U.S. politics isolation tank

[rosco rathbone]

I don't mind the "Democrat" Party thing, but this comparison to homophobes is over the line and deeply offensive.

WD, though I disagree with nearly all of your views, I sincerely respect your right to express them. I don't think of you as evil, or an abomination; I just think.... well, hmm. I'm not sure how to express this.

We have fundamentally different perspectives. That's the best I can come up with at the moment.

Or, as I like to say..." I reject even your most basic premises, there's not even anything to disagree on".

 

[JMohegan]

Or, as I like to say..." I reject even your most basic premises, there's not even anything to disagree on".

Exactly.

 

[WriterDom]

My Granny used to go to a Primitive Baptist church. Hardshell Baptists, she called them. She stopped going as she got older, but because her daughter was buried there, she'd always go on Homecoming, and we'd go with her. It was...different.

No padding on the pews, no air conditioner (in mid freaking summer in Alabama, for God's sake), no musical accompaniment with the songs (not even a piano), picnics on the ground, etc. It was like being in another world, and I grew up going to a Southern Baptist church myself.

They didn't handle snakes or speak in tongues, though. That's that Pentecostal stuff. *Shudder*

ETA: I don't think a lot of people realize just how class-divided churches are in the South. For a lot of people, it doesn't matter if you agree with all the teachings of the church you attend or not. It's just that the really poor people go to Pentecostal churches, the folks who graduated high school and work in the cotton mill or drive trucks or have lower management type positions go to the Baptist churches, the people who are a little higher on the ladder than that (possibly with college degrees, possibly not) go to the Methodist churches, the richer folks go to the Presbyterian/Lutheran/Episcopalian churches. And if you happen to "forget where you come from," you will be looked down upon. There's more upward mobility in the British peerage than in small town and country Southern Protestant churches. So for a lot of people down, that's why "If you don't believe what they believe, then why don't you leave?" doesn't fly. If they leave their denomination, where are they going to go, assuming they still want to attend some kind of church?

That's true but often the biggest church is the downtown First Baptist. For what I'd call the upper middle class of southern society. They may or not have gone to college but plan to send their kids. Upper middle only in the economy of a small town that is.

Then in the last 30 years or so I've seen fairly nice Baptist churches springing up outside of town that aren't as big but fairly nice and modern.

Some country churches are fairly nice with paved parking lots and the outside wouldn't scare me away anyway. It might be fire and brimstone on the inside.

Larger towns like 25,000 you start to see the mega churches that have 1000s of members.

But yeah, very much a class thing.

 

[Netzach]

They could always pray at home, yes?

It's not just a matter of differing opinions. It's the fact that what's being said is ignorant and bigoted, cruel and harmful.

What "doesn't fly" is the notion that tacit acceptance of hate speech is anything other than just that. Acceptance.

Spoken like someone who grew up where there was stuff for atheists to you know - do.

Small is small. Really small. I'd be quilting and making hotdish and going to bible study if I lived in some of the places here, because the internet eventually does get old. And T had no internet. If you wanted to play football and meet girls and have any kind of a reasonably normal existence, you went to church and sometimes you'd be subject to some sex is evil conditioning over it.

The general rule in these lutheran/scando communities is that as long as no one is forced to discuss homosexuality it's fine. Bachelor farmers living together. Old ladies living together their whole lives. Just don't make us admit what that really is. It's not an existence I myself would pick, but I think "just don't go" is mighty simplistic.

 

[JMohegan]

Yes. That's what I do. But for some people, worship is also about communing with others and so forth and so on. Not for me, but for some people.



I agree that a lot of things professed by churches are all these things.



Not arguing with that, either. It's just that for some people, in the cost-benefit analysis, a little hate speech is preferable to not having a "home" in which to worship. I don't agree with it--obviously--but that's how it's viewed.

I'd no more walk into an Episcopalian church, for example, than a Pentecostal one. I would not be accepted at either, regardless of my own personal beliefs. I'd like to try a Quaker or Unitarian Universalist church, but I'm over an hour away from either one, so thinking about it is as far as I've gotten.

Up here, the Episcopalian church in my neighborhood has a sign that says: "A House of Prayer For All People." It allows gay Catholics (who are refused communion by the Catholic church because of their sexual orientation) to hold Catholic services in their sanctuary once a week.

Another Episcopalian church with which I am familiar, located in a dense urban area, opens its doors to the homeless every morning (to feed them breakfast), and welcomes those same people at all of its services - though more come for the food than the praying.

So what you describe sounds bizarre to me. And frankly, it actually worsens my opinion of southern churches. Which is really saying something.

As for their acceptance of "a little hate speech" in order to facilitate socializing on Sundays, that's their right, obviously. Just as it's my right to say I think that acceptance, tacit or not, makes them bigots.

 

[JMohegan]

Spoken like someone who grew up where there was stuff for atheists to you know - do.

Small is small. Really small. I'd be quilting and making hotdish and going to bible study if I lived in some of the places here, because the internet eventually does get old.

I'd be moving.

 

[JMohegan]

Spoken like someone who grew up where there was stuff for atheists to you know - do.

Small is small. Really small. I'd be quilting and making hotdish and going to bible study if I lived in some of the places here, because the internet eventually does get old. And T had no internet. If you wanted to play football and meet girls and have any kind of a reasonably normal existence, you went to church and sometimes you'd be subject to some sex is evil conditioning over it.

The general rule in these lutheran/scando communities is that as long as no one is forced to discuss homosexuality it's fine. Bachelor farmers living together. Old ladies living together their whole lives. Just don't make us admit what that really is. It's not an existence I myself would pick, but I think "just don't go" is mighty simplistic.

Missed the edits.

Don't Ask Don't Tell isn't great, but it's a far cry from hate speech, which is what I'm talking about here. A preacher declaring "Homosexuals are an abomination before god!" Tacit acceptance of that message is as wrong as it would be if the first noun were swapped for "Mexicans."

 

[BiBunny]

That's true but often the biggest church is the downtown First Baptist. For what I'd call the upper middle class of southern society. They may or not have gone to college but plan to send their kids. Upper middle only in the economy of a small town that is.

Then in the last 30 years or so I've seen fairly nice Baptist churches springing up outside of town that aren't as big but fairly nice and modern.

Some country churches are fairly nice with paved parking lots and the outside wouldn't scare me away anyway. It might be fire and brimstone on the inside.

Larger towns like 25,000 you start to see the mega churches that have 1000s of members.

But yeah, very much a class thing.

True about the Baptist churches in larger towns. I haven't been a regular church attendee since I was in maybe the 7th grade, so my thoughts might be a little dated, LOL.

Spoken like someone who grew up where there was stuff for atheists to you know - do.

Small is small. Really small. I'd be quilting and making hotdish and going to bible study if I lived in some of the places here, because the internet eventually does get old. And T had no internet. If you wanted to play football and meet girls and have any kind of a reasonably normal existence, you went to church and sometimes you'd be subject to some sex is evil conditioning over it.

The general rule in these lutheran/scando communities is that as long as no one is forced to discuss homosexuality it's fine. Bachelor farmers living together. Old ladies living together their whole lives. Just don't make us admit what that really is. It's not an existence I myself would pick, but I think "just don't go" is mighty simplistic.

Yep. That's basically the lives of many people I know/knew. Personally, I think it'd a little hypocritical of me to use church for socializing, but that's just me. I don't begrudge others who do it because I KNOW what it was like in small town Alabama for 18 years.

Up here, the Episcopalian church in my neighborhood has a sign that says: "A House of Prayer For All People." It allows gay Catholics (who are refused communion by the Catholic church because of their sexual orientation) to hold Catholic services in their sanctuary once a week.

Another Episcopalian church with which I am familiar, located in a dense urban area, opens its doors to the homeless every morning (to feed them breakfast), and welcomes those same people at all of its services - though more come for the food than the praying.

So what you describe sounds bizarre to me. And frankly, it actually worsens my opinion of southern churches. Which is really saying something.

As for their acceptance of "a little hate speech" in order to facilitate socializing on Sundays, that's their right, obviously. Just as it's my right to say I think that acceptance, tacit or not, makes them bigots.

I'm sure that's not how it is everywhere. But it damn sure was where I grew up. If I sounded like I was tarring everybody with the same brush, I'm very sorry.

I don't have the highest opinion of Southern churches, either, which is why I don't go. I don't have the highest opinion of the small town way of life, either, which is why I didn't move back after I got my "fancy state school education." But in a sort of fucked up way, I do understand why some things are the way they are. And I pity a lot of the people in the churches more than I condemn them. It's the preachers and the deacons and the whatever else they call those people in other denominations that I reserve my contempt for.

 

[midwestyankee]

It's really hard to have a serious discussion with as well. Since you believe all opposition to Obama is based on some "Ivy League" envy bullshit, or racism, or worse yet, that the right is somehow upset that Obama's mother married an African.

You and Obama have a real problem with this "Rush, Fox News, and WSJ" bellyaching. All your problems would be over if you could just manage all the fucking airways, right? Honestly, you bring up Rush twice a week. If it bothers you so much move the dial to NPR. You know, where Juan worked before George Soros had him fired?

You have me confused with someone else, my friend. I've said more than once that there are reasons why I'm disappointed in the Obama administration. I suspect they're not the same reasons why you're disappointed, but I'm not wearing a fucking big O on my sweater and jumping up and down screaming "Yay Team O" all the time.

I believe that a good deal of the degree of passion in the the right's disagreement with Obama is based in racial bigotry but that's not the same as saying that all the opposition is based in race.

Maybe it's time you started to read for nuance. You write well; surely you can read equally well when you choose to do so.

My only problem with Rush is that he's a dickhead bigot. My bigger problem is with those who swallow his bullshit without question and then parrot it in political discussions.

I really, really don't get this whole meme that Obama wants to take over the country in some dictatorial manner. If he really did, don't you think he would have made some visible progress in it by now? So far he seems to be working just like every other President: by promoting legislation that he thinks is important.

Seriously here: if he's trying to take over the country in some nefarious way, what's the evidence? Show me one instance where he has acted in an imperial or dictatorial manner that his past two or three immediate predecessors did not also do.

 

[intothewoods]

well, in this case, the photos were not on any public forum or the internet. Someone who attended the party gave them to a source who used them in some sort of "advertising" - which was not endorsed by her opponent, but went as far as to compare her to a whore. Which was a bit far for antics with ones spouse at a halloween party, no matter who you are, I think.

I have been thinking though, that there is a positive side to this. Unless you know you want to be in politics from a very early age, is it really realistic to be on guard every second for something that may look stupid and cost an election? So I'm in my 40's now and may feel the need to "do something" about my local school board. Should I just figure I'm not good enough because they could dig up shit about me? Sure, if the crap is stuff about me molesting kids, that would make a difference. But what if it's me dancing topless at a certain club in Savannah on a dare? I'd like to see that day when things that *do not* have to do with a person's ability/dedication/quality of service don't put an end to them jumping in the game.

Sure, it's a pipe dream. But I do see that it's where we are headed....there is so little privacy about stuff, I hope we can let it expand opportunities for us all instead of limiting even more people. Or we'll only be left with blue-bloods who have the money to cover up their dirty deeds.

Oh, my bad. I'm not that up on this story. Totally agree with the part in bold. I do think there will be more of a backlash on the privacy issue at some point, but perhaps that is a pipe dream too.

She didn't put the photos on Facebook, someone else did. One of her "friends," or friends of her "friends" who attended the very small, private party.

My niece and nephew tell me: "Privacy is dead." There's nothing you can do to keep stuff like this from surfacing, whether you want it to or not, so you might as well just accept that's the way life is.

As for the effects of this type of publicity on political candidates, sometimes it's tough to predict. A lot depends on gender, location, timing, and such.

I don't know, surely we'll reach oversharing overload at some point, right? Er, anyone?

 

[midwestyankee]

Oh, my bad. I'm not that up on this story. Totally agree with the part in bold. I do think there will be more of a backlash on the privacy issue at some point, but perhaps that is a pipe dream too.



I don't know, surely we'll reach oversharing overload at some point, right? Er, anyone?

Not sure. I do know that there are a lot of vegetarians in my legislative district. In recognition of that fact, I've stopped posting pictures of my travel meals, which generally feature meat. After all, when I run for office I don't want any of the vegetarians to be insulted by ten-year old pictures of meals I ate in Buffalo.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I really, really don't get this whole meme that Obama wants to take over the country in some dictatorial manner.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/roots-lunacy_508809.html

 

[midwestyankee]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/roots-lunacy_508809.html

I saw excerpts of this a few days ago. I suppose my error is in believing that people mean what they say.

Silly me.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Ok, so you are a democratic. Are you one of those democratics who feel they are losing because the party isn't far left enough?

No, I think they're losing because the economy's in the toilet, and the D's have done a piss-poor job of a) targeting goodies for the middle class, and b) touting the goodies they have given the middle class, which are considerable but not immediately recession busting.

WD doesn't respect Democrats or the Democratic Party. This is not news.

Just as I don't respect the Republican candidates who call themselves Tea Party candidates. That's not news, either.

Let me know when the strictly polite conversation starts, and I'll stop using the term bagger.

I want stuff to get done. I want problems to be addressed, even if that means compromise (which is how stuff usually gets done). When I see GOP congressmen interviewed about Getting Things Done for the fucking country, and the first thing that pops out of their mouths is a big Fuck You to the Democrats by saying "Well, the Democrat Party X, and the Democrat Party Y..." then, yeah, it makes me punch a hole in the wall. It's basic disrespect, before any issues are even hashed out. It poisons the well.

Look, I'm not saying it should be Kumbaya. The concept of the loyal opposition is essential. But when I hear these old timers talk about Tip O'Neil working with Reagan and Bob Dole working with McGovern, and the basic respect for the office – the idea that the opposition party is the adversary, but not the enemy, and compare it to the shit I see out there now, then I fear for the country's future.

The GOP had the chance to work with Obama to get their own ideas included in all sorts of necessary reform, and didn't, in order to regain power, and it worked beautifully. And now we'll have two years of gridlock, and anger and acrimony. Great. Fine. Nut up, Dems and kick their fucking asses. But I think the polarization adds to the cynicism, holds us back from addressing crucial big issues, and I don't think it had to be that way this time.

Someone tell me that I'm wrong: that politics is good and natural and this rage will work itself out in a bloodbath that will reveal two stark choices and will ultimately make things clearer and move the nation forward. Or at least tell me that this is the last gasp of the nutjob element in America. Or tell me to have a beer. I'll take any of the above.

 

[JMohegan]

I want stuff to get done. I want problems to be addressed, even if that means compromise (which is how stuff usually gets done). When I see GOP congressmen interviewed about Getting Things Done for the fucking country, and the first thing that pops out of their mouths is a big Fuck You to the Democrats by saying "Well, the Democrat Party X, and the Democrat Party Y..." then, yeah, it makes me punch a hole in the wall. It's basic disrespect, before any issues are even hashed out. It poisons the well.

In the post to which I was responding, you criticized WD for using the term Democrat Party. Not congressmen.

It seemed fair to point out that similar name-calling on this board goes both ways.

Look, I'm not saying it should be Kumbaya. The concept of the loyal opposition is essential. But when I hear these old timers talk about Tip O'Neil working with Reagan and Bob Dole working with McGovern, and the basic respect for the office – the idea that the opposition party is the adversary, but not the enemy, and compare it to the shit I see out there now, then I fear for the country's future.

The GOP had the chance to work with Obama to get their own ideas included in all sorts of necessary reform, and didn't, in order to regain power, and it worked beautifully. And now we'll have two years of gridlock, and anger and acrimony. Great. Fine. Nut up, Dems and kick their fucking asses. But I think the polarization adds to the cynicism, holds us back from addressing crucial big issues, and I don't think it had to be that way this time.

Someone tell me that I'm wrong: that politics is good and natural and this rage will work itself out in a bloodbath that will reveal two stark choices and will ultimately make things clearer and move the nation forward. Or at least tell me that this is the last gasp of the nutjob element in America. Or tell me to have a beer. I'll take any of the above.

Have a beer, and read this.


Negative campaigning in America was sired by two lifelong friends, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America's independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his vice president.

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."

Back then, presidential candidates didn't actively campaign. In fact, Adams and Jefferson spent much of the election season at their respective homes in Massachusetts and Virginia.

But the key difference between the two politicians was that Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics. To Jefferson's credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election.

Jefferson paid a price for his dirty campaign tactics, though. Callendar served jail time for the slander he wrote about Adams, and when he emerged from prison in 1801, he felt Jefferson still owed him.

After Jefferson did little to appease him, Callendar broke a story in 1802 that had only been a rumor until then -- that the President was having an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. In a series of articles, Callendar claimed that Jefferson had lived with Hemings in France and that she had given birth to five of his children.

 

[rosco rathbone]

"hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."


ahahaha


I love the rhetoric of yore.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

In the post to which I was responding, you criticized WD for using the term Democrat Party. Not congressmen.

It seemed fair to point out that similar name-calling on this board goes both ways.

Yes, it is, and I've called them teabaggers myself, because I love the irony of a group with a large religious right component proudly adopting as their name a sex act that they don't understand. Maybe I need to just adopt "Repuglicans" and be done with it.

Have a beer, and read this.


Negative campaigning in America was sired by two lifelong friends, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America's independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his vice president.

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."

Back then, presidential candidates didn't actively campaign. In fact, Adams and Jefferson spent much of the election season at their respective homes in Massachusetts and Virginia.

But the key difference between the two politicians was that Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics. To Jefferson's credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election.

Jefferson paid a price for his dirty campaign tactics, though. Callendar served jail time for the slander he wrote about Adams, and when he emerged from prison in 1801, he felt Jefferson still owed him.

After Jefferson did little to appease him, Callendar broke a story in 1802 that had only been a rumor until then -- that the President was having an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. In a series of articles, Callendar claimed that Jefferson had lived with Hemings in France and that she had given birth to five of his children.

Beer had. Thank you for the perspective.

Speaking of TJ, in some ways, the Jeffersonian ideal of the limited government agrarian farmer was a compelling egalitarian vision for a new democracy, just throwing off the yoke of monarchy. And the debate over the role of U.S. government obviously ignited then. But that was the 18th fucking century. You'd think the argument would be settled, if not by the Civil War, then by the fact that we're no longer rural, and that we have the real world demands of a lone world superpower with 300 million people. It ain't 1780, and this recurring crazy-ass nostalgia for a world that never was is keeping us in permanent adolescence.

 

[Netzach]

Yes, it is, and I've called them teabaggers myself, because I love the irony of a group with a large religious right component proudly adopting as their name a sex act that they don't understand. Maybe I need to just adopt "Repuglicans" and be done with it.



Beer had. Thank you for the perspective.

Speaking of TJ, in some ways, the Jeffersonian ideal of the limited government agrarian farmer was a compelling egalitarian vision for a new democracy, just throwing off the yoke of monarchy. And the debate over the role of U.S. government obviously ignited then. But that was the 18th fucking century. You'd think the argument would be settled, if not by the Civil War, then by the fact that we're no longer rural, and that we have the real world demands of a lone world superpower with 300 million people. It ain't 1780, and this recurring crazy-ass nostalgia for a world that never was is keeping us in permanent adolescence.

Because fascist narrative never changes, no matter where it lives.

Blood and soil. Purity. Blah and blah.

 

[JMohegan]

Speaking of TJ, in some ways, the Jeffersonian ideal of the limited government agrarian farmer was a compelling egalitarian vision for a new democracy, just throwing off the yoke of monarchy. And the debate over the role of U.S. government obviously ignited then. But that was the 18th fucking century. You'd think the argument would be settled, if not by the Civil War, then by the fact that we're no longer rural, and that we have the real world demands of a lone world superpower with 300 million people. It ain't 1780, and this recurring crazy-ass nostalgia for a world that never was is keeping us in permanent adolescence.

It may have been a compelling vision for those white males who owned land, and therefore got to vote, in the new democracy with its thin egalitarian veneer. But as you say, that vision was as much a myth then as it is now.

 

[WriterDom]

Yes, it is, and I've called them teabaggers myself, because I love the irony of a group with a large religious right component proudly adopting as their name a sex act that they don't understand. Maybe I need to just adopt "Repuglicans" and be done with it.



Beer had. Thank you for the perspective.

Speaking of TJ, in some ways, the Jeffersonian ideal of the limited government agrarian farmer was a compelling egalitarian vision for a new democracy, just throwing off the yoke of monarchy. And the debate over the role of U.S. government obviously ignited then. But that was the 18th fucking century. You'd think the argument would be settled, if not by the Civil War, then by the fact that we're no longer rural, and that we have the real world demands of a lone world superpower with 300 million people. It ain't 1780, and this recurring crazy-ass nostalgia for a world that never was is keeping us in permanent adolescence.

Not rural? About 98% of America is rural. In terms of area anyway. It's basically rural dotted by high density, high crime, war zones called cities. That's a problem for progressives. Only republican clones can win as democrats in red states. The tea party is going to cleanse those people out of office. Along with moderate republicans. Is that good or bad? I don't know. But they are throwing a wrench into the whole system. Making America even more polarized. I suggest we split. Just give conservatives the Rocky Mountain states, Alaska, and Texas. You can have the west coast, east coast, New England, South, Midwest and Hawaii. I think that is more than fair. You can also have free passage across our boarders with an approved picture ID.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Because fascist narrative never changes, no matter where it lives.

Blood and soil. Purity. Blah and blah.

That's the longterm perspective that is both depressing and comforting.

It may have been a compelling vision for those white males who owned land, and therefore got to vote, in the new democracy with its thin egalitarian veneer. But as you say, that vision was as much a myth then as it is now.

Yes, that's true. For women or people of color, it was a compelling vision behind a shop window.

Not rural? About 98% of America is rural. In terms of area anyway. It's basically rural dotted by high density, high crime, war zones called cities. That's a problem for progressives. Only republican clones can win as democrats in red states. The tea party is going to cleanse those people out of office. Along with moderate republicans. Is that good or bad? I don't know. But they are throwing a wrench into the whole system. Making America even more polarized. I suggest we split. Just give conservatives the Rocky Mountain states, Alaska, and Texas. You can have the west coast, east coast, New England, South, Midwest and Hawaii. I think that is more than fair. You can also have free passage across our boarders with an approved picture ID.

Hmmm...there will definitely be skirmishes in the South, and on your end in, say, Colorado. But maybe we can work something out with President Perry.

In about a billion ways, we're a different country than the one in which this debate first erupted. In 1790, 95 percent of Americans lived in rural areas. Now, 20 percent do.

 

[JMohegan]

Not rural? About 98% of America is rural. In terms of area anyway. It's basically rural dotted by high density, high crime, war zones called cities. That's a problem for progressives. Only republican clones can win as democrats in red states. The tea party is going to cleanse those people out of office. Along with moderate republicans. Is that good or bad? I don't know. But they are throwing a wrench into the whole system. Making America even more polarized. I suggest we split. Just give conservatives the Rocky Mountain states, Alaska, and Texas. You can have the west coast, east coast, New England, South, Midwest and Hawaii. I think that is more than fair. You can also have free passage across our boarders with an approved picture ID.

HEY!!! Why do we have to keep the South?


The problem for progressives is, and always has been, the U.S. Senate. Where Alaska (population less than 700 thousand) has the same power as New York (population in excess of 19 million).

 

[rosco rathbone]

Because fascist narrative never changes, no matter where it lives.

Blood and soil. Purity. Blah and blah.

It was weird to learn that the political science term for fascism is "palingenesis", a violent national renewal movement.

 

[midwestyankee]

HEY!!! Why do we have to keep the South?

Because that's where most of the good golf courses are located?

 

[midwestyankee]

The problem for progressives is, and always has been, the U.S. Senate. Where Alaska (population less than 700 thousand) has the same power as New York (population in excess of 19 million).

Thus where it's possible for a nutjob like Jim DeMint to stick his pecker in the works to insist that only legislation that he approves of will get a vote and demand retribution like he was fucking Louis XIV.