Dear Liberals: I Want a Divorce!

[Foxfyre]

(Disclaimer: This is an adaptation of a divorce agreement that has been circulating around the internet for awhile.)

To All My Dearest Beloved Liberal, Leftist, Social Progressive, Regressive, Marxist, and Liberation Theologist Friends:

Since we are not going to get gasoline back to $1.50 per gallon and coffee to $2.00 per pound, it is time to divide up our common property and split the sheets so to speak. To wit I propose the following:

DIVORCE AGREEMENT​

WHEREAS, we have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake of the kids and for sake of future generations, but the whole of this latest election process has revealed that our relationship has clearly run its course, and

WHEREAS, our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all,

THEREFORE let's end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is the suggested model separation agreement:

1. Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass apportioned according to numerical representation. You can have California, Oregon, and Washington State. We'll take all the rest.

2. We don't like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.

3. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

4. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.

5. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with all the wind, solar, and bio-diesel.

6. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

7. We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.

8. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless homeboys, hippies, druggies, illegal aliens, unions, peaceniks, war protesters, and the OSW groups.

9. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

10. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood

11. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us or hit back when we are threatened or attacked.

14. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, and Shirley McLain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

13. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

14. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Chevy Volt you can find.

15. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any doctors to deliver it. We'll continue to believe that healthcare is more affordable and more excellent in a free market system.

16. We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", "God Bless America", and "The National Anthem."

17. You get "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya," or "We Are the World".

18. We'll practice trickledown economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

19. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our constitution and our flag.

Please sign and pass it on if you will agree to this equitable distribution of property, values, and practices.

In the spirit of friendly parting, we will arrange for a community picnic in about 10 years to compare notes and see how each other are doing.

Sincerely,

Your Conservative Friends


P.S.: Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, and Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S..: And you won't have to "Press 1 for English" when you call our country.

OMG LMFAO I think we conservatives got the better deal.

You go Foxy. LOL

LOL, thanks. Of coruse we got the better deal. Conservatism is a better deal than lbieralism any way that you look at it. And based on the straw poll here, apparently most of our USMB friends agree with us though it is possible that a liberal or two agreed to the divorce settlement. One problem with liberalism seems to be that they consider what is theirs to be theirs and they consider that they have rights to what is ours too. That makes it dang difficult to achieve agreement even on a divorce, much less on how to best to have a great country.

But oh well. Our conservative friends will keep pushing for what we know is right.

And they'll keep refusing to read what is written and think "Fuck, you are dumb." is intelligent debate.

 

[Borillar]

And what of those things are you willing to compromise on?

Could you allow the traditional definition of marriage to stand and add civil unions for those who cannot or choose not to marry under the standard defintion? Or leave it to the states decide? Conservatives could compromise on that.

Are you willing to return healthcare to free market principles? Conservatives won't compromise on that but we surely can compromise on what regulation might be necessary.

Are you willing to work out abortion laws that protect life as well as a woman's right to choose? Conservatives already consistently compromise on that.

Are you willing to let the free market set wages for everybody? Conservatives can work out compromises on that.

Science moved forward quite well before modern American liberalism manifested itself, so we'll have to talk about that more. Conservatives will compromise on anything reasonable.

Progress was happening right along before modern American liberalism was introduced to the culture, so you'll have to be more specific about where you see the compromises are needed.

I can only speak for myself, but here goes...

Traditional Marriage: How about getting government out of the marriage game? Have all unions be civil unions with the same rights, lights, and benefits that gov't currently grants marriage. The civil unions would be available to all without regards to sexual orientation. If folks want a traditional marriage, let that be at the discretion of whatever Church will do the ceremony.

But don't you see? You're still wanting the federal government to make the call. Conservatives want the people to make the call. The people should be the ones to decide whether they want the traditional definition of marriage to remain the same and each state should set its own laws for marriage. Currently all 50 states have 100% non prejudicial and uniform laws that apply to every person without regard for race, ethnicity, political affiliaition, socioeconomic status, gender, or sexual orientation. You simply can't get any more equitable than that. Liberalism wants the federal government to make it like the liberals want it to be.

In other threads we have already laid out all the benefits to society, both for gay and straight people, that traditional marriage has produced. That alone should be sufficient to make the case for keeping the traditional definition as all children, both gay and straight, benefit from having a loving mom and dad in the home.

We either are a people free to order the sort of society we wish to have or not. Conservatives want that freedom. Liberals want to restrict that freedom through edicts from the federal government.

There is simply no room to compromise there.



Conservatives would apply anti trust laws to break up the monopolies and ensure that health care isn't held as a club over anybody. Then allow the free market system to work. To us it is apparent that federal rules and regulations controlling such things as healthcare produce unsustainable economic conditions and problems that exceed any benefits. We do not want to be just another European nation. It was to be America, free of government dominance, that provided the incentive to create the USA in the first place.



Anortion should be decided at the state and local level, but I would compromise there by accepting Roe v Wade as it was intended allowing the states to strictly regulate all abortion after the first trimester and leaving abortion strictly as a matter between a woman and her licensed physician (and nobody else) in the first trimester.

Free market set wages: Is that code for eliminating the minimum wage? Other than these bare minimums, how is the free market not setting the wages? You ever tried to make it on minimum wage? Do you want the country to become like some third world shithole where people are paid a couple bucks a day?

Yes I have started out on many jobs at minimum wage. There should be no federally mandated minimum wage. Each state should determine whether it will have a minimum wage, whether it shall be a right to work state, and what safety rules and regs it will mandate. Conservatives don't believe that will produce third world conditions but will actually improve the circumstances of society. Liberals obviously disagree. Which is why we need the divorce.

I would say that progress has positively boomed in the past century since what you call "modern liberalism" has entered the society. We have gone from a largely agrarian society to become a world power and put a man on the moon.

And I would say that most progress has been in spite of modern day American liberalism rather than as a result of it. So that is another area that is likely an irreconcilable difference.

"We either are a people free to order the sort of society we wish to have or not. Conservatives want that freedom. Liberals want to restrict that freedom through edicts from the federal government."

So in order to be free, you have to have a society that can restrict your rights? How 1984 of you. FREEDOM = SLAVERY.

Many states have different laws concerning gays. Liberals would like to see equal protection under the law for all citizens. If a gay couple, married in a state which recognizes them, was to travel to Conservastan and got into an accident, would the gay spouse be allowed to see the victim in the hospital? To make medical decisions? To do any of the things a traditional married couple could do? Or would he be busted for sodomy and sent to the camps?

"Yes I have started out on many jobs at minimum wage. There should be no federally mandated minimum wage. Each state should determine whether it will have a minimum wage, whether it shall be a right to work state, and what safety rules and regs it will mandate. Conservatives don't believe that will produce third world conditions but will actually improve the circumstances of society. Liberals obviously disagree. Which is why we need the divorce."

So Conservastan is basically a republican race to the bottom. No minimum wage, no safety standards, no environmental controls, no health care. Sounds like Somalia. When you have that picnic in 10 years, better make it in the Liberal side. At least the water and air will be clean and the food inspected.

 

[candycorn]

Fuck, you are dumb.

Get real close to the screen to read this one, okay?

You do not have the right to order the sort of society you want if it infringes upon someone else's rights. For instance, Florida can't just vote slavery back in because they want to order their own society. Liberals want the Federal government to do what Conservatives are too selfish, racist or homophobic to do: ensure equal treatment for all.

What civil right, exactly, are you LOSING by gay people being able to marry?


FUCK WHY THE FUCK AM I TALKING TO YOU?!

I imagine every time you type "We need a divorce" or "Irreconcilable differences" you make this smug little "Sucked on a lemon" face.

Or this:

The circular logic is amazing isn't it? "I'm right because I say I'm right"...basically that is all this grotesque bitch has going for her.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

The circular logic is amazing isn't it? "I'm right because I say I'm right"...basically that is all this grotesque bitch has going for her.

Exactly. It's that "I'm right, you're wrong no matter how many times history has shown I'm wrong" mentality that gets me. Well, that and the dummy keeps trying to misappropriate the founding fathers as being some hardcore Conservative radicals.

She's really, truly not worth our time, other than to totally shit on. Which I plan to do keep doing.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

I have a proposition: let's put it up to a vote.

Let's ask Americans this:

Would you like to live in a country where you are free to love who you want, your tax dollars will help you stay healthy and medicated, and your kids will have all the help they need to get a good education. Maybe you won't be a millionaire in our country, but you will be happy, and comfortable, living free from the worry that no matter how hard you work, it isn't good enough. You'll still have to work hard, but as long as you keep up your end of the bargain, we will to.

Or would you like to live in a place where none of that is true and it's dog-eat-dog and if you get into a run of bad luck, no matter how good a person you are, you're fucked. Oh, and if you're gay you don't have the same rights as the rest of the people do. Because you know, we put your rights up to a vote and not ours. Because we're twunts.

I wonder who would vote for what.

 

[signelect]

Lets get it on. the libs have been trying to run our country for a long time and have yet to produce any thing good from their febel efforts.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Lets get it on. the libs have been trying to run our country for a long time and have yet to produce any thing good from their febel efforts.

Yeah! Let's bring back slavery and take away the right for women to vote! And also let's take back their pussies! They shouldn't be doing anything with them without consulting us anyway!

YEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have a proposition: let's put it up to a vote.

Let's ask Americans this:

Would you like to live in a country where you are free to love who you want, your tax dollars will help you stay healthy and medicated, and your kids will have all the help they need to get a good education. Maybe you won't be a millionaire in our country, but you will be happy, and comfortable, living free from the worry that no matter how hard you work, it isn't good enough. You'll still have to work hard, but as long as you keep up your end of the bargain, we will to.

Or would you like to live in a place where none of that is true and it's dog-eat-dog and if you get into a run of bad luck, no matter how good a person you are, you're fucked. Oh, and if you're gay you don't have the same rights as the rest of the people do. Because you know, we put your rights up to a vote and not ours. Because we're twunts.

I wonder who would vote for what.

So, as official Grand Weasel Of the KKK, are you proposing "Anti dog eat dog laws?"


{“The Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule was described as a measure of ‘voluntary self-regulation’ intended ‘the better to enforce’ the laws long since passed by the country’s Legislature. The Rule provided that the members of the National Alliance of Media were forbidden to engage in practices defined as ‘constructive competition’; that in regions declared to be restricted, no more than one media outlet would be permitted to operate; that in such regions, seniority belonged to the oldest media now operating there, and that the newcomers, who had encroached unfairly upon its territory, would suspend operations within nine months after being so ordered; that the Executive Board of the National Alliance of Media was empowered to decided, at its sole discretion, which regions were to be restricted.”} (Paraphrased, Rand)

Is this what you demand, your Assholiness?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lets get it on. the libs have been trying to run our country for a long time and have yet to produce any thing good from their febel efforts.

Yeah! Let's bring back slavery and take away the right for women to vote! And also let's take back their pussies! They shouldn't be doing anything with them without consulting us anyway!

YEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Over in leftist land, there is zero doubt you will do exactly that.

And no woman is ever going to let you near her pussy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lets get it on. the libs have been trying to run our country for a long time and have yet to produce any thing good from their febel efforts.

Yeah! Let's bring back slavery and take away the right for women to vote! And also let's take back their pussies! They shouldn't be doing anything with them without consulting us anyway!

YEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want slavery in Liberalland you can have slavery. I am pretty darn sure that not a single conservative will want slavery or any restrictions on the unalienable rights of anybody since it is unalienable rights that set the conservative agenda and goals in the first place.a c

There is a difference in the liberal point of view of what is freedom and in the conservative point of view of what is freedom. Certainly conservatives understand the concept of unalienable rights and how that contributes to American exceptionalism and how that is repugnant to liberals who want government to assign what rights the people will and will not have.

And it is because of that disconnect in point of view and the irreconcilable differences that it creates that makes the divorce necessary.

 

[Borillar]

Lets get it on. the libs have been trying to run our country for a long time and have yet to produce any thing good from their febel efforts.

Yeah! Let's bring back slavery and take away the right for women to vote! And also let's take back their pussies! They shouldn't be doing anything with them without consulting us anyway!

YEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want slavery in Liberalland you can have slavery. I am pretty darn sure that not a single conservative will want slavery or any restrictions on the unalienable rights of anybody since it is unalienable rights that set the conservative agenda and goals in the first place.a c

There is a difference in the liberal point of view of what is freedom and in the conservative point of view of what is freedom. Certainly conservatives understand the concept of unalienable rights and how that contributes to American exceptionalism and how that is repugnant to liberals who want government to assign what rights the people will and will not have.

And it is because of that disconnect in point of view and the irreconcilable differences that it creates that makes the divorce necessary.

No thanks. You can have slavery. Its all part of the founders intent and American exceptionalism and all that. After all nearly half of the delegates to the Constitutional convention were slaveholders. Yeah, conservatives love them some black folks. Everyone should own one.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Lets get it on. the libs have been trying to run our country for a long time and have yet to produce any thing good from their febel efforts.

Yeah! Let's bring back slavery and take away the right for women to vote! And also let's take back their pussies! They shouldn't be doing anything with them without consulting us anyway!

YEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want slavery in Liberalland you can have slavery. I am pretty darn sure that not a single conservative will want slavery or any restrictions on the unalienable rights of anybody since it is unalienable rights that set the conservative agenda and goals in the first place.a c

There is a difference in the liberal point of view of what is freedom and in the conservative point of view of what is freedom. Certainly conservatives understand the concept of unalienable rights and how that contributes to American exceptionalism and how that is repugnant to liberals who want government to assign what rights the people will and will not have.

And it is because of that disconnect in point of view and the irreconcilable differences that it creates that makes the divorce necessary.

Your continued insistence as to what Liberals want or don't want is only making YOU look more and more stupid.

Do you call Civil Rights laws "Government assigning rights?"

Dumb-da-dumb-dumb...

Dumb-da-dumb-dumb-dummmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah! Let's bring back slavery and take away the right for women to vote! And also let's take back their pussies! They shouldn't be doing anything with them without consulting us anyway!

YEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want slavery in Liberalland you can have slavery. I am pretty darn sure that not a single conservative will want slavery or any restrictions on the unalienable rights of anybody since it is unalienable rights that set the conservative agenda and goals in the first place.a c

There is a difference in the liberal point of view of what is freedom and in the conservative point of view of what is freedom. Certainly conservatives understand the concept of unalienable rights and how that contributes to American exceptionalism and how that is repugnant to liberals who want government to assign what rights the people will and will not have.

And it is because of that disconnect in point of view and the irreconcilable differences that it creates that makes the divorce necessary.

No thanks. You can have slavery. Its all part of the founders intent and American exceptionalism and all that. After all nearly half of the delegates to the Constitutional convention were slaveholders. Yeah, conservatives love them some black folks. Everyone should own one.

Conservatives also have a much better and more honest grasp of history than you liberals have thus far demonstrated. Some of the Founders were slave owners yes. Most were not, nor did they condone slavery. None of the Founders, even the slave owners, objected to outlawing slavery, but they also knew that a few of the states would not agree to do so. During the eight long years that they debated and hanmmered out the concepts that would be the framework of the Constitution. they arrived at a compromise that neither condoned nor forbade slavery. It was the only way they could arrive at sufficient consensus to put the American union of states together into one cohesive country.

The Founders knew they were imperfect men and that they would not put together a perfect system and even the best that they could do would be administered by other imperfect people who would also sometimes get it wrong and sometimes would make mistakes. But they also trusted a people who were basically morally centered and who were afforded freedom to order the society they wanted would continue to learn and improve and correct their errors as they went.

And so they did and have and continue to do.

Such is not possible in a system in which the government dictates what is and is not moral and what will and will not be the rights of the people.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah! Let's bring back slavery and take away the right for women to vote! And also let's take back their pussies! They shouldn't be doing anything with them without consulting us anyway!

YEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want slavery in Liberalland you can have slavery. I am pretty darn sure that not a single conservative will want slavery or any restrictions on the unalienable rights of anybody since it is unalienable rights that set the conservative agenda and goals in the first place.a c

There is a difference in the liberal point of view of what is freedom and in the conservative point of view of what is freedom. Certainly conservatives understand the concept of unalienable rights and how that contributes to American exceptionalism and how that is repugnant to liberals who want government to assign what rights the people will and will not have.

And it is because of that disconnect in point of view and the irreconcilable differences that it creates that makes the divorce necessary.

Your continued insistence as to what Liberals want or don't want is only making YOU look more and more stupid.

Do you call Civil Rights laws "Government assigning rights?"

Dumb-da-dumb-dumb...

Dumb-da-dumb-dumb-dummmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

I am expressing the conservative point of view as I see it.

You are welcome to express the liberal point of view as you see it.

Currently the only point of view you seem to have is to be insulting and judgmental.

As a conservative, I see those who thinking being insulting and judgmental is intelligent aren't intelligent so much. But that's just me.

But that is one of many reasons that we have irreconcilable differences and why I want the divorce.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

And now you're defending the 3/5s compromise?!

Lady, I don't know if anyone's ever told you, but that bill took human beings living in this country and made them worth about 66% of another human being based solely on being a different color. Your sycophantic and dogmatic worship of these men is really repugnant. So is your revisionism, and your out-and-out GALL to say that Liberals don't know history?

No, dude. We know history. We just don't filter it through the lens of batshit that YOU do.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

If you want slavery in Liberalland you can have slavery. I am pretty darn sure that not a single conservative will want slavery or any restrictions on the unalienable rights of anybody since it is unalienable rights that set the conservative agenda and goals in the first place.a c

There is a difference in the liberal point of view of what is freedom and in the conservative point of view of what is freedom. Certainly conservatives understand the concept of unalienable rights and how that contributes to American exceptionalism and how that is repugnant to liberals who want government to assign what rights the people will and will not have.

And it is because of that disconnect in point of view and the irreconcilable differences that it creates that makes the divorce necessary.

Your continued insistence as to what Liberals want or don't want is only making YOU look more and more stupid.

Do you call Civil Rights laws "Government assigning rights?"

Dumb-da-dumb-dumb...

Dumb-da-dumb-dumb-dummmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

I am expressing the conservative point of view as I see it.

You are welcome to express the liberal point of view as you see it.

Currently the only point of view you seem to have is to be insulting and judgmental.

As a conservative, I see those who thinking being insulting and judgmental is intelligent aren't intelligent so much. But that's just me.

But that is one of many reasons that we have irreconcilable differences and why I want the divorce.

That's ironic. I find you insultingly judgmental as a person. And you nincompoop, there is no "point of view" on Civil Rights. There's only Right and Wrong. Let me buy you a clue: Right is not discriminating Wrong is Discriminating, and REALLY WRONG is justification of discrimination FOR ANY REASON.

Stop saying dumb shit and I won't have to call you out for saying the dumb shit.

 

[Foxfyre]

And now you're defending the 3/5s compromise?!

Lady, I don't know if anyone's ever told you, but that bill took human beings living in this country and made them worth about 66% of another human being based solely on being a different color. Your sycophantic and dogmatic worship of these men is really repugnant. So is your revisionism, and your out-and-out GALL to say that Liberals don't know history?

No, dude. We know history. We just don't filter it through the lens of batshit that YOU do.

No, you know history through the narrow prism of liberal education you have no doubt been indoctrinated with. Conservatives know history with all its warts and nuances and we have read the transcripts of the debates and the letters and all the other documents that went into the anti-federalist and federalist papers and the total history of the founding of this country. If you have read all those and still translate it the way you do, then I would have to pronounce you totally hopeless and incapable of independent thought.

But that won't matter for you in Liberalland.

You will be absolutely miserable in Conservativeland where children will be taught the whole history and will be encouraged to think analytically and critically about what they read and where people will be admired for thinking for themselves instead of reciting the talking points they have been indoctrinated with.

 

[Ravi]

Fuck, you are dumb.

Get real close to the screen to read this one, okay?

You do not have the right to order the sort of society you want if it infringes upon someone else's rights. For instance, Florida can't just vote slavery back in because they want to order their own society. Liberals want the Federal government to do what Conservatives are too selfish, racist or homophobic to do: ensure equal treatment for all.

What civil right, exactly, are you LOSING by gay people being able to marry?


FUCK WHY THE FUCK AM I TALKING TO YOU?!

I imagine every time you type "We need a divorce" or "Irreconcilable differences" you make this smug little "Sucked on a lemon" face.

Or this:

This should have killed the thread.

 

[Immanuel]

No, it's really not the same thing at all. People like her, who choose to blame only Liberals, they are to blame. And if there are Liberals who do nothing but blame Conservatives, they are really just like her, but on the other side of the aisle. But I do take quite an exception to being told basically that our moral compass is the fucked up one.

When was the last time you laid any part of the blame (except to say that liberals should have been more aggressive in defense of their principles) at the feet of liberals? What I am getting at is that you appear to be one of the very same kind of people that you are accusing FF of being.

Immie

 

[Borillar]

If you want slavery in Liberalland you can have slavery. I am pretty darn sure that not a single conservative will want slavery or any restrictions on the unalienable rights of anybody since it is unalienable rights that set the conservative agenda and goals in the first place.a c

There is a difference in the liberal point of view of what is freedom and in the conservative point of view of what is freedom. Certainly conservatives understand the concept of unalienable rights and how that contributes to American exceptionalism and how that is repugnant to liberals who want government to assign what rights the people will and will not have.

And it is because of that disconnect in point of view and the irreconcilable differences that it creates that makes the divorce necessary.

No thanks. You can have slavery. Its all part of the founders intent and American exceptionalism and all that. After all nearly half of the delegates to the Constitutional convention were slaveholders. Yeah, conservatives love them some black folks. Everyone should own one.

Conservatives also have a much better and more honest grasp of history than you liberals have thus far demonstrated. Some of the Founders were slave owners yes. Most were not, nor did they condone slavery. None of the Founders, even the slave owners, objected to outlawing slavery, but they also knew that a few of the states would not agree to do so. During the eight long years that they debated and hanmmered out the concepts that would be the framework of the Constitution. they arrived at a compromise that neither condoned nor forbade slavery. It was the only way they could arrive at sufficient consensus to put the American union of states together into one cohesive country.

The Founders knew they were imperfect men and that they would not put together a perfect system and even the best that they could do would be administered by other imperfect people who would also sometimes get it wrong and sometimes would make mistakes. But they also trusted a people who were basically morally centered and who were afforded freedom to order the society they wanted would continue to learn and improve and correct their errors as they went.

And so they did and have and continue to do.

Such is not possible in a system in which the government dictates what is and is not moral and what will and will not be the rights of the people.

Imagine that! The founders sitting down and debating and arriving at consensus. And according to you they were all conservatives. I haven't read that they wanted a "divorce" anywhere in the history books.

Where is the government dictating what is and what isn't moral? I know the religious right wing would certainly like the government to start dictating morality based upon their precepts.

Our government is a representative republic where our representatives and senators are directly elected by the people of their states and districts. To paraphrase Lincoln, it is of, by, and for the people. Our representatives are sent to make and pass laws - to "order our society" as you put it. We don't live in a dictatorship, although we came close under Bush and his one party rule. Our rights are detailed right in the Constitution including rights not listed. It isn't the liberals who are trying to take away rights from select groups of people. It isn't the liberals who are always pushing narrow views of what is and isn't "moral".

You must have been studying some very whitewashed history books to believe half the crap you do.