I'd be curious what states you consider Red and what states you consider Blue.

 

Roughly speaking, the Blue states are concentrated in the northeast and the west coast, the Red states are in the deep south plus the area  west of the Mississippi but not on the coast, like Kansas and that general area. 

 

Here's one map:   http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploa...ed-Map.jpg

 

The idea isn't to put all the red people in red states or all the blue people in blue states, but to give each side a strong majority in its own territory, so the polarization doesn't cause gridlock.   The two countries can govern themselves as they see fit. 

 

Like I said, both sides think the other side is evil.   Don't you see that the people who are telling us this are making millions and millions of dollars telling us this?  Books, radio shows, websites, TV networks, all devoted the demonizing the other side and all making millions of dollars doing it.   Follow the money! 

---

And what about Urban vs Rural in most states? New York is pretty conservative once you're out of the City. LIkewise rural California vs the Big Cities. The District and political suburbs like Alexandria don't mesh with the rest of Virginia. Pittsburgh and Philly are almost polar opposites. It's not enough to just say "Red v Blue" at the state level.

 

This is true...

 

more like red vs blue in terms of political ideology in terms of individuals. 

 

Thats how it needs to be divided. 

 

 

Those that reside in the majority of either side can live in each's respective "country". Obviously even this won't be "perfect" since theres other groups too, such as libertarian... but it would be better than it is now. 

---

Roughly speaking, the Blue states are concentrated in the northeast and the west coast, the Red states are in the deep south plus the area  west of the Mississippi but not on the coast, like Kansas and that general area. 

 

Here's one map:   http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploa...ed-Map.jpg

 

The idea isn't to put all the red people in red states or all the blue people in blue states, but to give each side a strong majority in its own territory, so the polarization doesn't cause gridlock.   The two countries can govern themselves as they see fit. 

 

Like I said, both sides think the other side is evil.   Don't you see that the people who are telling us this are making millions and millions of dollars telling us this?  Books, radio shows, websites, TV networks, all devoted the demonizing the other side and all making millions of dollars doing it.   Follow the money! 

 

agreed about the elites playing both sides but that's why I'm not a advocate of spiting states up in to per-arranged new nations.

 

Rather what I think is the only viable option is to dissolve the federal union, it would be a 4 step process.

 

Step 1: dissolve the federal branch of the union this would include eliminating the position of "president" and sending all of congress home to their states they represent. Immediately the Federal Government would cease to collect taxes and payments to various states and organizations. The Debt payments would be divided among 50 states evenly with their own share to payback at the individual level.

 

Step 2: States are no longer bound by the constitution and free as individual territories to enter contracts with each other as they see fit. You might have several 3-5 state collections forming a nation or simply two large nations form but each state would be free to join any union they see fit.

 

Step 3: After a predetermined time frame and all the states have reorganized into individual unions a new constitutional congress would be called to a central location to see if the new unions could agree on terms for one large union once again. If not treaties for trade and commerce could also commence at this predetermined time.

 

Step 4: If a new constitution is agreed upon by all the unions a new form of limited federal government could be put in place but strictly without the authority to tax, as it would now be the responsibility of each union or individual state to solely fund their budgets. Treaties could possible be arranged for war time procedures if the states and unions decide to work together on foreign affairs.

 

These steps could help avoid a violent conflict but there is still the possibility of violence in any time of transition. Either way a time of transition is coming how much transition is yet to be determined.

---

lol....more "conservative" viewpoint from Adam2012...

 

Don't you ever have anything constructive to say? From whom do you wait to get your talking points?

 

They're not doing a great job.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

and...like my other point stated....

 

Typical liberal that has to name call when they disagree/ argue with someone. 

 

Coming from you - priceless. I'll be sure to tell Marcedes you're a deep and caring guy. LOL

 

You wouldn't know a conservative if you tripped over one. You're not a conservative, you're a Yahoo. Yahoos give conservatives a bad name.

 

Yahoos are the ones MSNBC holds up as an example of conservatives - so people think conservatives are low-IQ bigots.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Coming from you - priceless. I'll be sure to tell Marcedes you're a deep and caring guy. LOL

 

You wouldn't know a conservative if you tripped over one. You're not a conservative, you're a Yahoo. Yahoos give conservatives a bad name.

 

Yahoos are the ones MSNBC holds up as an example of conservatives - so people think conservatives are low-IQ bigots.

 

You're not a conservative and not sure why you're pretending to be one when its pretty clear which way you lean politically per just about every post that has dealt with issues over the past year. 

 

Its like a person who claims to live a healthy lifestyle and then proceeds to smoke a carton of Winston's every couple days. 

 

Theres no doubt that you think all conservatives are bigots though...thats a typical liberal tact. If someone doesn't agree with something liberal, particularly the homosexual lifestyle, they're branded a bigot. 

---

You're not a conservative and not sure why you're pretending to be one when its pretty clear which way you lean politically per just about every post that has dealt with issues over the past year. 

 

Its like a person who claims to live a healthy lifestyle and then proceeds to smoke a carton of Winston's every couple days. 

 

Theres no doubt that you think all conservatives are bigots though...thats a typical liberal tact. If someone doesn't agree with something liberal, particularly the homosexual lifestyle, they're branded a bigot. 

 

Feel free to show me how I'm liberal. Of course you can't, you just like to throw labels around.

 

Bemoaning the fact that the world has changed doesn't make you a conservative. That takes some real thought. Express to me one coherent conservative principle you've advocated, since you think you're the second coming of Edmund Burke.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

agreed about the elites playing both sides but that's why I'm not a advocate of spiting states up in to per-arranged new nations.

 

Rather what I think is the only viable option is to dissolve the federal union, it would be a 4 step process.

 

Step 1: dissolve the federal branch of the union this would include eliminating the position of "president" and sending all of congress home to their states they represent. Immediately the Federal Government would cease to collect taxes and payments to various states and organizations. The Debt payments would be divided among 50 states evenly with their own share to payback at the individual level.

 

Step 2: States are no longer bound by the constitution and free as individual territories to enter contracts with each other as they see fit. You might have several 3-5 state collections forming a nation or simply two large nations form but each state would be free to join any union they see fit.

 

Step 3: After a predetermined time frame and all the states have reorganized into individual unions a new constitutional congress would be called to a central location to see if the new unions could agree on terms for one large union once again. If not treaties for trade and commerce could also commence at this predetermined time.

 

Step 4: If a new constitution is agreed upon by all the unions a new form of limited federal government could be put in place but strictly without the authority to tax, as it would now be the responsibility of each union or individual state to solely fund their budgets. Treaties could possible be arranged for war time procedures if the states and unions decide to work together on foreign affairs.

 

These steps could help avoid a violent conflict but there is still the possibility of violence in any time of transition. Either way a time of transition is coming how much transition is yet to be determined.

 

No disrespect intended - but your Star Wars universe has a greater chance of coming into being than any of this. But you've apparently put a lot of thought into this, haven't you? You don't smoke weed, do you? You could really take this pretty far.

 

Is this kind of like Sim City? Policity?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Feel free to show me how I'm liberal. Of course you can't, you just like to throw labels around.

 

Bemoaning the fact that the world has changed doesn't make you a conservative. That takes some real thought. Express to me one coherent conservative principle you've advocated, since you think you're the second coming of Edmund Burke.

 

SHow you your liberal?? LOL....as said, all someone needs to do is wait for a social issue to arise and you ALWAYS seem to side with the general leftist opinion on said topic. One needs to look no further than your takes on same sex marriage. Sorry, but your opinions on that topic are directly in line with those of the Left. You can oddly pretend/ claim  that you're conservative, but your actions/ opinions speak otherwise. 

 

As for the 2nd sentence...lol, actually, it sorta does. One of the principles of conservatism is embracing continuity. Also adhering/ believing that people must operate under a moral code. 

 

....aaaaaannd, I never said/ claimed/ thought I was the second coming Edmund Burke....once again, thats typical of the left  and how you argue. However, I do tend to side with a lot of the conservative viewpoints on issues.

---

No disrespect intended - but your Star Wars universe has a greater chance of coming into being than any of this. But you've apparently put a lot of thought into this, haven't you? You don't smoke weed, do you? You could really take this pretty far.


Is this kind of like Sim City? Policity?

I didn't say I thought It was going to happen, and it's not my theory either. That's an outline of a couple different dissolution movements out there.


ytram was talking about splitting the states up basically on the Mason-Dixon Line I'm just pointing out if your going to break up the union the above is a more practical solution.


As for what I think really is going to happen is a merger of the North American union in the next 20-30 years, don't confuse that as what I want to happen it's just path where headed down.


No I don't smoke week but I do advocate the decriminalizing of all narcotics on the federal level. I support local communities and individual states rights to create their own substance laws as they see fit.


Your hard to figure out you don't really give to many inputs just a lot of sarcastic replies, I'll admit I didn't have you pegged as a conservative.

---

SHow you your liberal?? LOL....as said, all someone needs to do is wait for a social issue to arise and you ALWAYS seem to side with the general leftist opinion on said topic. One needs to look no further than your takes on same sex marriage. Sorry, but your opinions on that topic are directly in line with those of the Left. You can oddly pretend/ claim  that you're conservative, but your actions/ opinions speak otherwise. 

 

As for the 2nd sentence...lol, actually, it sorta does. One of the principles of conservatism is embracing continuity. Also adhering/ believing that people must operate under a moral code. 

 

....aaaaaannd, I never said/ claimed/ thought I was the second coming Edmund Burke....once again, thats typical of the left  and how you argue. However, I do tend to side with a lot of the conservative viewpoints on issues.

 

What difference does it make?   Why not have a discussion of ideas, instead of calling people names.   "You're a liberal" is not a persuasive argument.  It's childish.   Who cares if someone is a liberal?  Why not deal with ideas, instead of labels.  

 

This is what irritates me about current political discourse.  People are being brainwashed into thinking the "other side" has no good ideas, and all the ideas that come from "the other side" are an evil trick.   You're being told this so you can be more easily led.  

---

What difference does it make? Why not have a discussion of ideas, instead of calling people names. "You're a liberal" is not a persuasive argument. It's childish. Who cares if someone is a liberal? Why not deal with ideas, instead of labels.


This is what irritates me about current political discourse. People are being brainwashed into thinking the "other side" has no good ideas, and all the ideas that come from "the other side" are an evil trick. You're being told this so you can be more easily led.

Agreed. Compromise and common goal are dirty words nowadays. I personally have what is labeled 'conservative' and 'liberal' beliefs. I just call it common sense. Unfortunately the voting masses have been, as you say, brainwashed, into only supporting candidates who espouse one wing or the other. Now our leadership are at loggerheads with no one willing to step forward and propose compromise in the fear they'll lose their office.

---

My only question about this is: Why is Political discussion suddenly okay, but not Religious discussion?

 

A few years ago I posted a thread about a Ron Paul supporter being censored live on CNN during the Republican Primaries and got a warning for it. Do the new regulations on the board mean that I can now feel free to post any, and all political topics/issues? Or only threads that are deemed "Politically Correct" are allowed to be posted?

 

 

Again, the hypocrisy of the mods and admins on this board never ceases to amaze me.

---

My only question about this is: Why is Political discussion suddenly okay, but not Religious discussion?


A few years ago I posted a thread about a Ron Paul supporter being censored live on CNN during the Republican Primaries and got a warning for it. Do the new regulations on the board mean that I can now feel free to post any, and all political topics/issues? Or only threads that are deemed "Politically Correct" are allowed to be posted?



Again, the hypocrisy of the mods and admins on this board never ceases to amaze me.

Or, just work with the privileges we're given and not complain.

---

Or, just work with the privileges we're given and not complain.

Yes, complaining is no good. You never know what might happen when you complain. You could be so busy complaining you don't notice that ledge leading you to trip and bump your head. Or maybe you complain while driving which might lead to you having an accident. 

---

My only question about this is: Why is Political discussion suddenly okay, but not Religious discussion?

 

A few years ago I posted a thread about a Ron Paul supporter being censored live on CNN during the Republican Primaries and got a warning for it. Do the new regulations on the board mean that I can now feel free to post any, and all political topics/issues? Or only threads that are deemed "Politically Correct" are allowed to be posted?

 

 

Again, the hypocrisy of the mods and admins on this board never ceases to amaze me.

 

I'll just say that I'd be for religious discussion to be allowed and I don't understand why it isn't. 

 

Yes you will always have people that will argue over it (if religious talk were allowed), but whats the difference? We argue over politics too, we argue over football, and we're not getting rid of football talk... We argue over lots of things. 

 

That said, I'll adhere to the rules as they are since I'd like to continue posting and its not my board so I don't make the rules. 

---

The thought police abound

---

I'll just say that I'd be for religious discussion to be allowed and I don't understand why it isn't.


Yes you will always have people that will argue over it (if religious talk were allowed), but whats the difference? We argue over politics too, we argue over football, and we're not getting rid of football talk... We argue over lots of things.


That said, I'll adhere to the rules as they are since I'd like to continue posting and its not my board so I don't make the rules.

I get what you mean and I get that it seems likes the line drawn between religion and politics can seem spurious, but as an ex-mod myself, I can tell you sometimes you just have to just go with it. ;-)

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

The thought police abound

 

Don't worry, you're safe.

---

I'll just say that I'd be for religious discussion to be allowed and I don't understand why it isn't. 

 

Yes you will always have people that will argue over it (if religious talk were allowed), but whats the difference? We argue over politics too, we argue over football, and we're not getting rid of football talk... We argue over lots of things. 

 

That said, I'll adhere to the rules as they are since I'd like to continue posting and its not my board so I don't make the rules.

Do you really want to put up with posts from people that can't help themselves and say stuff like the Westboro people like to say?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???