Split the US in half by some fair method [one side splits, the other side chooses].

All the Democrats move to one side of the country. Let's call it Lefistan.
All the Republicans move to the other side of the country. Let's call it Rightistan.

Abolish the two party system. All other aspects of government stay the same.

How different would the Leftistan and the Rightistan countries be after 50 years?
Do they need each other?

Colin,
I lived in "stan" for 22 years, thank you very much, but no thanks!
;_)))

What do you think these new countries would name themselves?

Democrats -
Democratic States of America

Republicans-
United Colors of Benetton
;-)

but they would be 90% white

where do the colors fit in

but they would be 90% white

where do the colors fit in[/b][/quote]
:lol:

but they would be 90% white

where do the colors fit in[/b][/quote]
oh puuhhleeze!!!!!

don't YOU trust Republicans???

if they say COLORS,
I believe it's colors!
;-))

oh puuhhleeze!!!!!

don't YOU trust Republicans???

if they say COLORS,
I believe it's colors!
;-))[/b][/quote]
in money i trust

in political parties i dont

:awinky:

Nice.

"Numbers I trust - People I don't! " - Webfather

If this happened I would finally get away from all of my annoying relatives. Wow - no more political debates over the holidays! Wooohooo! (I will refuse to travel out of my country - and they would never come here - lol Unfortunately though, hubby and I would be separated as well. We are polar opposites when it comes to politics. We just "don't go there" anymore for the sake of our marriage. lol

Interesting experiment though...instead of North vs. South it would be Left vs. Right - how appropriate. Although...the Right would win over the Left if there was a war between our two new countries...I think we kinda need the war mongers to balance the peace mongers out.

:unsure:

Where's Ayn Rand when you need her?

Leftistan would not survive without Rightistan! :redance:

Would Leftistan's economy prosper due to all the money they would save on national defense? After all, Rightistan would have the the largest and most modern armed forces money could buy.

:kapow:

this wouldn't work....who could elected offcials blame when shit goes wrong?

Rich,

I wonder who they would pander to? :D

I wouldn't want to live in Leftistan or Rightistan. I like them together but not separate.

Colin,

Here. Here. Agreed!

I would live in Libertaristan, though. :rokk:

more propaganda victims.. Newt Gingrich is a vicious asshole, therefore the conservatives are tougher in war.

Historically conservatives are isolationists, it's the leftists who go to war and fuck people up. The difference is we do it for self-preservation, the right does it to hide domestic ineptitude.

"SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family" http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/23/sant...orum/index.html

on the right you can only have sex with your wife with the lights out, missionary style, vagina only of course, and there are govt. cameras in your house. Everybody goes to church, your librarian keeps a list of your reading material and your mail carrier is a govt. informant. I think I'd want to live on the Left Coast :awinky:

Actually, Leftistan would attempt to invade/annex Rightistan in order to make sure everyone was 'giving' 'their fair share'; but would (because of the ineptness inherent in the Leftist system) lose. After beating them back into the Stone Age, Rightistan would rebuild their country and help them to establish a Representative form of gov't. Since Leftists never change, at the end of 50 years, things would be about back to what they were at the start.

Dig,
Much is being made of Santorum's words by the Left; but it's really smoke and mirrors. The fact is that if he was a Leftist, nothing would be said; and if it was, there would be hordes of leftists jumping up to defend him.

Question: Why do leftists think that they have an exclusive right to say whatever they choose, no matter what it is; and that everyone else should remain the 'silent majority'?

No matter how I might feel about sodomy (BTW, that term technically applies to the act, not the gender of the participants), I have a much stronger feeling that...

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BELONG IN A PRIVATE RESIDENCE!!!

more propaganda victims.. Newt Gingrich is a vicious asshole, therefore the conservatives are tougher in war.

Historically conservatives are isolationists, it's the leftists who go to war and fuck people up. The difference is we do it for self-preservation, the right does it to hide domestic ineptitude.

"SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family" http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/23/sant...orum/index.html

on the right you can only have sex with your wife with the lights out, missionary style, vagina only of course, and there are govt. cameras in your house. Everybody goes to church, your librarian keeps a list of your reading material and your mail carrier is a govt. informant. I think I'd want to live on the Left Coast :awinky:[/b][/quote]
Dig,

What does Newt and Santorum have to do with my post??

Are you sure you gave up the kind bud? :blink:

Funny thing is, IMHO in 20 years they would be almost identical, assuming that the center splits down the middle. Probably even find them working together to stamp out the terrorist conncections between the theocrats in Rightistan and the PETAcrats in Leftistan.

PD,

what I don't get is why the masses cling to either right or left. why are there not more libertarians?

it seems to me, the centrists have a lot in common with libertarians.

why the masses cling to either right or left

i dont think it would happen because the existence of either would be dependent on criticising the other.

Where is the freedom in either Leftistan or Rightistan?

Some conservatives want to make homosexuality in public illegal.

Some liberals want to make discussing homosexuality in public illegal [IF opinion differs from theirs].

stretching it a little bit eh Colin? :D

you're saying we want to make discussing homosexuality illegal illegal? which Senator proposed that?

The world is coming to an end .... sooner than we anticipated

Click Here for Hemispheric Dominance Inventory Test

"You responded as a right brained person to 12 questions, and you responded as a left brained person to 7 questions. "

It could be said I'm in my right mind for the most part

Hey Dig,

Not sure. Maybe so.

I am not in favor of making someone's employment dependent on their opinions or their wisdom to keep quiet about their opinions no matter how distasteful they may be. I don't think any of this year's holy trinity of politically incorrect nonconformists; Lott, Moran, and Santorum should be or should have been forced to resign from their position for their unpopular comments,

Illegal is probably too strong of a word.

Calling for the resignation of Senators who "step out of line". Hmmmm.

There is the argument that a Senator as a representative of a state or of the nation should not, and maybe should be prohibited from, making such remarks. The counter-argument is that such opinions are a necessary part of the political process.

Santorum's comments were regarding legislation and I find them less offensive and more necessary than Moran's or Lott's on those grounds alone though I strongly disagree with him and both of them in kind.






Last edited by Colin at Apr 24 2003, 06:53 PM

Hey Dig,

Not sure. Maybe so.

I am not in favor of making someone's employment dependent on their opinions or their wisdom to keep quiet about their opinions no matter how distasteful they may be. I don't think any of this year's holy trinity of politically incorrect nonconformists; Lott, Moran, and Santorum should be or should have been forced to resign from their position for their unpopular comments,

Illegal is probably too strong of a word.

Calling for the resignation of Senators who "step out of line". Hmmmm.

There is the argument that a Senator as a representative of a state or of the nation should not, and maybe should be prohibited from, making such remarks. The counter-argument is that such opinions are a necessary part of the political process.

Santorum's comments were regarding legislation and I find them less offensive and more necessary than Moran's or Lott's on those grounds alone though I strongly disagree with him and both of them in kind.[/b][/quote]
Colin, the "Some liberals want to make discussing homosexuality in public illegal" is beneath you. Some liberals don't hesitate to call a bigot a bigot when they hear one talking.

Santorum's comments were actually about a legal case heading to the Supreme Court over laws from a state other than his, not about current legislation pending before the U.S Senate. Besides, IMHO that distinction is just about as solid as discussions a few years ago about what constituted having heterosexual relations with "that woman" - it's hair splitting in the finest tradition of any party. Again IMHO, the only people more foolish that those who actually believe that distinction has the slightest validity are those who are indignant that such opinions are prevelant in mainstream Republican circles.

In theory I agree with you that "I not in favor of making someone's employment dependent on their opinions or their wisdom to keep quiet about their opinions no matter how distasteful they may be." I wonder how far we are willing to take that, however. I am not terribly enthusiastic about the possiblity that waxing nostalgic about the good old days of segregation becomes an acceptable mainstream political practice again - I'm old enough to remember when it was. What's next? Mainstream politicians advocating a return to Jim Crow, or advocating Third Reich style means of dealing with the "them" dujour?

Besides, Lott wasn't forced to resign from the Senate - he was just moved out of a leadership position for stating the party's positions on civil rights too bluntly.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 24 2003, 08:32 PM

I don't want them to resign, I want them to stay in office. I think it's GREAT when Republican leaders fuck up and say openly what they usually disguise in thinly veiled codewords. There are waaaaaaay too many idiots out there who NEED to hear Santorum talking about police busting into bedrooms and dragging people away on the charge of First Degree Blowjob. Otherwise they just won't understand what the Repubs are really about.

I am not terribly enthusiastic about the possiblity that waxing nostalgic about the good old days of segregation becomes an acceptable mainstream political practice. What's next? Mainstream politicians advocating a return to Jim Crow, or advocating Third Reich style means of dealing with the "them" dujour?

Besides, Lott wasn't forced to resign from the Senate - he was just moved out of a leadership position for stating the party's positions on civil rights too bluntly.
---------------------

I say do it, get em out there saying what they REALLY mean.

Give the voters a REAL choice by gawd...

why even try to rationalize and defend the indefensible, Colin?

just leave the dark side, you'll be much happier with us :)

Nothing is beneath me. You should know that.

Because there are various ideologies that always come to heads in these debates. It's quite interesting. Most of the time I feel pretty much on the fence not from indecisiveness but because I can't see one as better than the other and I don't like where either leads.

In this particular one ...

1. How far should we take free speech?
2. How far should we be politically correct?

What kind of society do we want to live in? What kind of society do I want to live in?

Such questions of ethics to me are indeterminate.

As much as I don't want to head down the "slippery rope" back to 1950's era bigotry I also don't want to live in a society where one cannot express their opinion - no matter how intolerable those opinions may be.

This is the same dichotomy of decisions that exists in the holocaust-denial laws in some European nations.

You tell me. What's a libertarian to do?

I agree with you guys on this. These guys are bigots.

Senators making statements that conjure up images of 1948 Mississippi KKK rallies or Henry Ford styled secret jewish cabals from "The International Jew" are offensive and, well, inappropriate. I wouldn't say them myself.

I don't expect that we'll have a jewish quota system in colleges or that we're headed for segregated restaurants again at any time soon as a result. But, yes, history does show such things often do start this way.

And if we stop them from saying these things? That's pretty offensive too. We know where that ends up too.

A "Third Reich" style world requires both these factors.

I guess we're pretty balanced where we are. Don't legislate it. Speak out if you disagree with it.

Forced conformity is a strange thing when it's for the greatest common good.

There is no party for me. I don't like the choices I have to make.

Libertarian. Love the principles but I rather suspect that if went all the way we'd find the invisible hand needed some guidance. I think the military would be too small. Read their party platform. It's simplet. Let's start getting rid of laws!

Democrat. Great on social issues overall. Certainly in keeping with the spirit of freedom and equality. I like the new emphasis on "fiscal responsibility". I don't like the socialized economy. Too much Marxism. I don't want to be more like Europe. Foreign policy? Too many Dems were opposed to the war for my taste. Too much internationalism. Not enough self-determination. Weapons proliferation is to me the most important security issue of the past five decades. We've already been getting it wrong for half a century. Let's start to get it right.

Republican. Too controlling socially. My personal life is none of your business. Thanks. Might be taking over the Democrat's old role of big government. Rugged individualism is here. That's good. We're America. Not West Europe. Bush is right. Stop the weapons proliferation.

When taken in totality, I don't like any of these choices nor any of the others. What's left? The system we have. Sort of like specialized interest parties that each make their case and we end up somewhere in between. I like it.

you say that more and better speech is the best answer to hateful speech, and I agree with you. However, when the dissenting voices to hate speech comes down on someone's head you say we're forcing them to be 'politically correct', whatever that's supposed to mean.

I say they're being forced to stand by or retract their comments. It's not the democrats fault that conservatives can't defend themselves, they apologize every time (oh, I didn't REALLY mean that....)

and what is rugged individualism? You mean like Clinton coming straight from the trailer park to POTUS? Or chicken hawks screaming for war? There is no rugged individualism in the republican party today. Corporate welfare is bankrupting this country.

My usage of the term "politically correct" wasn't mean as insultory. In the content I am using it, is is exactly the opposite.

I said:

1. How far should we take free speech?
2. How far should we be politically correct?

To me, these are both positive things. The question if how far to limit or permit either of them especially in so much as the interests of one can only be advanced by encroaching on the other. I don't know the answer to that. It is not at all clear to me.

BTW ... What's your opinion on Moran's statements?



Last edited by Colin at Apr 25 2003, 07:42 AM

Though the Republicans lead this category by far, the Democrats do have their moments.

"By no means did I intend or believe that members of the Jewish community are united in their support for a possible war with Iraq. I certainly never meant, nor do I believe, to imply that the Jewish community is responsible for or should be blamed for this war." - James Moran

And ... What about Robert Byrd? The ex-KKK member is a Democratic Senator and fond of using the word "nigger".



Last edited by Colin at Apr 25 2003, 07:49 AM

You all miss one important point:
"I'll have the (n-words) voting Democrat for the next 100 years."...LBJ
And of course the 'white (n-word)' comments of Senator Robert 'Sheets' Byrd.
Of course the rhetoric against a certain Hispanic circuit court nominee...
None of which made a big fuss.

The fact is that the Libs have their own 'destruction machine'; namely, the TV network news. The fact is that they actually employ people to watch for things like this. The fact is that they wish to use the 'free speech' thing themselves while denying it to others.

Further, if you check it out, the sodomy laws which are being discussed are very old and were probably passed during a period of Democratic rule within those states.

I do not agree with those laws. At the same time, I believe that both sides of Congress should be judged not on what they might say; but on what they actually DO. If they VOTE harmfully, then they need to be VOTED out. If, like a couple of recent cases, they actually commit illegal acts, then the rest of Congress needs to remove them. Under NO circumstances should a Senator or a Representative be removed or forced to resign over something they said in public or private. That would amount to the complete destruction of the 1st Amendment, since this IS Congress, which "shall make no laws...etc.

As for private individuals, only the gov't is constrained from interfering with their 'free speech'. Think about this 'protected speech' thing. It's a back-door way to limit free speech. Who decides what is 'protected'...?



Last edited by Torone at Apr 25 2003, 07:59 AM