I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
Let’s avoid the O word outside of the World news forum okay?
- Status
P
Pat_Albertson
Guest
Point taken. What do you think now?
M
Mar044
Guest
imdb.com/title/tt0805663/
season two deals with splintered u.s, a bunch of presidents…although by season 2 the show is lame but worth watching once if you can tolerate it to the end
P
Pat_Albertson
Guest
This is the page of the most recent petitions, where I got the other petitions from: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions
I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
I read the IMDB. It sounds Like Battlestar Galactica is the same thing, but in SPACE!imdb.com/title/tt0805663/
season two deals with splintered u.s, a bunch of presidents…although by season 2 the show is lame but worth watching once if you can tolerate it to the end
M
Mar044
Guest
one nut posted all those, and a bunch of nuts fell from the tree to join him, where is that squrral
P
Pat_Albertson
Guest
There is probably some truth in that, but they are not all the same. Some are copy and paste, but lots of people have signed them.one nut posted all those, and a bunch of nuts fell from the tree to join him, where is that squrral
I suspect there will be more in the coming days.
I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
I think it is a viable solution if it comes to the point that it can be done peaceably, but I don’t think it will happen. I think the chastisements promised by Our Lady Akita, followed by the Victory of Mary’s immaculate heart will make the point moot anyway.
P
Pat_Albertson
Guest
Thank you for your reply, but I was simply referring to your admonition to me not to use ‘the O word’ in this section of the forum. I redacted my post and substituted ‘the President’ for ‘the O word’.
I later thought of using ‘the White House’, but by then it was too late. Also, I replied once before this, but was knocked offline because my ISP provider started doing some maintenance, repairs, and updates at that exact moment.
I apologize to anybody whom I may have offended with my use of ‘the O word’ in the wrong portion of the forum.
A
AlexanderWSmith
Guest
Isn’t it amazing how this discussion always goes back to “it was because the white population o the south wanted slaves”.
That comes out of ignorant mouths every time the War is brought up. What never comes out though is an explanation for why the North didn’t want freed slaves coming up there. Freedom for Africans in the US didn’t truly come until the 1960s.
Poor infantrymen in the union army were not going to lay down their lives for a black man. They were not these noble leaders in the North. They raped and destroyed everything they touched. Entire towns decimated. THAT is why the South fought back. You can’t come across the line and start burning farm and expect no retaliation.
Taxes were another reason people fought. Men don’t just blindly give up their lives to their leaders for no reason anymore now than they did in other times in history. Poor white men in the South were not even fighting to preserve slavery. They were fighting or the right of their State (what used to be known as a country) to do what it pleased.
Deo vindice. True then. True today.
That comes out of ignorant mouths every time the War is brought up. What never comes out though is an explanation for why the North didn’t want freed slaves coming up there. Freedom for Africans in the US didn’t truly come until the 1960s.
Poor infantrymen in the union army were not going to lay down their lives for a black man. They were not these noble leaders in the North. They raped and destroyed everything they touched. Entire towns decimated. THAT is why the South fought back. You can’t come across the line and start burning farm and expect no retaliation.
Taxes were another reason people fought. Men don’t just blindly give up their lives to their leaders for no reason anymore now than they did in other times in history. Poor white men in the South were not even fighting to preserve slavery. They were fighting or the right of their State (what used to be known as a country) to do what it pleased.
Deo vindice. True then. True today.
P
pnewton
Guest
If we are a melting pot, then why do we we have such a division between the coastal states and the rest of the country? The red/blue map is becoming entrenched over each election cycle, not melted into purple.. WE ARE A MELTING POT! The genius and magic of the USA is our acceptance of diversity.
I disagree with diversity. In California just this year the governor banned therapy for straight parents of faith to use with their children. No, we have no acceptance of diversity. Sure, based on race (which has nothing to do with thought) or national origin. We even now have acceptance of diversity for certain immoral acts and some religions which for which it is popular to be accepting. But people of faith are still not allowed free exercise of their moral beliefs, as in the law mentioned above, as in the HHS mandate, and as in Roe v. Wade. Even at the state level we are not allowed to outlaw the taking of human life if it unpopular with the majority, as defined by the majority in the left and right coasts.
If there is so much acceptance of diversity, then why did you stoop to labeling those diverse from you as racists and “gun-toting”? That was not a statement of a tolerant person. It was a statemen of a prejudice person.
G
GEddie
Guest
It is not a divide between the coastline and the central states, except at the Electoral College level.
If you use a county-level map such as is used by the news offices during elections, you’d se the same pattern in all the states: Counties that contain major cities become blue holes in otherwise red square mileage. The effect is most pronounced in places like FL and OH, but can also be seen in CA (where geographically huge red areas are dominated by humanly huge coastal blue holes) and even in fire-engine red TX (where the counties around Dallas, Austin, etc, appear as blue holes in a red sea).
So the polarization is not by state against state; sorry CSA apologists, it’s not 1861 again. It’s big-city politics versus everybody else. And sadly for the Republicans, it will only get worse as the nation urbanizes further.
Shalom, ICXC NIKA
P
pnewton
Guest
There is always the Constitution, as written. The two mistakes that was made is a lack of check on the judiciary and the lack of foresight to see that the Commerce Clause could be used for anything and everything under the sun by the federal government to go beyond its original design. The concepts of checks and balances is brilliant, but they need to be both vertical and horizontal (within the federal government and between the states and the federal government.) It was never designed to reduce states into provinces.
I think we can all peacefully exist, but I do not think the current situation will continue more than another generation or two unless we drastically change. This century, America with either evolve or fail.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not know if you are speaking of me, but if you are, your judgment in this is seriously flawed and your assumptions way off base. Perhaps the number of posts and posters have you confused.
As to the Civil War, I think there was plenty of blame to go around to both sides. The firing on Ft. Sumpter was an ill-advised move, as was secession at that point (in my opinion). Lincoln responded very poorly as well. The invasion of Virginia was not necessary at that time, from the point of view of the North. Both sides were caught up in war fever and acted immorally as a result, at least by standards of current moral theology. Then we we see the crimes against humanity commited during the war, beyond what was moral for the prosecution of the war, America had no moral high ground then.
G
GEddie
Guest
No, I do not mean you, per se. I apologize for any offense you may have taken.
There seem to be several CSA apologists on the thread. I was addressing all of them, which may have been a mistake.
Shalom and ICXC NIKA
A
AlexanderWSmith
Guest
As a CSA apologist, I have to agree that the issues are A LOT different this time. And things aren’t nearly as bleak as 1861 was. There’s more states now that would be on the Social Conservative side now than back then.
This is not 1861 again, but I still maintain that the united states is a tyrranical government made up of 2 vastly different populations that simply do not agree on how to govern or about what kind of country they want to live in. They haven’t for ages and the melting pot indeed is a failure.
Both the liberals and social conservatives would be better off with their own countries. The social conservatives can’t out-vote the liberals or out-gun the liberals. So the ‘freedom’ that everyone loves to scream about and celebrate is poorly understood. Forcing your will on other people in the name of tolerance (ie. no mention of God outside of the home) is evil.
If God lets the world go the way its going, then I hate to say it but I think that all religions that have Gods in them will slowly die down to just a murmer.
Opinions about 1861 and secession aside, if all ya’ll don’t do something about whats going on (ie. call legislators… ask them to tell the feds to back off… get involved in politics more than posting on forums under a partially anonymous veil) then this battle will be lost.
This is not 1861 again, but I still maintain that the united states is a tyrranical government made up of 2 vastly different populations that simply do not agree on how to govern or about what kind of country they want to live in. They haven’t for ages and the melting pot indeed is a failure.
Both the liberals and social conservatives would be better off with their own countries. The social conservatives can’t out-vote the liberals or out-gun the liberals. So the ‘freedom’ that everyone loves to scream about and celebrate is poorly understood. Forcing your will on other people in the name of tolerance (ie. no mention of God outside of the home) is evil.
If God lets the world go the way its going, then I hate to say it but I think that all religions that have Gods in them will slowly die down to just a murmer.
Opinions about 1861 and secession aside, if all ya’ll don’t do something about whats going on (ie. call legislators… ask them to tell the feds to back off… get involved in politics more than posting on forums under a partially anonymous veil) then this battle will be lost.
A
Ana_v
Guest
It’s not unreasonable to think that a sizable portion of the military would refuse to attack American citizens, and that they would in fact sympathize with the secession cause, even perhaps coming to the aid of the seceding state(s).
And consider that Ron Paul received substantial support from military men and woman that surpasses that of the other candidates.
A
AlexanderWSmith
Guest
Very true that parts of the military go one way and others the other. Look at any major conflict and there’s almost always 2 ethnic groups or 2 different ideological groups involved and each controls a certain amount of the military. Generals choose which side they need to be or feel they are obligated to be on. And they don’t take the decision lightly.
G
GEddie
Guest
- You really think a few hundred million people screaming like children (I want my gay marriage…I want my pot…etc) is going or even able to silence the word of God?
- We do not have 2 separate populations. It looks like that only because of the artificial separation of the political entity into two distinct, color coded bodies, and the short term view of the people: as recently as 1976, Texas was a blue state, and California, red.
- The people are a continuum and not everybody thinks the thoughts of the color coded bodies. I voted Romney, oppose abortion and gay marriage, but am not a fan of guns, for example. Stereotypes are not good predictors of social division.
- Even if the binary “division” of the people were true, state secession is the wrong idea. The big-city blue/rural red divide exists within each state, too. What would you do once the states were independent, and CA-v-TX became L.A. vs. Central Valley? Further subdivide the states to get to a “majority” you agree with? There is NO legal provision for that to happen.
E
exnihilo
Guest
My attitudes are unaffected by the outcome of the election. I did not vote in the presidential race because I consider both candidates to support intrinsic evil. I find the system itself thoroughly corrupt and evil and I reject it entirely. I dislike the American democracy and am a monarchist.
As Pat Buchanan said ‘our two parties have become nothing but two wings of the same bird of prey’. A democracy will only be good if the people are good. As you point out our people are not very good. The culture will not correct itself through our government since our government is chosen by us. If the people will correct themselves then things will improve. But hoping the outcome of an election will fix things is getting it backwards.
- Status