Is it time to dump Dixie?

[JustRalph]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/08/dems-it-s-time-to-dump-dixie.html

Two countries?

"The main point is this: Trying to win Southern seats is not worth the ideological cost for Democrats."

[classhandicapper]

I'm still not sure why "people" are so opposed to splitting countries up along whatever lines make sense to the people there. I understand why politicians are against it, but not people.

In the idealistic world of the left, we are all equal, we should all want the same things and want to get them the same way, we can all get along, we can all compromise, and everything will work out great. Then I look at the REAL world and I see conflict and war based on religious differences, racial differences, ethnic differences, tribal differences, political differences on matters people are passionate about etc...

It's a big freaking mess.

In friendships, marriages, and business relationships we tend to associate with people that share our interests, values, and want the same things out of life as us over the long haul. When things stop working out we find new friends, get divorced, spin off businesses etc...

In politics we actually try to ram people together even when we know they have diametrically opposed views and values and then we force them to stay together even when they start getting angry as things start going badly and they think it's the other guy's fault.

What's the big deal about breaking up a country along lines that will give people the ability to associate with others that share the same values and want the same things in the same way?

That was one of the original ideas behind giving most of the power to states. Then people could vote with their feet if they were unhappy with the political direction of the state they lived in. Maybe some day the world will be different, but right now it's a mess and it feels like the hostilities and desire to break up is growing.

Divorced couples can remain great friends and both go on to lead full and happy lives, just different than each other.

[HUSKER55]

SHE GOT beat in an election which means she obviously wasn't doing the job the people expected her to do and the polls showed it.

Now we cry," boo hoo hoo" its the end of the south, we should split, yadda yadda, yadda.

like every other loser they are whinning and want some one to throw them a teat.

[JustRalph]

This guy thinks the south was lost due to racism.

Yet, South Carolina just elected a black Repub Senator.

The Governor of South Carolina is a woman and of Indian heritage.

Louisiana has a Governor of Indian heritage.

What these Liberal pundits don't get is Conservative Repubs could give a shit where you are from, what you look like etc. they care about the values, the belief in limited government and keeping government out of our lives. You could be a frigging Martian, if you agree, you can get the vote.

You also cannot forget that Dem's have tried to impose gun control. The ACA and its attack on Religion. These are issues that mean something in the south. Toss in the anti-coal agenda, the BLM and a President who complains about those in fly-over country who cling to God, Guns and Religion.......and you end up losing the entire south.

I couldn't be happier.

[GaryG]

States rights has long been an important issue in the south, going back as far as reconstruction. Some democrats may be palatable, but not the socialist big government that this administration is committed to. We believe in individual responsibility and government by the sovereign states with limited intrusion from Washington.

[Tom]

When half the country live off the work and sweat of the other half, it is hard to get rid of them.

But we should never stop trying.

[Actor]

When half the country live off the work and sweat of the other half, ...Where did you get that statistic?

... it is hard to get rid of them.

But we should never stop trying.Exactly what should we try? What is your final solution?

[Actor]

I'm still not sure why "people" are so opposed to splitting countries up along whatever lines make sense to the people there. I understand why politicians are against it, but not people.So the Civil War was a mistake?

[JustRalph]

So the Civil War was a mistake?

There is no issue like slavery today. He asks a valid question

And with the benefit of hindsight, I might think the civil war was a mistake.

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4i3wsdCEAAV05c.jpg

[Clocker]

States rights has long been an important issue in the south, going back as far as reconstruction.

In the dogma of the Church of the Holy Progressive, states rights and racism are equivalent terms.

[Clocker]

And with the benefit of hindsight, I might think the civil war was a mistake.

As far as the legitimacy of secession, I agree. There was nothing in the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution where any state agreed to be bound to the union forever. And even if there was, no persons or government at that time could expect to bind all future generations to any agreement.

[iceknight]

You could be a frigging Martian, if you agree, you can get the vote.
But you cannot be a Kenyan :lol:

[JustRalph]

But you cannot be a Kenyan :lol:


Excellent point! :lol:

[Robert Goren]

In the dogma of the Church of the Holy Progressive, states rights and racism are equivalent terms.That is because the first words out of a racist's mouth are "States Rights".

[Robert Goren]

As far as the legitimacy of secession, I agree. There was nothing in the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution where any state agreed to be bound to the union forever. And even if there was, no persons or government at that time could expect to bind all future generations to any agreement.See post 10. The Civil War ended all the separation nonsense.

[newtothegame]

Well gee, you all on the left have me thinking here....
You guys despise the south, call us racist, and even gone so far as to claim how the blue states pay for the red states.
I would think the left, (blue states) would be willing to help the red states separate......
Maybe one of you fine gents on the left....GOREN (or others) care the explain the hypocrisy?

[Tom]

That is because the first words out of a racist's mouth are "States Rights".

Wow, man, what planet are you on?

[Tom]

Where did you get that statistic?

Exactly what should we try? What is your final solution?

I got if from therealworld,.com
We should try to find a way to separate ourselves from the left.
Imagine how great we could be if we were freed from the anchors!

The left thinks that are so great, lets see how they do without having us to steal from. :lol::lol::lol:

You guys should be happy to see us war-mongering greedy bastards leave! :lol::lol:

[classhandicapper]

So the Civil War was a mistake?

I don't know, but I think it's at least debatable.

Slavery is clearly intrinsically immoral. The question is whether it would have died eventually like it did elsewhere in the world within a reasonable time frame or whether we had to kills hundreds of thousands of people, maim God know how many others, and destroy cities and families to reach the correct end game. Without knowing the answer to when and if it would have died on it's own (or could have been killed by less violent means), I can't answer the question.

IMO, other than the slavery issue (and there were others), fighting and killing people to keep the country together for other reasons was a mistake bordering on immoral.

I am actually HOPING the US splits or there a huge move of power back towards the states and away from Washington at some point in my lifetime so I have greater choice to live where I am more comfortable with the economic and political goals of the leadership and rest of the population.

[classhandicapper]

That is because the first words out of a racist's mouth are "States Rights".

Like most on the left, you are implying that all people that are for states rights are also racists. That's clearly false.

In my case it's about economics and the escaping the negative social and economic results of moral relativism (which would be Satan's religion if there was a devil). I'd rather be an agnostic living among fundamentalist Christians and devout Jews etc... than an agnostic living in Hollywood with the serpents.

[Tom]

The power most definitely has to be reduced at the Federal lever.
Too much power in hands of people questionable integrity, morality, honesty,
and plain common sense.

The whole role of government has grown beyond belief.

[NJ Stinks]

Well gee, you all on the left have me thinking here....
You guys despise the south, call us racist, and even gone so far as to claim how the blue states pay for the red states.
I would think the left, (blue states) would be willing to help the red states separate......
Maybe one of you fine gents on the left....GOREN (or others) care the explain the hypocrisy?


I don't despise the South - I just choose not to live there.

As for states separating, let's just say I'm not for another Civil War to keep any state in the union.

Especially Texas. ;)

[Robert Goren]

Like most on the left, you are implying that all people that are for states rights are also racists. That's clearly false.

In my case it's about economics and the escaping the negative social and economic results of moral relativism (which would be Satan's religion if there was a devil). I'd rather be an agnostic living among fundamentalist Christians and devout Jews etc... than an agnostic living in Hollywood with the serpents.I never said that. I said that racist all want more states rights because it is easier legalize racism at the state than it is at the federal level. If you are in favor of states rights, you have to explain how you are going to stop the racist from having their way. "I don't believe that will happen" is not an adequate response because it happen before.
The idea that we should not fought the civil war because slavery might have ended in 50 years or so is total repulsive on every level.

[AndyC]

I never said that. I said that racist all want more states rights because it is easier legalize racism at the state than it is at the federal level. If you are in favor of states rights, you have to explain how you are going to stop the racist from having their way. "I don't believe that will happen" is not an adequate response because it happen before.
The idea that we should not fought the civil war because slavery might have ended in 50 years or so is total repulsive on every level.


Please provide an example of how a state can legalize racism. Unlike BO the states still have to abide by the constitution.

[Clocker]

See post 10. The Civil War ended all the separation nonsense.

Why is the South wanting to separate from the Union nonsense, but the colonies wanting to separate from the British Empire is noble and just?

[Robert Goren]

Why is the South wanting to separate from the Union nonsense, but the colonies wanting to separate from the British Empire is noble and just? The reasons are different and so are the times. It is more like Scotland and Wales wanting to leave the United Kingdom.

[Robert Goren]

Please provide an example of how a state can legalize racism. Unlike BO the states still have to abide by the constitution.Jim Crow laws. Separate but equal schools. No mixed race marriages. Those were all thing that some states had before the federal government intervened. The list could go into the hundreds.

[Clocker]

The reasons are different and so are the times.

You avoided the issue. The colonists wanted self-government, feeling that the Crown was infringing on their liberty. The South wanted self-government, feeling that the federal government was infringing on their liberty. Why is one right and the other wrong? It is the same reason in either case. How does the issue of liberty change over time?

[Tom]

Jim Crow laws. Separate but equal schools. No mixed race marriages. Those were all thing that some states had before the federal government intervened. The list could go into the hundreds.


And what would they do now?

[Robert Goren]

You avoided the issue. The colonists wanted self-government, feeling that the Crown was infringing on their liberty. The South wanted self-government, feeling that the federal government was infringing on their liberty. Why is one right and the other wrong? It is the same reason in either case. How does the issue of liberty change over time?Wrong on both counts. One was about money and the other one is about few people showing off their stupidity. I know you are not going to like the answers, but you kept asking, so I will stop sugar coating the truth. Neither case had/has anything to do with "liberty" other than a few wantabe politicians in both cases throwing the word around. The American patriots did not believe in liberty or slavery would never survived the Revolutionary War. It was all about trading rights and to a lesser extent, taxes. Money, pure and simple. When Southerns learn what it is going to cost them economically to leave the union, then they wise up. Being a US citizen is the best deal around. I thank God every day I got a chance to in on the deal. Almost everybody else in the world would gladly trade places with one of these southern malcontents.

[Tom]

Source?
Fractured Fairy Tales?

[Clocker]

The American patriots did not believe in liberty or slavery would never survived the Revolutionary War. It was all about trading rights and to a lesser extent, taxes.

The northern colonists were morally opposed to slavery, but knew that the only way to break free of England was to fight one battle at a time, and unite with the south against the Brits. There was no way the slavery issue could even be discussed as part of the revolution. Yes, they "kicked the can down the road."

The American colonies ignored British trading restrictions and did as they pleased. We were a nation of smugglers. The colonists had more freedom than anyone else in the British Empire, including the Brits themselves. The Crown was cracking down on all subjects, especially the Americans. The colonists had a great deal of self rule through their assemblies, including taxation, and Britain was pulling that power back to the Crown. That is what triggered the revolution.

And the southern states felt the same way about the Union in the 1800s. They felt the federal government taking away their individual power to govern. The major manifestation of this was slavery. How is that different than the colonists?

[tucker6]

Wrong on both counts. One was about money and the other one is about few people showing off their stupidity. I know you are not going to like the answers, but you kept asking, so I will stop sugar coating the truth. Neither case had/has anything to do with "liberty" other than a few wantabe politicians in both cases throwing the word around. The American patriots did not believe in liberty or slavery would never survived the Revolutionary War. It was all about trading rights and to a lesser extent, taxes. Money, pure and simple. When Southerns learn what it is going to cost them economically to leave the union, then they wise up. Being a US citizen is the best deal around. I thank God every day I got a chance to in on the deal. Almost everybody else in the world would gladly trade places with one of these southern malcontents.
Just like your Wilson/Brown fairy tale, this is a whopper too. Why do you keep fabricating the truth?

[JustRalph]

The tenth amendment is easy to understand. Yet it has been ignored for at least 150 years

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Clocker]

The tenth amendment is easy to understand. Yet it has been ignored for at least 150 years

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The feds have probably infringed more on that amendment than they have on the 2nd. :eek:

[TJDave]

All those who champion states' rights should come out to California and get some. We have an overabundance of it here.

[classhandicapper]

The idea that we should not fought the civil war because slavery might have ended in 50 years or so is total repulsive on every level.

1. Killing 700k people, maiming hundreds of thousands of others, pitting families against each other and ultimately killing each other, and destroying whole cities is also wildly repulsive.

2. You are coming up with 50 years out of you arse. Maybe it would have been 10 years using political and economic means. Maybe it would have been 20 years. We don't know.

There is nothing repulsive about weighing the massive death and destruction in one of the worst wars in world history vs. how long you would have to tolerate another immorality to avoid it. You might decide the war was worth and you might not. The problem is we DON'T know the waiting period.

[Clocker]

All those who champion states' rights should come out to California and get some. We have an overabundance of it here.

In California, states rights means that the state has the right to do to you anything that the feds don't already do. And the state has the right to take from you anything that the feds haven't already taken.

AKA rectal rehydration. :eek:

[classhandicapper]

All those who champion states' rights should come out to California and get some. We have an overabundance of it here.

lmao.

I would happily grant CA as much freedom as it wants to do as many things as I find foolish, repulsive, immoral, economically unsound etc... in return for the choice to never have to live there and to potentially find some place more suitable to me. However, my limited knowledge of CA indicates there's not much it can do to make things worse. ;)

[JustRalph]

All those who champion states' rights should come out to California and get some. We have an overabundance of it here.


You have an over abundance for sure......but it ain't States Rights.....

[TJDave]

I would happily grant CA as much freedom as they want in return for the choice to never have to live there. ;)

Dude, NY is better?

At least I can still buy a Big Gulp.

[Clocker]

At least I can still buy a Big Gulp.

Yeah, but you have to get a background check and there is a 2 day waiting period. :rolleyes:

[classhandicapper]

Dude, NY is better?

At least I can still buy a Big Gulp.

If NY is better it's only because we don't have Hollywood and San Francisco (we do have Wall St though and that's the eastern vacation stop for satan) .

Don't you read any of my posts?

I'm constantly whining about not having a place I can run away to because the left has destroyed everything. I'm not a fan of NY at all, but I have family obligations.

[Clocker]

If NY is better it's only because we don't have Hollywood and San Francisco (we do have Wall St though and that's the eastern vacation stop for satan) .



Closer every day. Gov. Cuomo just notified health insurance companies that they have to cover gender reassignment surgery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/nyregion/in-new-york-insurance-must-cover-sex-changes-cuomo-says.html?_r=1

[classhandicapper]

Closer every day. Gov. Cuomo just notified health insurance companies that they have to cover gender reassignment surgery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/nyregion/in-new-york-insurance-must-cover-sex-changes-cuomo-says.html?_r=1

And I recently read an article by a prominent research department that suggested that most people that go through gender reassignment surgery end up depressed and sorry they did it and often counsel others to NOT do it.

The researcher basically called it mutilation.

Of course many on the left went bonkers, but I read a few interviews and comments from people that actually went through it that suggested the report was spot on.

[JustRalph]

Closer every day. Gov. Cuomo just notified health insurance companies that they have to cover gender reassignment surgery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/nyregion/in-new-york-insurance-must-cover-sex-changes-cuomo-says.html?_r=1

I'm immediately investing in Big and Tall, for ladies.....

[Tom]

With all due respect, NYC is run by a total idiot.
JErry Brown is probably nothing more than a drugged out hippy with a fried brain.

NYC has the real deal - evil personified. A true SOB with zero redeeming qualities. His mother should be in prison for not aborting him.

They should form a group, take him from his office and throw him in the Hudson River, with the rest of the trash.

[Actor]

Closer every day. Gov. Cuomo just notified health insurance companies that they have to cover gender reassignment surgery.


Gender reassignment surgery is a treatment for gender dysphoria, recognized by the medical community as a mental disorder. I'm not a doctor but it seems to me that pandering to the patients fantasies with irreversible surgery should be a last resort treatment. If one follows this line of "logic" then a patient who thinks he's a coo coo clock should be given a small house that he can pop into and out of on the hour, and the insurance company should pay for it.

Likewise, a patient who thinks he's Jesus Christ should be crucified and the insurance company should pay for the cross and nails.

[JustRalph]

Likewise, a patient who thinks he's Jesus Christ should be crucified and the insurance company should pay for the cross and nails.

We don't have enough wood or nails. There's at least a couple Jesus in every decent size hospital in the country.

My Fav was the guys who thought they were Elvis. Including one girl in Maryland. It was always blue suede shoes or hound dog. Never did they know " The wonder of you"

[classhandicapper]

Gender reassignment surgery is a treatment for gender dysphoria, recognized by the medical community as a mental disorder.

I have no medical background or experience in this area other than the report I referenced that I recently read. I assume they are right on this one. In general though, I don't particularly respect the opinion of the medical community on the definition of disorder. It's hard to when the definition keeps changing and not everyone agrees. That makes it feel too subjective and/or potentially influenced.

People believe and do all sorts of wacky things that are harmless to themselves and others. They can live happy and full lives despite their beliefs or behaviors, but IMO they still sometimes have disorders. Others feel anxiety or depression despite no such aberrant beliefs or behaviors.

[Tom]

Surgery for a mental disorder sounds unethical to me.
Should the metal defect not be the focus of treatment?

If there is a physical component to it, then I guess it is reasonable to cut ( or paste, as the case may be).