Should the US split Up?

[Lumpy 1]

immie, you can't get to ''47 PERCENT'' without counting those on unemployment....all the articles on the ''takers'' included those receiving unemployment and all of those not paying income taxes because they didn't earn enough income to owe any.....like the seniors living off of the SS....

I don't happen to agree with Romney's sentiment on those ''47 PERCENT'' as takers, BUT you are indeed COUNTED in that 47 PERCENT figure.....you were one of those people that he labeled as a ''taker'' if you were ''unemployed''.....that's a fact. not even 10% of adults in this country are ON TANF WELFARE.....the 47% included YOU, the unemployed, who worked their whole lives but were unfortunate enough to be laid off....

if romney 'didn't mean YOU, then he shouldn't have used the 47 PERCENT as his figure on 'takers'.....

Obviously you listened to the left wing propaganda machine and did not listen to what he said. He was only talking about the people whose mind were unchangeable. Then he described some of their characteristics. Maybe you should actually listen to what he said? He is right. There were 47% of people who had made up their minds before the campaign began and could not be swayed.

Immie

I know exactly what he said, I listened to the video several times Immie....

Fact-checking Romney's "47 percent" comment - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Yes... and you've embellished quite heavily from what I've seen.


The crap you've tried to lay on Immanuel is simply pathetic and shameful....He is an honorable person.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Government would do just fine if it were minimalist and funded through voluntary contributions. It certainly will not function without forced taxation if you want it to continue all the ridiculous shit it does.

You should really read up on the Articles of Confederation.

 

[konradv]

This could work...

What makes you think you get OH, VA, FL, IA, NM, CO and NV? They're true blue all the way, baby.

What makes you think you get the entire state Of Michigan. The only really blue part is the 3 SE most Counties. the rest of the State was a sea of red

Talk to the person who made the map and the one that posted it. I just responded.

 

[Emoslasher]

I'm down with selling the south to mexico or china. It would pay off the debt and then some, plus getting most all of the GOP trash the hell out of the country so freedom and liberty can prevail

Texas doesn't need your type anyways.

You think you can do without us?

 

[4Horsemen]

I think there should now be 2 Americas:

Free America and the Utopian land of BO.


Split it right down the middle at the Mississippi River.

 

[konradv]

Obviously you listened to the left wing propaganda machine and did not listen to what he said. He was only talking about the people whose mind were unchangeable. Then he described some of their characteristics. Maybe you should actually listen to what he said? He is right. There were 47% of people who had made up their minds before the campaign began and could not be swayed.

He was talking about the 47% that don't pay income taxes. It's right here on youtube. That's not left wing propaganda, but his own words. Never mind that he's talking about retirees, people desperate for work that are collecting unemployment and young families with children that don't pay income taxes because the rates have been lowered. You're the one spreading propaganda. Don't believe you now and thankfully enough people didn't believe you last Tuesday.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M]Mitt Romney's "47 Percent" Comments - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

You look at the petitions calling for secession active now in I think 30 states and, practically speaking, you know that none of them will get a majority to agree to secede.

But philosophically, I will have to admit that there is a part of me that enjoys the concept. To live once more in a country that embraces the best of what the Founders envisioned would be heaven. I am fully aware of the logistical problems. Cutting ourselves off from the Treasury and what that would mean for seniors et al that have been cruelly made dependent on Social Security would present an immediate critical problem for instance. But it is a problem that is not unsolvable.

I can see the seceding states quickling forming a new more free, more creative, more innovative, more productive, more prosperous nation that would also almost certainly be more generous and benevolent than what would be left in the other states. It just would not be a pretend benevolence doled out by a self serving central government.

If we could pull it off, I am pretty sure most independent private sector businesses based in the remaining states would be applying to move to the free states as would most people who still believe in working for a living and who still believe that living free is far superior to any nanny state that has ever existed. The hardcore leftwingers and those who WANT a nanny state to take care of them would find it tough going when there aren't many people who are productive for the right reasons left to support everybody else.

 

[4Horsemen]

You look at the petitions calling for secession active now in I think 30 states and, practically speaking, you know that none of them will get a majority to agree to secede.

But philosophically, I will have to admit that there is a part of me that enjoys the concept. To live once more in a country that embraces the best of what the Founders envisioned would be heaven. I am fully aware of the logistical problems. Cutting ourselves off from the Treasury and what that would mean for seniors et al that have been cruelly made dependent on Social Security would present an immediate critical problem for instance. But it is a problem that is not unsolvable.

I can see the seceding states quickling forming a new more free, more creative, more innovative, more productive, more prosperous nation that would also almost certainly be more generous and benevolent than what would be left in the other states. It just would not be a pretend benevolence doled out by a self serving central government.

If we could pull it off, I am pretty sure most independent private sector businesses based in the remaining states would be applying to move to the free states as would most people who still believe in working for a living and who still believe that living free is far superior to any nanny state that has ever existed. The hardcore leftwingers and those who WANT a nanny state to take care of them would find it tough going when there aren't many people who are productive for the right reasons left to support everybody else.

You're torn between becoming a sheep and becoming free again.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not torn at all. But I've learned the hard way not to rush into something without first having a solid plan to deal with all the components that will be included in it.

 

[Immanuel]

Obviously you listened to the left wing propaganda machine and did not listen to what he said. He was only talking about the people whose mind were unchangeable. Then he described some of their characteristics. Maybe you should actually listen to what he said? He is right. There were 47% of people who had made up their minds before the campaign began and could not be swayed.

He was talking about the 47% that don't pay income taxes. It's right here on youtube. That's not left wing propaganda, but his own words. Never mind that he's talking about retirees, people desperate for work that are collecting unemployment and young families with children that don't pay income taxes because the rates have been lowered. You're the one spreading propaganda. Don't believe you now and thankfully enough people didn't believe you last Tuesday.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M]Mitt Romney's "47 Percent" Comments - YouTube[/ame]

Funny, he very clearly said 47% who are going to vote for Obama no matter what. You have to jump through hoops to explain what he "really" meant, at least what your propaganda machine wanted people to think he meant so that they could further divide the country.

Immie

 

[4Horsemen]

Not torn at all. But I've learned the hard way not to rush into something without first having a solid plan to deal with all the components that will be included in it.

If a Tornado was barreling down your street you'd rush it? why not now? it's the same severity of circumstances. You think what's coming is a game?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not torn at all. But I've learned the hard way not to rush into something without first having a solid plan to deal with all the components that will be included in it.

If a Tornado was barreling down your street you'd rush it? why not now? it's the same severity of circumstances. You think what's coming is a game?

Sorry, but I find your metaphorical analogy considerably flawed, and your question is incomprehensible if it refers to anything I posted.

 

[pjnlsn]

LOL

More Libtard 'facts' pulled from the ass.

Regardless of what you dislike, and perhaps even the particular pattern of interconnectivity among the states, as I wrote in another post, the US is far too interconnected economically and otherwise, and the federal government too strong and established, to ever split again.

In any case, as it happens, urban areas tend to vote Democrat more than rural areas, and large cities, by their nature, tend to bring in more income.

Government would do just fine if it were minimalist and funded through voluntary contributions. It certainly will not function without forced taxation if you want it to continue all the ridiculous shit it does.

The following is a tangent, for the record, since the above doesn't contradict my post. Just to be clear.

Anyway, well, "do just fine" can mean anything you want it to mean, so......that statement doesn't mean anything, really....cept to you, and people who already know what you mean, I suppose.

Offhand, shutting down the government (effectively) is a solution akin to, say, hunting crab on the beach with a sledgehammer. It's crude and destructive.

No more taxes, or no more forced taxation is, i'm sure a slogan everyone and anyone can get behind, but governments have a purpose, and It seems to me that it's better to take the good with the bad rather than accept nothingness. Or to reform, and very possibly rebuild, but not to cripple and leave lying on the floor. What it most certainly would do is give total, or near enough to make no difference, control of the government to private entities, assuming that a benevolent funder who can, in a sense, outbid everyone else, and by a large amount, doesn't exist.

It's not at all practical.

 

[Foxfyre]

To want a government that is small, efficient, effective, and devoted to protecting the rights of the people so that they can be free to live their lives as they choose is not the same thing as wanting no government.

To want taxes that are necessary to fund a necessary government and otherwise leaves the people with the money they earn to use as they choose to use it is not the same thing as wanting no taxes.

To want only regulation that is necessary to secure our rights and maintain the necessary functions of government is not the same thing as wanting no regulation.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

To want a government that is small, efficient, effective, and devoted to protecting the rights of the people so that they can be free to live their lives as they choose is not the same thing as wanting no government.

To want taxes that are necessary to fund a necessary government and otherwise leaves the people with the money they earn to use as they choose to use it is not the same thing as wanting no taxes.

To want only regulation that is necessary to secure our rights and maintain the necessary functions of government is not the same thing as wanting no regulation.

But to put up those strawmen to argue against means people don't have to address the valid positions of those who want the least possible govt necessary

 

[pjnlsn]

Government would do just fine if it were minimalist and funded through voluntary contributions. It certainly will not function without forced taxation if you want it to continue all the ridiculous shit it does.

"do just fine" can mean anything you want it to mean, so......that statement doesn't mean anything, really....cept to you, and people who already know what you mean, I suppose.

Offhand, shutting down the government (effectively) is a solution akin to, say, hunting crab on the beach with a sledgehammer. It's crude and destructive.

No more taxes, or no more forced taxation is, i'm sure a slogan everyone and anyone can get behind, but governments have a purpose, and It seems to me that it's better to take the good with the bad rather than accept nothingness. Or to reform, and very possibly rebuild, but not to cripple and leave lying on the floor. What it most certainly would do is give total, or near enough to make no difference, control of the government to private entities, assuming that a benevolent funder who can, in a sense, outbid everyone else, and by a large amount, doesn't exist.

It's not at all practical.

To want a government that is small, efficient, effective, and devoted to protecting the rights of the people so that they can be free to live their lives as they choose is not the same thing as wanting no government.

To want taxes that are necessary to fund a necessary government and otherwise leaves the people with the money they earn to use as they choose to use it is not the same thing as wanting no taxes.

To want only regulation that is necessary to secure our rights and maintain the necessary functions of government is not the same thing as wanting no regulation.

But to put up those strawmen to argue against means people don't have to address the valid positions of those who want the least possible govt necessary

Both of these are not rebuttals of the posts they are written as responses to, or as following a succession. Assuming that they are meant to appear that way, they are, in fact, characterized by Strawmen. To reiterate:

To force the government to rely on donations is, effectively to shut the government down. Or to give complete control of it to private interests.

But as I said, the idea is crude. These ideas, "smaller government," "no taxation," etc, these are things which everyone could get behind perhaps. But good slogans don't necessarily make good, practical solutions.

 

[Votto]

I'm down with selling the south to mexico or china.

They did that a long time ago. Where were you?

 

[candycorn]

I'm down with selling the south to mexico or china. It would pay off the debt and then some, plus getting most all of the GOP trash the hell out of the country so freedom and liberty can prevail

Texas doesn't need your type anyways.

You think you can do without us?

Easily.

It is what is referred to as "addition by subtraction".

 

[Lumpy 1]

 

[Foxfyre]

Government would do just fine if it were minimalist and funded through voluntary contributions. It certainly will not function without forced taxation if you want it to continue all the ridiculous shit it does.

"do just fine" can mean anything you want it to mean, so......that statement doesn't mean anything, really....cept to you, and people who already know what you mean, I suppose.

Offhand, shutting down the government (effectively) is a solution akin to, say, hunting crab on the beach with a sledgehammer. It's crude and destructive.

No more taxes, or no more forced taxation is, i'm sure a slogan everyone and anyone can get behind, but governments have a purpose, and It seems to me that it's better to take the good with the bad rather than accept nothingness. Or to reform, and very possibly rebuild, but not to cripple and leave lying on the floor. What it most certainly would do is give total, or near enough to make no difference, control of the government to private entities, assuming that a benevolent funder who can, in a sense, outbid everyone else, and by a large amount, doesn't exist.

It's not at all practical.

To want a government that is small, efficient, effective, and devoted to protecting the rights of the people so that they can be free to live their lives as they choose is not the same thing as wanting no government.

To want taxes that are necessary to fund a necessary government and otherwise leaves the people with the money they earn to use as they choose to use it is not the same thing as wanting no taxes.

To want only regulation that is necessary to secure our rights and maintain the necessary functions of government is not the same thing as wanting no regulation.

But to put up those strawmen to argue against means people don't have to address the valid positions of those who want the least possible govt necessary

Both of these are not rebuttals of the posts they are written as responses to, or as following a succession. Assuming that they are meant to appear that way, they are, in fact, characterized by Strawmen. To reiterate:

To force the government to rely on donations is, effectively to shut the government down. Or to give complete control of it to private interests.

But as I said, the idea is crude. These ideas, "smaller government," "no taxation," etc, these are things which everyone could get behind perhaps. But good slogans don't necessarily make good, practical solutions.

A slogan always underscores a larger principle. I don't know a soul who has proposed to force the government to rely on donations, for instance. But those of us who point out that in most things, the private sector will spend its money more efficiently and effectively for all than any government can, may encapsulate that concept into a statement such as:

To want taxes that are necessary to fund a necessary government and otherwise leaves the people with the money they earn to use as they choose to use it is not the same thing as wanting no taxes.​

And when you are dealing with a government who wants to take more and more of the money we earn or acquire to spend as the government sees fit, it provides more and more incentive to freedom loving people to want very much to be free of that government. And, when the entitlement mentality becomes so entrenched to seemingly give that government a shelf life of a slab of granite, THEN we have visions of seceding and having the government that the rest of us want.