If possible, should we peacefully split the country?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nobody is going to moving to Texas anytime soon, after what happened there recently. Republicans are incapable of RUNNING anything, other than into the ground.

Great, so urge your comrades to support the separation of our country, and let us run our country into the ground. I would love nothing better.

 

[Andylusion]

Republicans are nicer people, they donate more to charity,

Nah, they are just more gullible and give more to their churches. Those goobers will believe ANYTHING.

No, that's a fact. That is researched, and documented fact.

View attachment 460139

View attachment 460140

Liberal Kristof Admits Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals

Liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof once again displayed his counterintuitive bona fides. In his Sunday column, "Bleeding Heart Tightwads," Kristof (just in time for Christmas) admitted to being disturbed by a survey showing that liberals, for all their talk of compassion, are less charitable...

www.mrc.org

How Political Ideology Influences Charitable Giving (Published 2018)

The authors of a new academic study explore the effect of political differences on how we give to charity.

www.nytimes.com

Even Democrats admit this if they are honest. The only way left-wingers even attempt to claim they are charitable, is by claiming taxation and social programs are charity. Well that's not charity. Charity doesn't involve your income being confiscated from you by force, and given to someone else without your consent.

Charity is when you make the choice to give money without any compulsion, to another person or cause, for the benefit of a stranger.

And if tax and spend policies were in fact charity, then you wouldn't see left-wingers themselves doing everything in their power to avoid the taxation.

If you adjust for church funding, which 90% helps church functions not people Democrats give more. Here is how churches spend money: 49% on personnel, 23% on facilities, 11% on missions, 10% on programs, 6% on dues. Almost all the charity Republicans give to churches is for themselves , not other people.

No, that's not true either. Pacific Garden Mission, Lutheran Ministries, Samaritan's Purse, and numerous others, are spending mostly to help people.

Further, the church itself helps people in their own functions. 49% and 23% on missions, includes for example addiction service, and counseling that is provided to church members free of charge.

My father was a free marriage and mental health counselor.

Moreover, I've seen videos where churches were used as shelters and hospitals for emergencies, like the floods out west.

Now obviously I can't speak for every single christian, or every single church, but when I talk about charity, I'm not talking about giving to the church even. I don't even include that. When I say charity, I mean money that I have given to charitable organizations that help people. Again, like those above, such as Lutheran Ministries, Samartian's Purse, Pacific Garden Mission, and others.

These are not churches. They are literally charity organizations.

Further, I think you greatly underestimate the amount of time and money given, that doesn't include dollars through the church.

For example my parents church has a group that makes food, and visits children stuck at the Ronald McDonald house. People all over the world send their kids to the US, to get health care that their socialized health care systems do not provide. But they are here alone, without friends or family. Our church sends people there all the time. They spend their time, and their own money, buying food, toys and games, and playing with these isolated people.

You can't quantify that on spreadsheet, because it isn't recorded anywhere.

I myself, have worked hours on hours at the homeless shelter. You don't see that in a ledger.

The year before last, my church ran a winter coat drive for kids in poverty, so that everyone in the city could freely get a coat for their children. We had hundreds on hundreds. So many that all the stores in the area, were completely empty of coats.

That was thousands on thousands of dollars. None of it shows up on charitable giving, and it required hundreds of hours of time by church members to organize, and then hand out the coats.

So, no. Sorry, nice thought, but no. Conservatives are vastly more charitable than left-wingers, even if you try and tease out church operational costs. Just no.

My point is that most of that money - salary, facilities, dues, and most of programs - goes to entertaining oneself in a religious setting. Absolutely, I agree, some small portion of that is the pastors time consoling people for loss and such but it’s not lifting people out of poverty or curing illness which is true charity. Jesus didn’t build himself a grand theater to worship. He helped the poor and sick.

I respectfully disagree.
I think the difference is a fundamental view of what charity really is.

You, at least from this perspective... seem to be implying that money is what charity is. That throwing money at stuff, is how you define "helping people". But if throwing money at people helped, then we should have no people left to help in this world.

From the 1964 LBJ war on poverty, until today, we have spent $22 Trillion dollars, and more. Poverty is not any better today, than back in the 1960s, and in many cases is worse.

I would say that the programs and systems run by Conservative Christians does dramatically more good for society, and the poor, and the needy, than any "throw money at them" program that left-wingers tend to support.

Just think about it logically. Which program is going to have a better long term result: A program that gives money to someone who refuses to work, or a program that pushes that same person to get a job and work their way up the income ladder?

After you get a job and work, you'll be making more money, and moving up in the world.
After you are on welfare, you start again at the bottom rung of the economy.

Which one of those really helps?

And what are some of the keys that lift people out of poverty? Being a better person. Having a "protestant work ethic". Showing up on time. Working consistently and with honesty and integrity.

Welfare and food stamps can't teach you that. Yet all those things I've heard preached and taught at multiple Christian churches.

That's more likely to help you get a job, and get promoted, than any left-wing welfare program.

And Jesus did build a Grand Theater. It was called the Temple, and it was more grand, more expensive, and required more money than any church in the US, and Jesus even paid the Temple Tax in Matthew 17.
And Jesus was G-d. G-d said in Malachi chapter 3:

"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it."
So Jesus was very much pro-church.

Church can be very self satisfying. You are preached about being loved. I think it’s a positive impact. BUT almost all the donations go to generating the message to parishioners. A very small piece goes towards helping people outside that service. Definitely some. They do food drives etc. My point is the difference in giving in the parties is essentially represented by the money spent on preaching to the choir.

First you keep talking about churches, and I listed off a dozen charities that are not churches. Samaritan's purse is not a church. Pacific Garden Mission, is not a church. Lutheran Ministries, is not a church.

Those are charities, that help the public.

Further, you talk about money given to churches, is preaching to the choir, and that only a small piece goes towards helping people outside that service.

First that is not what you said before. You said all the money goes to the building or whatever, and that is not true.

But as for it going to church members, so what? Are implying that only rich people go to church? You say you want churches to help the poor, and I would suggest a large portion of churches are made up of the lower and middle class people.

Of Evangelical Protestants, only 14% are super rich. And 35% make less than $30K. And the rest are middle class.

So, yes I would say that most of the money donated to churches, helps people in those churches... AND RIGHTLY SO. I do not see that you have a point to make.

Yeah, I agree a majority of the money go to church services that benefit members... and it should. There are million of poor people in church.

And just like I would help my wife, or my daughter, or my son, before I would help a stranger.... so too does the church help it's members in priority over strangers. That is the right, moral, and the responsible thing to do.

Every three Sundays, we have something called the Deacon Fund. Many churches have Deacon Funds. It's a special offering above your regular tithe to the church, that is money set aside specifically for widows, orphans, and the impoverished or homeless in the church. That is good, moral, and right.

It still charity. It doesn't magically cease to be charity because you don't like that people in the church, benefit from the church. That is a ridiculous concept.

 

[candycorn]

Great retreat from your idiotic first position. You don't know anything about this topic sonny and you sound more and more crazy with each post.

So when disaster strikes Conserve-istan, who do they call? The benevolent other red states? Yeah..make me laugh harder.

We would call our own federal government, much like we do today. Except once we create our own country, there will be much less need for federal government because like our founders concept, when you depend on federal government to solve all your problems, you surrender your freedom like what's happening in our current country.

And the benevolent other red states who want nothing to do with any other state will gladly turn over their treasure...no questions asked?

Or would they state, "don't give up your freedom and figure it out on your own"?

 

[candycorn]

So Texas will be on the Democratic side of the Trump Wall?

The comedy keeps on coming.

Your property values would be weighed down by Dixie and West Virginia--world-class shit holes.

It could be, depending on how we settle the division. If not and it's on the Republican side, we will allow intruders on our side to be shot and killed on site, and that would stop any invaders on the Texas border. Either that or divide Texas into two states as well.

My suburb was thriving with increasing property values since it was created until the Democrats moved in. Then it went to hell.

Your desperate position was probably due to the influx of white supremacists...like yourself.

Just out of curiosity...who pays for the burials of the people you want to murder?

 

[candycorn]

Tell us how your idea would work out in terms of geographical allocation. This should be almost as hilarious as your idea for no taxes.

Show me where I said no taxes. You people on the left lie so much you don't even realize you're doing it.

My idea is to divide the country in two from north to south, making adjustments so each side gets the same square mileage; in the range from North Dakota to Texas. This way each country has a north and south in which to live. The ideal situation for me is for us Republicans to have the east side of our current country so that your side could have the Mexicans you love so much. Plus, once all the Democrats move out, my property value would more than double.

Then we'd have a national land trade off. If you currently live on the east side of the country where Republicans have their country with a home and 1 acre of land, you trade off with a similar residence on the Democrat side and move there.

Then we'd build a huge Trump wall on that dividing line to keep you people out. There would be legal entry points like we have on our Canadian or Mexican border. We can trade, you can come and visit conservative family members or friends, but you can't live here. Anybody caught trying to scale the wall to get to our side would be immediately shot and killed.

No more hidden or direct taxes.

So Texas will be on the Democratic side of the Trump Wall?

The comedy keeps on coming.

Your property values would be weighed down by Dixie and West Virginia--world-class shit holes.

Red states are crippled by populations of poor, criminal black Democrats ....Wouldn’t they relocate to the side giving away all the free shit, the side that makes excuses for them and leads them around by the nose...you know, the plantation side?
Wouldn’t they become your liabilities?

In the fantasies I've read here....apparently there will be this massive migration of people from one side of the nation to the other that will be paid for by ____________________. Most people I know don't really give two shits about how 50.1% of their state voted in a quadrennial election and wouldn't move just because they are told "you should move".

What would happen is this; you guys on the "east" side would do what you always do with populations you don't like, treat them poorly, discriminate against them in numerous ways and try to get them to self-segregate (or as you guys called it when you were for Romney...self-deport.

The great liability that Conserve-istan would have is the people leading it. Its based on hate and segregation. Nothing more; nothing less.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the fantasies I've read here....apparently there will be this massive migration of people from one side of the nation to the other that will be paid for by ____________________. Most people I know don't really give two shits about how 50.1% of their state voted in a quadrennial election and wouldn't move just because they are told "you should move".

What would happen is this; you guys on the "east" side would do what you always do with populations you don't like, treat them poorly, discriminate against them in numerous ways and try to get them to self-segregate (or as you guys called it when you were for Romney...self-deport.

The great liability that Conserve-istan would have is the people leading it. Its based on hate and segregation. Nothing more; nothing less.

People could naturally migrate to areas that meet their political desires, but the problem with that is when we create these great states, the Democrats move to those states, and vote the exact same way that ruined their previous state. You don't hear or read of Republicans moving to blue states unless it's work related. My cousin is one of those people. She and her wife lived in Mass. After they retried, they were worth a good chunk of money being in medical professions their entire lives. Where did they move? Tennessee. How do they vote? Liberal Democrat.

 

[candycorn]

In the fantasies I've read here....apparently there will be this massive migration of people from one side of the nation to the other that will be paid for by ____________________. Most people I know don't really give two shits about how 50.1% of their state voted in a quadrennial election and wouldn't move just because they are told "you should move".

What would happen is this; you guys on the "east" side would do what you always do with populations you don't like, treat them poorly, discriminate against them in numerous ways and try to get them to self-segregate (or as you guys called it when you were for Romney...self-deport.

The great liability that Conserve-istan would have is the people leading it. Its based on hate and segregation. Nothing more; nothing less.

People could naturally migrate to areas that meet their political desires, but the problem with that is when we create these great states, the Democrats move to those states, and vote the exact same way that ruined their previous state. You don't hear or read of Republicans moving to blue states unless it's work related. My cousin is one of those people. She and her wife lived in Mass. After they retried, they were worth a good chunk of money being in medical professions their entire lives. Where did they move? Tennessee. How do they vote? Liberal Democrat.

Naturally migrate to meet their political desires...dumbest statement ever.

Especially after you just bitched about "the democrats moved in to your suburb and lowered the value of your cardboard box".

Did you migrate away?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your desperate position was probably due to the influx of white supremacists...like yourself.

Just out of curiosity...who pays for the burials of the people you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anybody, but I've always believed that a strong enough deterrent stops whatever it is you're trying to stop. It's one of the many, many differences between Democrats and Republicans which is why we drastically need to split up. To answer your question, the state would pay for the rare and few border crosser burials because very few would risk their lives to move to our side no matter how bad your side is.

 

[candycorn]

Your desperate position was probably due to the influx of white supremacists...like yourself.

Just out of curiosity...who pays for the burials of the people you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anybody, but I've always believed that a strong enough deterrent stops whatever it is you're trying to stop. It's one of the many, many differences between Democrats and Republicans which is why we drastically need to split up. To answer your question, the state would pay for the rare and few border crosser burials because very few would risk their lives to move to our side no matter how bad your side is.

One of the many differences....indeed.

You're fantasizing about murdering people .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Naturally migrate to meet their political desires...dumbest statement ever.

Especially after you just bitched about "the democrats moved in to your suburb and lowered the value of your cardboard box".

Did you migrate away?

No I didn't. My mother who never drove a car in her life is 85. She lives only ten minutes away, and I want to be close by if she needs a ride to the doctor, hospital, drug store or grocery shopping. Pop is 89, and he lives about 20 minutes away. He drives, but not very well. Depending on what's wrong with him at the time, he becomes disabled from driving. That's besides the fact my business is here and it would make no sense to move somewhere else only to return every day to do all the work that needs to be done, especially in the summer time.

But again, even if I did migrate somewhere else, how long would it be before the Democrats started to move in and ruin it? See, if we had separate countries, that wouldn't even be a concern of mine.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One of the many differences....indeed.

You're fantasizing about murdering people .

No, I just got done telling you that, but as a liberal, you only believe what you wish to believe. The leftist mind blocks out everything that doesn't align with their thinking.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And the benevolent other red states who want nothing to do with any other state will gladly turn over their treasure...no questions asked?

Or would they state, "don't give up your freedom and figure it out on your own"?

I have no idea what you meant by other red states turning over their treasure. That doesn't even make sense to me. We would have much less dependency on our federal government, and rely on states to provide whatever social benefits they deem necessary for their citizens.

 

[Unkotare]

All these stupid pussy theories are just weaklings and losers wasting time. The UNITED States of America will be UNITED long after all these sad bastards are dust.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All these stupid pussy theories are just weaklings and losers wasting time. The UNITED States of America will be UNITED long after all these sad bastards are dust.

Yes it will, because it will fall to Socialism, then Communism, and there will be nothing you can do but be united with the government. It's happening right before your eyes, but you refuse to see it.

 

[22lcidw]

In the fantasies I've read here....apparently there will be this massive migration of people from one side of the nation to the other that will be paid for by ____________________. Most people I know don't really give two shits about how 50.1% of their state voted in a quadrennial election and wouldn't move just because they are told "you should move".

What would happen is this; you guys on the "east" side would do what you always do with populations you don't like, treat them poorly, discriminate against them in numerous ways and try to get them to self-segregate (or as you guys called it when you were for Romney...self-deport.

The great liability that Conserve-istan would have is the people leading it. Its based on hate and segregation. Nothing more; nothing less.

People could naturally migrate to areas that meet their political desires, but the problem with that is when we create these great states, the Democrats move to those states, and vote the exact same way that ruined their previous state. You don't hear or read of Republicans moving to blue states unless it's work related. My cousin is one of those people. She and her wife lived in Mass. After they retried, they were worth a good chunk of money being in medical professions their entire lives. Where did they move? Tennessee. How do they vote? Liberal Democrat.

Naturally migrate to meet their political desires...dumbest statement ever.

Especially after you just bitched about "the democrats moved in to your suburb and lowered the value of your cardboard box".

Did you migrate away?

The problem is the new Progressive people then vote in crazy radicals who are fronted by what was the democratic Party. Cities in Texas are going crazy. Washington State and Oregon are gone as the coastal areas are Progged. Colorado and New Mexico have been infected. Eastern Pennsylvania counties from the northern border to near Philly has been deluged by New York City Progs escaping the old to bring back the old in their new areas. There are more. To soften the area is good. To change it to what you left is not.

 

[Utilitarian]

I'm not affiliated with any bunch or party. And I'm actually not
conservative on all policies. I just don't care for a lot of modern progressive social views.

Like civil rights?

Depends on how you're defining civil rights. The concept made sense all the way through gay marriage. Shortly after the Supreme Court supported gay marriage, the left went a bit insane and started pushing the gender identity nonsense and then embraced "anti-racism", which is actually just racism against whites.

What civil rights have been taken from you? How has your gender identity changed?

Just because my own rights haven't been taken away doesn't mean that enabling people's mental illnesses is a good idea. The problem is that the left considers many things civil rights that aren't.

 

[beagle9]

Pretty much. It's natural for people of any race to prefer the company of their own group. Most people have an ingroup bias, because it was advantageous to have one in terms of evolution.

The only group with an outgroup bias seems to be white progressives. That's very unnatural and rather self-destructive.

That being said, I do have friends of other groups. The area I live in is somewhat diverse.

I would strongly disagree with that, particularly with blacks. When blacks get the slightest chance to move into white areas, they take it. It doesn't matter if it's through some government social program or by their own accord because they make enough money to afford to. Blacks can't wait to get away from each other. They are the only race in the world that strives to move away from their own kind.

This might be true, until you ask them about it, then they will lie and side with those who blame white's for the problems amongst black folks, otherwise if they are struggling it's always the white's that are to blame.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Split it.

Is this what you hope? For the record, we are in the midst of an un-civil war, led by trump and his hate and fear rhetoric.

Yes I do, impostor "Wry" Catcher.

 

[candycorn]

One of the many differences....indeed.

You're fantasizing about murdering people .

No, I just got done telling you that, but as a liberal, you only believe what you wish to believe. The leftist mind blocks out everything that doesn't align with their thinking.

This is what you wrote:

Anybody caught trying to scale the wall to get to our side would be immediately shot and killed.

Its incredible that this is your first position.... to "immediately shoot and kill" people. Like it's the best feature of your warped, silly-assed plan.

 

[candycorn]

And the benevolent other red states who want nothing to do with any other state will gladly turn over their treasure...no questions asked?

Or would they state, "don't give up your freedom and figure it out on your own"?

I have no idea what you meant by other red states turning over their treasure. That doesn't even make sense to me. We would have much less dependency on our federal government, and rely on states to provide whatever social benefits they deem necessary for their citizens.

The first question conservatives always ask is "what's in it for me?" When a hurricane hits Florida, the other states in conserve-hate-istan will just giggle at them and preach about Ayn Rand.