) Shoot the base in New London could blow all kinds of things up.

There is even a chance that financially we could be a lot better off. Google reserve currency, the "real american pie" would stay the same size, but the portions would be huge.

you want to give half our nukes to right wing fundamentalists who believe the Rapture is imminent?

I don't THINK so. Remember, they will be living next DOOR to you and YOU will have absolutely no say in how they run their government, and whether they decide that maybe they are the only ones righteous enough to survive?

No, you don't become strong by separating. You become strong by communicating, negotiating, uniting and understanding. Separate and you have twice the problems.

I realize the OP is presenting a hypothetical, but it is an exercise for losers. You would have untenable situations, demanding that people move away from ancestral roots based on ethnicity, religion, culture? I keep thinking of Sarejevo. Refugees? I own land in Florida that it took me years to pay for. By virtue of my culture and religion I would need to move up north somewhere, a place I purposely left because of pollution, overcrowding and crime. My story would be repeated over over the country millions of times over. And for what? So people don't have to listen to country music or hear somebody say Merry Christmas? I thought we were all about diversity? Seems we have a very narrow view of said diverstiy. Diversity we approve of? That's not life. That is a fairy tale.

toss in Oklahoma too. Then we consolidate Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana into a super-state. Then we name this super-state something like "Valueland" and we even give people $200 American each year just for living there that way they never move.

But you are very right about the Nukes

I'm sorry, I maybe liberal and live in the Dallas-Ft Worth area...but I'm not willing to move simply because of my political beliefs. My family is very varied with politics, some pretty conervative ranging all the way to very liberal, but politics has never come between any of us.

I like being close to my family and I'm not out of state, just because it's red.

And TG you're exactly right:
"I thought we were all about diversity? Seems we have a very narrow view of said diverstiy. Diversity we approve of? That's not life. That is a fairy tale."

So the country is split and there's an exodus of people to each side. What happens if someone becomes more liberal/conservative, do they have to move? Does it mean that I should move to California and away from my family, because my parents are more conservative? What about couples like my brother (conservative) and sister-in-law (liberal)?

Just because there's a country of people calling themselves Democrats, it doesn't mean that they're going to just automatically get along.

And what about people that are socially liberal and economically conservative? I know quite a few that classify themselves that way; where do they go?

I don't dividing up the country is going to help anyone. It may seem like a nice idea, but in reality it just doesn't work out.

Because I'm an anarchist.

But it seems to me that this American experiment is going to fail. Irreconcilable differences.

Gotta go to the bookstore.

:hi:

I'd be going to Oregon though.

destroyed their half, just like we always have to bail them out from the irresponsible messes they always make. These naughty children of America simply cannot manage and govern effectively, because they can't keep themselves from stealing everything they can get away with, and truth be told, they're simply not all that bright. We'd have to feed them, send them supplies, make sure they were protected from invasion, etc. ad nauseum

That said....yeah, I can do that.

So, I have a pen...where do I sign?

y'all can fight over the rest.

This South-bashing and Heartland-bashing is pathetic as is why we lose. I grew up in a rural area and I do not like us being called ignorant, knucle-dragging hicks, it confirms in many peoples' minds the stereotype of Democrats as urban elitist snobs. In most states the margins of victory were less then 55%-45%. We are not as divided geographically as it looks, that is an illusion of our winner-takes-all election system, it is mostly a rural-suburban vs. urban division. Austin, Texas is just as liberal as NYC, rural Pennslynavia is just a conservative as rural Kansas. Also, most of these rural areas vote Repug because of God, Gays, and Guns even though they are left-wing economically. Just dropping the gun issues would make many to switch to the Dems, for example.

The divide in this country is not geographical by any means. Not to mention there are more "swing voters" than partisans.(mostly due to apathy)

I am more concerned with the religious right and their social battles causing mayhem than I am with politics in general. They got to power by working locally and wiggled up, we must do the same.(focus locally)

:evilgrin:

(i just realized the scariest, and perhaps most amusing, part of that comment was that in the deepest, darkest recesses of my soul that wasn't wholly sarcasm :7)

:hi: thanks for asking the uncomfortable question StellaBlue. facing the devils within keeps us honest and healthy.
:D

not like it would be much different.

:shrug:

:rofl:

The red, the blue and Aztlan. That would not only solve our immigration problems, but it would solve our political differences as well.

:(

and we're gonna have to move in with the red-staters after that, so we'd better learn to make nice now. It's gonna get a lot more crowded around here soon enough.

With a little tact, and intelligent framing, this topic could have really opened up some dialog and awareness, on how empires throughout history such Rome, Greece, Persia, England, have striking and scary similarities with the current United States of America. We could have pointed out and dissected the parallels in other empires histories with our own, and picked apart how we ourselves are following yet another typical cycle of empire and conquest, and point out to others how it got conceived, grew, got horribly over-sized, stagnated, and presently stands on the verge of collapse under its own sheer weight.

But instead, it turned into typical region bashing.

It's really sad, because I travel a lot. A WHOLE lot. I have been to every state in this union, and half of the countries of the world. One thing that I have found over the course of my wanderings, is that there is no clear cut generality or stereotype that really, REALLY is true, and deserves to be applied to any region of the country, or of the world for that matter. The most rabid, die-hard, blue bleeding Democrats that would give you the shirts off of their backs that I have ever met were in Columbus Mississippi, and Nashville Tennessee. The most vile, neo-conservative, hate mongering bigots that believe that Jews were lying about the holocaust and blacks should be herded up and shipped back to Africa, were in Lakeside California and Medford Oregon.

So when people use region bashing as a forum to air out their own ignorances about where other people live, and paints entire swaths of the country with a broad brush, for the express purpose of making their own sad selves feel better, it just makes me a little testy. Likewise, when I see stuff about how "this region will be where all future great accomplishments will be done", and "this region should be named 'dumbfuckistan'"really just makes me shake my head, and not in a good way either.

Guess what; we are all in this together. Throughout human history, this type of region bashing has been encouraged by those in power, because it keeps the masses harping on the differences among ourselves, and keeps all of us distracted from the fact that they are consolidating the money out of our treasuries, shipping off our livelihoods to overseas sweatshops, and sending our children off to die in far away lands to keep their empire fed, and growing. It's a very simple principle, yet it happens to work extremely well.

So next time anyone feels the desire want to puff out your chest, and fill yourself with some sort of faux-pride by bashing the "ignorant rednecked shitheads" in Alabama, or "the "militant crazies" in Montana, or the "freaks, druggies, and gay-boys" from San Francisco, please keep this in mind before you hit Post message. In some cases it actually IS better to stay silent and be thought an idiot, than to post something that millions may read and remove all doubt.

Sorry, region bashing is a pet-peeve of mine. /rant

I support a national debate on this topic, not so much for the purpose of a split, but for the purpose of getting people to think about what it is that they are advocating and supporting with their votes. Force them to think about the consequences of living in a society that their party lobbies for.

The republican view of the Constitution and our national identity:

~ allows no wall between religion and government.

~ no "entitlement" programs

~ privitization of services to meet the public's needs

~ no regulations on business

~ no taxes

~ no civil rights protections

~ limited civil liberties protection


Let, under the guise of a split of our nation into two, people debate and talk about what it is that they are advocating, the consequences of it, and under which view of the Constitution would they like to live.


Liberal view of the Constitution and our national identity:

~ solid wall between church & state

~ fair tax system--big-business & the wealthy pay their fair share, burden not on the little guy

~ social safety net/government programs to assists people who need a hand so that they may live with dignity

~ regulate business to prevent monopolies, prevent big-business from harming workers & the environment

~ protection of minorities, level the playing field. this certainly includes equality for gays and women's reproductive rights

~ strong protection of our civil liberties. no branch of government has the right to over-ride our rights




Lets have this debate. Let repubs consider living in the hell that they are proposing. Then poll--"which 'nation' would you choose to live in?" It is my belief that the overwhelming majority of Americans would choose the Liberal view of the Constitution.

I'M ALL FOR IT! LET THE RED STATES FEND FOR THEMSELVES - EVENTUALLY THEY WILL GO TO HELL WITHOUT US


As for those red staters who are patriotic as we are in the North, they can come up here and we'll send down our reich wingers. That's a fair enough trade off.



SECESSION!!!