I've had it !.... The only solution is to split !

[RethugAssKicker]

I don'tknow about anyone else... but I just can't take it anymore !

The rethugs are not my brothers and sisters, not my friends !... They are murderous, tribal-thinking simpletons... You can not convince them of the error of their ways. They stand for exactly the OPOPOSITE of everything that is GOOD or can be good in America.

I will not list all the EVIL, backward, imperialistic ways of the rethugs, you all know what they are... I however, don't wish to occupy the same country as them, as they will/are certain to bring us to disaster !... I will not leave my beloved country either.

I want this country to split into two separate soverign nations!.. One with a liberal mindset, the other conservative... There is no other solution...

I don't know how to actually do this!... ALL I know at this point is that it MUST be done... Anyone with me??

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Uh, Civil War II???

[RethugAssKicker]

7. No, a peaceful split.....

If possible....

[sinkingfeeling]

22. But Lincoln went to war to keep the Union together...don't you think

whoever's president would do the same? Don't think the GOP would like losing all that 'blue state' money!

[winter999]

40. Lincoln was a Republican.

[RethugAssKicker]

51. In 1860 the Republicans were like 1970s Denocrats

[jadedconformist]

72. Touche n/t

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[Chipper Chat]

2. If the rethugs manage to steal this fall's elections

then this movement may blossom. South Carolina already wants to be the capitol of a new Jesusland. Jerry Falwell is chain-masturbating at the prospect.

[raccoon]

105. If this happens, they can relocate the blue South Carolinians to

Minnesota or someplace. I hope.

[jobycom]

3. Down here, we tried that once before

Didn't go so well for us.

[Warpy]

19. Yeah, I always think Lincoln was wrong about that

and should have let you all go. Mechanization would have made slavery unprofitable within 50 years maximum, and the south would have had its educated class intact without the war, ready to lead the region into coming to terms with the change in economic policy and resultant large free black population.

I'm sure you would be back by now, but as a very different and much more enlightened region without the war and the horrible thing that Reconstruction was perverted into. You'd be in a position to lead us away from the often rigidly yuppie northeast and beltway establishments, and that would be a good thing.

Jesse Helms would have lived and died a minor newspaper gadfly, anyway, without having a political career based on how much he could piss New Yorkers off. That alone would have been well worth a temporary estrangement.

In any case, it's fun to speculate on what might have happened without that war.

[RethugAssKicker]

27. The North should have occupied the South.. and jailed

the land/slave barons.... That alone would have made a major difference... Now look at what we have... The South has truly risen again..its called Washington D.C.

[Virginia Dare]

28. In large part, that's what they did....

at least here in Virginia anyway.

[newspeak]

86. but some years after the civil war

many influentual plantation owners were given back their lands and became influentual once again in the South.

[Bridget Burke]

29. 50 more years of slavery?

My ancestors were NOT slaves (unless you go back to the Bronze Age), but I can't just shrug that off.

[Warpy]

50. Nor can I, but think of what those freed slaves faced

after Reconstruction was morphed into the horror it became: think sharecropping and Jim Crow laws.

It's just very hard to know whether or not a peaceful transition to a non slave based economy might have been better for everyone.

We do know the Jim Crow south was a horror.

[Bridget Burke]

66. Jim Crow laws didn't start until late in the 19th century.

And sharecropping was tough on everybody--including a bunch of poor whites.

But slavery is far worse.

[jobycom]

34. Wow.

I've never heard a non-southerner agree with all that. My take, too, though, from this distance, it's sure hard to judge. Slavery as an economic force was doomed, and I think in less than 50 years. An evolution away from it may have allowed people's attitudes to change, rather than causing people to sleep inton defiance/denial mode for a century. Although, there's no gaurantee that slavery would have ended just because it wasn't profitable. Scaled back, of course, but manors were adicted to their house servants.

That's just a "couldhavehappened" scenario, though, and it's easy for a white guy like me to say it. On the ground, at the time, with the horrors of slavery stealing so many lives... It's hard to say Lincoln was wrong. It was one of those times that there was no good solution, only two bad ones to choose. At least Lincoln made his choice work.

[coalition_unwilling]

46. I take issue with the "slavery was doomed" trope. The facts

suggest otherwise. (Check James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" for more on this.)

The fact that after 1876, pseudo-slavery returned to large swaths of the South suggests that slavery was far from doomed.

[newspeak]

85. don't you think that if the south wanted to do business

with England, who was very much against slavery, that the southern states would eventually had to abolish slavery? To do business with Europe and England, the South may have been forced to abolish slavery.

[Warpy]

54. I'm not exactly "not a southerner."

I lived in NC from the time I was 10 until I got out of high school. Part of that was during the Civil War Centennial, so I got a thorough education on the Great Unpleasantness from the southern point of view.

There is no way to overstate what a catastrophe that war was for the south. Anything to avoid it would have been preferable.

[raccoon]

106. You said that right,

"There is no way to overstate what a catastrophe that war was for the south."

The South lost so many men. NOt to mention the destruction of the infrastructure.

[coalition_unwilling]

39. You "always think that Lincoln was wrong"? I'm generally

anti-war, and there's a part of me that occasionally wonders whether Lincoln was wrong. Do you really think, however, that any nation can allow itself to disintegrate when a minority of its citizens decides it no longer wants to affiliate? (That's what the Civil War was about, although slavery was the underlying reason for the secession movement.)

But two of my ancestors (on father's side) fought in the Iron Brigade (saved the day for the Union on more than one occasion). I'm pretty sure the ideal of holding the Union together as "the last, best hope of mankind" probably motivated some of them to fight as they did.

[Warpy]

45. Dunno, but other nations have split apart and survived

and empires are always failing and splitting into their component parts.

It's interesting to think about.

I do think the union would have been reestablished at some point, though, if only for economic reasons.

[coalition_unwilling]

56. Don't mean to re-fight the Civil War (or War Between the States)

with you, but . . .

No one counted the votes of the slaves in the South when answering the question of whether to "let the South go" or "try to maintain the Union."

Just because slim or even significant majorities of Southern whites may have wanted to secede to preserve plantation power does not mean that universal manhood suffrage would have produced majority votes for secession.

Lincoln, in 1860, campaigned explicitly on a campaign of keeping the Union together and restricting slavery to its current boundaries. So I'm not sure why Lincoln "should have let the South go."

[jobycom]

77. The US Constitution was ratified without any slaves approving as well

So that nullifies it? If so, the South was justified. If not, the South was justified (on this narrow issue).

My only question, treating the Civil War as a current event for the sake of discussion on whether the CW was a good or bad thing is whether or not it brought about more peace and freedom. That's a hard question. Horrible numbers on both sides died, and the South continued--like Iraq--to suffer a igher death rate after the war because of the poverty and living conditions. This killed black and white southerners. It also created an animosity that has not faded between races, and was a primary cause in the continued repression and abuse of one group of people. The death toll was very high. That's the part we know. What we don't know is how long slavery would have lasted otherwise, and whether the transition from it would have been easier than what followed. That's a point that will always be debated. But I don't by any argument that starts off with "The South wasn't justified, or committed treason, or whatever." The North didn't believe that, or they would have tried it in court. They very pointedly avoided doing so, because the prevailing view was that the SOuth MAY have been legally justified, and no one wanted a court ruling that the North was wrong and all the results of the War had to be undone.

[coalition_unwilling]

80. Actually, you're technically incorrect. Various Confederate

officials, like the commandant of the Andersonville prison camp, were tried after the war (albeit not for treason).

You don't consider it "treason" to fire on a facility owned and operated by the U.S. government? (I'm referring, of course, to Fort Sumter.) If so, then exactly how do you define "treason"?

As for the general lack of war crimes trials after 1865, I chalk most of that up to the heritage of Abraham Lincoln who, even after he died, managed to rein in the most strident of the "radical Republicans."

One of my favorite sayings by Lincoln: "The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make him a friend." Those words seem especially appropriate today.

The point about the legitimacy of Southern secession is that its nominal support by segments of Southern white males was not the result of universal manhood suffrage by any stretch of the imagination.

[newspeak]

91. my ancestors fought on both sides of the war

as I have read, after Congress recessed two Southern senators were arrested with no charges being made. Imagine two Democratic senators today being arrested--that alone would have caused an upset in the South. Slavery was morally wrong, however, some in the South were arguing against northern industrialists that the working conditions, labor and low wages of the north was just as much of slavery as in the south. Some in the south attempted to justify the owning of slaves, not in terms of freedom but how they treated their slaves better than what some of the laborers were being treated by the north. This mentality, as if slaves were like children or animals, even exists today. I had a relative who was from the South who remembers his great aunt who owned slaves, that treated those slaves really good, better than how some employers treated their workers. Couldn't get him to understand that a slave has no rights, no choices, except what the master wanted. However, that is some people's mentality. In the Civil War, you had families fighting against families--federal against state rights, abolitionism against slavery. We've been fighting over states' rights and federal rights from the creation of our country. Would we, as a nation, be better off if we would have split? The debate rears it's ugly head again. Is there room for a middle ground, or are both sides so divided that there is no room for middle ground? As a nation, it has been a grand experiment, a nation founded upon diverse cultures with a document, the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, that holds us together as glue. When said documents are no longer worth the paper there written upon, then what holds us together as a nation?

[newspeak]

95. I don't think Lincoln was wrong

I think, however, he needed to abide by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and so did the Supreme Court at that time. "Where there is a will, there is a way."

[itzamirakul]

88. It's interesting to see how some Dems think...it leads me to believe

that if the Repubs were to suggest some sort of temporary restraints on the Civil Rights of African Americans, that there are some folks, both in our legislature and even right here at DU who would agree to those restraints arguing that they would "only be temporary." I just hope and pray that the greater number of true liberals will remain staunch defenders of human rights.

[newspeak]

94. who thinks that?

after the Civil War, the bloodiest war in the history of this country, African Americans gained an influentual foothold in the South, gaining some political offices, but at the federal level the wheeling and dealing had already begun with those who had slowly gained back their influence in the South and with some carpetbaggers from the north. If the progressive reforms that had originally been enacted in the south, education for African Americans and increased political activism, would we have seen the Jim Crow laws enacted and the lynchings? In my opinion, it is at the federal level where the deals were made that hindered such progress. It seems that in our progress as a nation, it's two steps forward and six steps back.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[SteppingRazor]

6. Wow. You call them Nazis, and then you recommend we act like Nazis...

wholesale extermination isn't our style, last I checked.

Christ.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[SteppingRazor]

14. On the contrary, I'm quite "grippy." It's you I'm worried about...

recommending that we "purge the world" of Republicans sure sounds like extermination to me. We live in a democracy, and that means people have a choice.

And if we really lived under a fascist, totalitarian regime, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[SteppingRazor]

36. Yeah, I know. I'm arguin' with him/her on that thread too.

:hi:

[novalib]

62. Did You Want to Discuss My Postion on Overpopulation Here??

Is there some reason you have chosen to call me out here?

[coalition_unwilling]

47. The USA (at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) did indeed engage

in mass extermination at the end of World War II. Sorry to burst your bubble, but those nuclear detonations were demonstration projects for an audience of one: Joseph Stalin. The sad truth is that Imperial Japan already knew the war was lost and was suing for peace through diplomatic channels.

[SteppingRazor]

48. For the second time --

I said "our" referring to liberals/DUers, not "our" referring to Americans/official American policy. Sorry for the confusion.

[coalition_unwilling]

53. No problem. I was responding to Post 11, not your post (I think) --

Just finished re-watching DVD 3 of "Vietnam: A Television History" last night. Disc covers Tet '68, Vietnamization and Cambodia\Laos. So I may be a little extra-sensitive on the topic today.

[SteppingRazor]

55. Whoops! Sorry. My bad.

I misread where your post was placed :hi:

[Tesha]

37. Several hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians say you're wrong.

> wholesale extermination isn't our style, last I checked.

Several hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians say you're wrong.

Tesha

[SteppingRazor]

43. "Our" meaning liberals, not "our" meaning Americans...

and, even taking Iraq into account, its a bit hyperbolic to say we're committing genocide there.

[Tesha]

58. The numbers are in the hundreds of thousands.

> ...its a bit hyperbolic to say we're committing genocide there.


The numbers are in the hundreds of thousands. Whether or not
that's genocide is a question for the world's courts to decide
later.

Tesha

[coalition_unwilling]

49. Don't forget 2-3 million Southeast Asians. (n/t)

[novalib]

60. I Did NOT Recommend That We Act Like Nazis

Since the message I posted earlier has been deleted, and since you make an unwarranted accusation against me, let me correct what you have said:

I did NOT recommend that we act like Nazis.

That is YOUR mis-characterization of what I said.

I said that we should act as true patriots, and do the right thing.

I said that we should HATE EVIL, and support GOOD.

Hardly what a Nazi would say or do.

[RethugAssKicker]

18. I agree... but I didn't want to go too far

[Warpy]

5. They say the same things about US.

Five years ago, I might have agreed with you that this country was due to split apart at the seams into two or three separate countries: west coast, New York/New England, and the blood red states.

Now I'm not so sure. With even Rasmussen struggling to keep Stupid's approval ratings above 40%, it looks like those kneejerk jerks, those tribal/team thinkers just might be waking up to the fact that the GOP is bad for business, bad for working people, and utterly lunatic in both domestic and foreign policy.

That two countries is now a very large country with a 4 state enclave in the center west: Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming. Somehow I doubt secession will look terribly attractive to those states, no matter how much they despise the rest of us for abandoning insane and unworkable GOP policies.

The next few years are as likely to be as exhilirating and fascinating as they are miserable. It will be interesting to see what this country turns into within the next two decades.

[Selatius]

8. I think the US will split apart eventually.

The impetus for war has always been economic in nature. If the US economy develops in such a way that regional economic/political interests feel it is better that they assume more control over their affairs at the expense of the central government, then the US will eventually dissolve like the USSR. If there is no economic interests at stake, then there will be no separation. If there is, count on it.

All empires rise and fall. The US is no exception.

[Auntie Bush]

9. Maybe we could accomplish that without a civil war

by everyone who is moving to just move to a community with like minded people. I know if I ever move...it certainly wouldn't be to a red area.
I think it's already in progress and our civil war will be peaceful and accomplish the same purpose....but first we have to kick all the Rethugs out of Florida...it's too nice to turn into a red state.

By the way this was my first thought when Rummy moved all those bases to the South. He wanted all the military and munitions in the South just in case they need them in the near future...getting nearer every day.
I wonder what this country will be like by the time bush* leaves office?

[LSparkle]

13. I would absolutely NEVER think of living in a place where I was surrounded

by rightwing nutjobs! I've lived in Los Angeles and New York during my adult lifetime -- that's it. I'm not planning on moving any time soon (quake or no quake) specifically because I feel more comfortable being among like-minded people (i.e., liberals). Sure, housing is cheaper in the red states and I could probably downsize my financial needs and take a job that pays less, but I would never DREAM of moving there. Similar liberals currently in red states ought to vote with their pocketbooks and "come into the light" by moving to a blue state.

[RethugAssKicker]

21. Good... keep thinking that way... I made the mistake of moving

... worst mistake I ever made !

[Warpy]

26. I knew GREAT lefties in North Carolina

but found the southern culture very damaging to me, so I left.

In Boston, I'd swapped the intolerant Baptist hysterics for intolerant Catholic hysterics and changed one variety of racism for another, but the culture was a little easier for me to cope with.

The truth is that both strong, committed progressives and howling reactionaries are everyplace. I've lived all over this country and know that to be a fact.

For me the determinants are the local culture and wheter or not there's a decent radio station. NM is fine for me, the three clashing cultures make for a lot of great theater and there are two good college radio stations beamed statewide.

As for not tolerating "red" states, don't forget those states are now only four: Nebraska, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. That leaves you one hell of a lot of country to explore.

[eleny]

10. The red states can't survive without blue state funding

This has been discussed here at DU in many threads. They really need the funding that comes from federal taxes. They need liberals more than they care to admit and are being led by the nose by wingnut philosophy.

I have faith that liberals will prevail. As much as I feel your angst, I just can't go along with the civil war that it would take.

[peacetalksforall]

12. I agree, I've been saying this for over a year. They can have their own

military to fight the corporate wars. If they can't get their kids to fight they can hire soldiers since they will be affiliated with horrendously wealthy corporations, reverends, politicians, fellow members, and foundations.

If by some chance they end up with New York - they can kick the UN out once and for all, but I can't see them in the Northeast, at all.

Do they just take the 'reddest' states? What if it ends up having a shape that looks like a zucchini? They can be called the Zucchini Republic. From Alabama up to Montana in a zucchini curve keeping in mind that it will only require about 25% to 30% of the land to house them. They definitely can't take any of the Mexican border states - and they won't have to have any illegal aliens so that is one issue that will settled easily.

They can have their own inflammable flag and they can post the Ten Commandments every ten blocks.

We can restore all that has been taken from us and create a world that doesn't despise Moslems, Hispanics, Black-Americans, some Asians, all immigrants, poor, and those with other phobias. They can have an immigrant free country, if they want.

I'm not sure how we go about resettling people, but I think that both sides are so fed up that it can be done without any blood being shed. But, since PNAC has so successfully divided everything we know (world, military, churches, schools, courts, homes) - there are going to be some difficult decisions for families.

I believe we will have to have a military to defend us from their attempts to convert us.

They would definitely be more happy about being separated from us in the long run.

I think it is the only way. They have all (followers and leaders) risen so fast in the last fifteen years and they've had so many successes that I believe they will take their spoils and be willing to split.

[heidler1]

64. I Agree and also think the evolution to progressive views are

inevitable. Because of modern farming methods the number of isolated independent life style minded rural types are diminishing and the masses are moving to big cities for better jobs. The big cities make it obvious that interdependence is required. The solution that comes to mind is, I don't have to love my neighbors, but for my own sake I must tolerate them or my life will be hell.

The big land owners are still hanging on to the Republican view while reaping Federal Government subsidies that keep making their land holdings bigger and bigger, and thus freezing out the LEGAL working class.

[The Revolution]

15. And just where are the borders going to be?

[ktlyon]

16. The problem is that we are not a blue or red country, we're purple.

The liberals are the majority if all votes are counted and everyone is allowed to vote. We can win it all back if someone would free our ballots boxes from rethug control.

[shugh514]

17. They are a minority!

They've made a big noise over the last few years. Here's the good news:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2356662

They are losing their voice. I don't think a difference of opinion with less than 30% of the population justifies splitting our nation. It will get worse before it gets better, but I am hopeful it will get better.

[RethugAssKicker]

23. You have more faith than I

[shugh514]

41. There is not one issue that is as big as slavery was

that can cause a breakup. Did you live through the 60s? There was alot of violence in the streets of our country then and it held together. It may get that bad again, but we'll make it through.

[RethugAssKicker]

59. Yes, but the sixties were fresh with idealism, youth, vibrance....

and we didn't have nearly as a repressive government as we do now... And the media was not under the control of the White House...The quest for money and power now seems to be all there is!

[European Socialist]

20. Yup, Have felt that way since Nov04 --Bush voters are idiots or worse.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. 4 would be better.

Then we would have 4 nations too small to play bigshot.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[charlie]

30. We reinvade Iraq

We keep on reinvading until the Turrists learn their lesson and WE'RE STANDING TALL AGAIN.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[RethugAssKicker]

31. That would be our country and we would act accordingly..

... Don't quite get the gist of your ?...

What would Canada do if attacked?... What would any country do?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[charlie]

73. What if Godzilla ate the Sears Tower?

And crapped in Lake Michigan? Do we break out the nukes? Call Mothra? We've GOT TO HAVE A PLAN!

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[charlie]

75. Next! Call Roto Rooter!

They'll know what to do. Make sure Roto Rooter is on everyone's speed dial.

[walldude]

81. LMAO... Gammera where are you???? n/t

[Avalux]

42. We don't lie and use the incident to oppress people.

Our government has used a national tragedy for their own gain - they've restricted our rights and invaded a country for no damn reason - based on lies. 9/11 was like winning the lottery for Bushco - literally. Their war of agression has made billions for an elite group of very powerful men. I don't buy for a minute they give a damn about protecting my life.

So we have an open government and inform the people, those to whom the country belongs. I'd rather have my rights and liberty than a false promise of protection.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[newyawker99]

76. Hi feelys!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Random_Australian]

78. Counter terrorism, of course. You do not have remove peoples rights

to fight terrorism. In fact, it seems that the entire shemozzle has not particularly improved yankish counterterrorism capability. A little, not much.

btw, welcome to DU, and say hello to my little friend:

[coalition_unwilling]

32. I want this country to split into two" -- here's my suggestion:

1) "United States of Canada" (including California, Oregon, Washington on west and Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois in the mid-section and New York, Connecticut, Massachussetts, Vermont and Maine on the east)

and

2) "Jesusland" -- all the rest

[Bridget Burke]

35. I'm not with you.

And I've never agreed with the previous 23,000 threads on the identical subject.

[AngryAmish]

38. It went very well for the India/Pakistan split.

Same thing would happen here.

[charlie]

44. Freepers with nukes

Yiiikes.

[RethugAssKicker]

57. Yeah thats the part that scares me too!

[electron_blue]

52. No, not me. The way you feel now is what *they* want you to feel

Nothing would make Bush happier than to think that you won't even talk with conservatives anymore. Then they have won. The only way to take back the country is if we stay focused on stopping illegal behavior by the administration, and stop being distracted by their sleight of hand.

[dogday]

61. That's what they want... The more they split the people

apart the easier it is to rule... Divide and conquer...

What we should be doing is try to lay down party lines and come together as a people and set this country straight again....

[SmokingJacket]

63. I suspect the minute we did that...

The two sides would start frantically splitting, too. Suddenly there'd be Greenylvania, West Moderates, Vegantown, Clarkia, etc.

On the right there'd be Jesusland and Billionairesonly and Militiapolis.

[itzamirakul]

93. In this entire thread, your is the one that points out what would

actually happen if the nation was to split apart.

There would be spies and smaller wars over territory and internal racial and gender fights and on and on and on. There would be no end to the divisions until every person stood on his own postage stamp-sized piece of ground and played "King-of-the-Hill. It would come down to,who could push you off of your territory?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. How Come There Was No Soap Opera Music In The Background When I Turned On

my speakers? I dunno, just seemed like there shoulda been.

There are a lot of republicans who are absolutely decent and caring people and to want to segregate the country into people you like vs people you don't like is extremely disgusting to me.

Prejudice is prejudice and it is always ignorant.

[novalib]

83. You're JOKING, Right?????!!!!!!!

"There are a lot of republicans who are absolutely decent and caring people"

A LOT of Republicans who are ABSOLUTELY decent and caring people????!!\

A LOT???

Would that be all those Republicans who voted and gave us the WORST Regime in US History??

Would that be all those Republicans who support * and his gang to thugs?

Would that be all those Republicans who want to deny basic human rights to a good portion of the American population????

Who, exactly, are all of these Republicans who are ABSOLUTELY decent and caring people??

I'll grant you that there MAY be one or two -- but A LOT of them???

PLEASE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS!!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

87. Methinks You Could Use Opening Your Mind A Little.

I understand and sympathize with your rageful passion and it is clear that we have every reason to be frustrated by all the criminal and indecent acts this administration and its cohorts have pulled. I realize that with as angry we are at the injustices before us it is easy to deflect that hatred onto others based on them just simply being republican. I get that. But in reality, to truly think that every single republican is evil and should be segregated simply because they don't think just like us, well that's just narrow minded, prejudiced and ignorant.

[novalib]

98. So, I Guess That Means That

So, I guess that means that you canNOT name EVEN ONE (out of the 'LOTS') absolutely caring and wonderful Republican!

I do not come to this website to be lectured about how there are lots of absolutely wonderful Republicans there are.

Nor do I come here to be told that I am "narrow-minded" or "prejudiced" or "IGNORANT" (???!!!) because I think that Republicans (you remember them, right??? They are the low-lifes who actually VOTED FOR BUSH, and applauded when the Corrupt Supreme Court installed the most corrupt, the most tyrannical, the most AWFUL regime this country has EVER KNOWN!!

They are also the people who applauded when the thugs in the White House staged an attack on the United States so that they could then take us into a totally-unjustified war for oil in Iraq, and in the process killed thousands of innocent Iraqi people!

They are the people who REFUSED to listen when we tried to tell them the truth!

So, PLEASE EXCUSE ME for not agreeing with you when you say that there are "LOTS" of "ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL" and "CARING" REPUBLICANS!

BUT PLEASE -- PLEASE!!!!!! -- DO NOT CALL ME NARROW-MINDED, PREJUDICED, or IGNORANT BECAUSE I DO NOT HOLD REPUBLICANS IN THE HIGH REGARD YOU DO!!!

I DID NOT COME HERE FOR THIS!!!!!!!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

101. Settle Down Francis.

"So, I guess that means that you canNOT name EVEN ONE (out of the 'LOTS') absolutely caring and wonderful Republican!"

You guess what means that? I could name a bunch of people I know who are republicans but still decent human beings. You tell me what the odds would be that you'd say "ohhhh yeah, I know him. Lives right down the road from so and so right?" LOL I mean, seriously, you want me to name my friends and aquaintances that are republicans and still decent human beings? You really think that's going to be beneficial?

"I do not come to this website to be lectured about how there are lots of absolutely wonderful Republicans there are."

Irrelevant to me. Being against republican talking heads and anti-democratic agenda politicians is one thing. Broad brush smearing and prejudice against an entire group of people while declaring they should be segregated is another. If you are going to come to a democratic website don't be surprised when some members have a spirit of not condoning prejudice, hatred and calls for segregation.

"Nor do I come here to be told that I am "narrow-minded" or "prejudiced" or "IGNORANT" (???!!!) because I think that Republicans (you remember them, right??? They are the low-lifes who actually VOTED FOR BUSH, and applauded when the Corrupt Supreme Court installed the most corrupt, the most tyrannical, the most AWFUL regime this country has EVER KNOWN!!"

First you never finished your statement. you said "because I think republicans" but never completed your thought. Regardless, if you don't want to be told you are narrow minded, prejudiced or speaking sentiments rooted in ignorance, then try to avoid broad brush grouping of millions and millions of americans into one hateful description. It isn't me defending republicans, it is me defending against the ignorance of broad brush prejudice. Calling ALL republicans, every last one of them, low lifes, is quite factually ignorant and narrow minded. Sorry bub.

"They are also the people who applauded when the thugs in the White House staged an attack on the United States so that they could then take us into a totally-unjustified war for oil in Iraq, and in the process killed thousands of innocent Iraqi people!"

Don't know who you were hanging around, but I saw no one I knew applauding on 9-11.

"They are the people who REFUSED to listen when we tried to tell them the truth!"

True, but that doesn't make them low-lifes and deserving of being segregated from us completely. It means we have to keep trying to reach out to them.

"So, PLEASE EXCUSE ME for not agreeing with you when you say that there are "LOTS" of "ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL" and "CARING" REPUBLICANS!"

Disagree if you must. But there are. Period. (Regardless that there are far more democrats who are absolutely wonderful caring people)

"BUT PLEASE -- PLEASE!!!!!! -- DO NOT CALL ME NARROW-MINDED, PREJUDICED, or IGNORANT BECAUSE I DO NOT HOLD REPUBLICANS IN THE HIGH REGARD YOU DO!!!"

They are human beings. Some of them are total scumbags that I am working hard to defeat. But there are many that are simply decent human beings with a different perspective. Open your mind a little.

"I DID NOT COME HERE FOR THIS!!!!!!!!!"

Irrelevant.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Minnesota Libra]

82. I've been thinking this for sometime now and the more time that...........

.....goes by the better this sounds. How do we go about it?? I don't want troops at our door steps so how can we convince the neocons it would be best to let all us liberals have one side of this country or the other??

I don't know about anyone else - but I'm totally serious.

[Bridget Burke]

103. Which side of the country do you want?

While you're at it, you can ensure that your "side" is free from those swarthy immigrant types who upset you so much.

[Catherine Vincent]

84. No.

The left has to know what the right is doing (and vice versa). Both the left and the right working together is our only survival.

[Greyhound]

89. The tyranny that the federal Government has become will never allow

it to happen. The consequences would be disastrous for them and cause a global economic and social meltdown. The ruling class needs the whole country to remain ignorant and divided in order to preserve their privilege. If the average sheeple ceased to be distracted by petty non-issues they might notice that they're paying the price for their masters free ride.

[earth mom]

90. I feel the same way. Enough is enough! eom

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

92. Well, the Nafta Super Corridor is coming

That will spit us in two neat sections.

[bertha katzenengel]

96. "Anyone with me??" Hell, no.

:eyes:

You're advocating civil war. We already did that once, remember?

[newspeak]

97. I still have faith in a majority of the American people

I'm with Studs Terkell----yes, there are some very scary, insecure, greedy ignorant people out there, but that's not the majority of the citizens of this country. You have a minority that cries long and hard and is heard by those who exploit them for their votes on, to me, dividing issues. That's why you don't hear much about universal health care, corporate regulations, voting reform and environmental reforms. The corporatocracy keeps playing to bigoted ignorant agendas so that their base doesn't see that they're hindering their own livelihoods, their own well-being---blame, blame, blame--it's all those immigrants fault, it's all those gays fault, it's all those liberals fault. You can only play the blame game for so long, eventually, the majority awakens and when they do, we won't be talking about divisions. Can you fool all of the people all of the time? NO!!!!! We will not become another goose-stepping country like Germany because of our diversity, because of how we have been indoctrinated. I don't know about some of you, but I was raised on the importance of the constitution, the bill of rights--I was raised on the stories of the creation of this country. The ideal of the United States of America, may not jive with the actual things that have been done in our name; but the ideal still exists in the hearts and minds of many Americans. If I believed that the majority in this country wanted another monarchy to rule or would rather have a kleptocracy, I would be packing my bags right now--I don't!!!!!!

[novalib]

99. Yes, I Remember Civil War!

And I also remember that it cleansed our nation of SLAVERY.

You do recall slavery, don't you???

It was when BLACK people were held in BONDAGE by white people!

I wonder how long we, as a nation, would have continued slavery if it had not been for the Civil War.

Sometimes, a Civil War is necessary to rid a country of a truly GREAT EVIL!

[Bridget Burke]

104. This time, you would be one of the Secessionists.

And your sort lost last time.

[The2ndWheel]

108. Until we got cheap energy

and 6 year olds in SE Asia and Latin America.

[bertha katzenengel]

109. "cleansed our nation of slavery?"

Perhaps. But it did nothing for racism, which is alive and well. No war will ever cure racism, because people are too stupid to realize that we are no different from each other. North & South, black & white, Muslim, Christian, Jew & atheist.

Hatemongers usually win. Often with angry, reactionist diatribes like yours.

In the future don't insult me by assuming I'm ignorant of history. It's because I know history that I fear another civil war. A new civil war will do nothing for this country but destroy it.

[HardRocker05]

100. I'm with you, but the sheeple will never go for it. nt

[RedStateShame]

107. Bill Maher once said something about this:

In fact, and I know this is about 140 years late, but to the Southern States, I would say, “Upon further consideration, you CAN go. I know that’s what you’ve always wanted, and we’ve reconsidered. So go ahead. And take Texas with you.”

You know what they say. If at first you don’t secede, try, try again. And give my regards to President Charlie Daniels.