Dear Liberals: I Want a Divorce!

[Foxfyre]

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.

So you think the Founders were not all classical liberals (which is what modern American conservatives are)? Perhaps you could find a quotation or comment from any of them that would suggest they were not.

Conservatives aren't trying to take away anybody's rights. In fact they are fighting to restore our unalienable rights that the liberals would take away in favor of big government assigning us what right we will have.

Which brings us back to the concept of a divorce. I presume you have never read the Declaration of Indpendence? That was their petititon sent to King George to divorce America from England. You might have heard of it at least? And the Revolutionary War? What in the heck do you think that was all about if it was not a divorce?

(I also notice that you quickly abandoned the debate on anything substantive. Liberals so often do that. I wonder why that is?)

 

[ConservaDerrps]

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

You're a broken record, history revisionist and a buffoon. Why is anyone still in this thread?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You never answered my question Dummy. What rights, exactly, are you LOSING when gay people are given the right to marry. And you can't use the "right to order society how I want" because I already told you that shit doesn't really work when it comes to social issues. Like slavery and shit. But by all means if you want to start up a petition to put slavery on the ballot in your state, go for it.

Idiot.

 

[Borillar]

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.

So you think the Founders were not all classical liberals (which is what modern American conservatives are)? Perhaps you could find a quotation or comment from any of them that would suggest they were not.

Conservatives aren't trying to take away anybody's rights. In fact they are fighting to restore our unalienable rights that the liberals would take away in favor of big government assigning us what right we will have.

Which brings us back to the concept of a divorce. I presume you have never read the Declaration of Indpendence? That was their petititon sent to King George to divorce America from England. You might have heard of it at least? And the Revolutionary War? What in the heck do you think that was all about if it was not a divorce?

(I also notice that you quickly abandoned the debate on anything substantive. Liberals so often do that. I wonder why that is?)

Wait a minute... You just got done saying that we aren't free unless we can order our society the way we want. What method of ordering society other than government and law do you propose?

What inalienable rights have been taken away from us by liberals? I can see lots of our rights being chipped away by conservatives - 1st amendment rights to free speech replaced by free speech zones. Freedom of association being taken away from public workers. 4th amendment rights being replaced with warrantless wiretaps and searches. 5th amendment rights to due process replaced with extraordinary rendition and presidential power to simply declare you an enemy combatant. 6th amendment rights to a speedy trial replaced by star chambers and military tribunals. 7th amendment rights of civil trial replaced by tort reform. 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment replaced with Gitmo and torture. 9th amendment rights that are not enumerated in the constitution - like a woman's right to privacy replaced by invasive ultrasound. Invasive scans by the TSA, etc. 10th amendment limiting government power replaced by republican notions of an "Imperial Presidency". Sadly the democrats didn't repeal all that crap early in Obama's presidency and we are left with Bush's shameful legacy in that regard.

And yes, the founders wanted a divorce from England. Not from one another.

I am sorry if I didn't respond to every one of your points, but then again not all my points get addressed either. I'll leave deciding what is substantive in this thread to other readers and contributors. I have tried my best to make my posts substantive, and to avoid snarky one liners. (OK, I've been guilty of that too, on occasion.)

 

[occupied]

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

You're a broken record, history revisionist and a buffoon. Why is anyone still in this thread?

I've already killed the classical liberals argument and here it is again: The founders were the liberals of their day, they risked their lives and livelihoods to do something that was based far more on their concern and love for humanity than self interest or expectations of reward. They took an idea that had never been tried on such a scale and made it a reality, I will certainly agree that they were some kind of liberal when compared to the conservative loyalists who knew only nationalism and devotion to an absolute ruler and wanted nothing else.

Fast forward a couple of centuries to these conservatives who somehow feel they are the inheritors of the founding ideals and lets look at what we have, a bunch who are so attached to their worldly goods that they are unwilling to accept any positive change, sacrifice or loss for any reason. Rigid, tradition bound, stasis craving people who feel government should be every bit as wealth obsessed, inflexible and uncaring as they are. These are no patriots, these people inherited the same mindset as the loyalists who would rather kiss royal ass than take a chance on a brighter future that was right there in front of them.

 

[Foxfyre]

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

You're a broken record, history revisionist and a buffoon. Why is anyone still in this thread?

I've already killed the classical liberals argument and here it is again: The founders were the liberals of their day, they risked their lives and livelihoods to do something that was based far more on their concern and love for humanity than self interest or expectations of reward. They took an idea that had never been tried on such a scale and made it a reality, I will certainly agree that they were some kind of liberal when compared to the conservative loyalists who knew only nationalism and devotion to an absolute ruler and wanted nothing else.

Fast forward a couple of centuries to these conservatives who somehow feel they are the inheritors of the founding ideals and lets look at what we have, a bunch who are so attached to their worldly goods that they are unwilling to accept any positive change, sacrifice or loss for any reason. Rigid, tradition bound, stasis craving people who feel government should be every bit as wealth obsessed, inflexible and uncaring as they are. These are no patriots, these people inherited the same mindset as the loyalists who would rather kiss royal ass than take a chance on a brighter future that was right there in front of them.

You didn't look up the definition of Classical Liberal did you. Yes, the Founders were the liberals of their day, but they were the modern American conservatives of their day. Classical Liberalism is pretty close to modern American conservatism.

If you can point to any concept of Classical Liberalism that is embraced by modern American liberals--these bear NO COMMON GROUND WITH classical liberals--then you might have a basis for your argument.

Until then, nope.

 

[occupied]

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

You're a broken record, history revisionist and a buffoon. Why is anyone still in this thread?

I've already killed the classical liberals argument and here it is again: The founders were the liberals of their day, they risked their lives and livelihoods to do something that was based far more on their concern and love for humanity than self interest or expectations of reward. They took an idea that had never been tried on such a scale and made it a reality, I will certainly agree that they were some kind of liberal when compared to the conservative loyalists who knew only nationalism and devotion to an absolute ruler and wanted nothing else.

Fast forward a couple of centuries to these conservatives who somehow feel they are the inheritors of the founding ideals and lets look at what we have, a bunch who are so attached to their worldly goods that they are unwilling to accept any positive change, sacrifice or loss for any reason. Rigid, tradition bound, stasis craving people who feel government should be every bit as wealth obsessed, inflexible and uncaring as they are. These are no patriots, these people inherited the same mindset as the loyalists who would rather kiss royal ass than take a chance on a brighter future that was right there in front of them.

You didn't look up the definition of Classical Liberal did you. Yes, the Founders were the liberals of their day, but they were the modern American conservatives of their day. Classical Liberalism is pretty close to modern American conservatism.

If you can point to any concept of Classical Liberalism that is embraced by modern American liberals--these bear NO COMMON GROUND WITH classical liberals--then you might have a basis for your argument.

Until then, nope.

Conservatives by definition do not want change, play it safe and side with strength. The founders were the opposite of conservative. This bullshit where the vision of the founders reflect conservative values is not at all accurate. The founders were not conservatives, conservatives just value their revolutionary new ideas because now they are old traditional ideals. The spark that drove the founders, the most important part of them, is now called progressivism, and you despise it so much that you would see it purged from our country and never seen again. Quit insulting the founders with that silly conservative label, you may love what they did but you hate why they did it.

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Don't like the real definition? Call yourself something else.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Yes. What occupied said.

ALSO THIS:

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.

 

[Nosmo King]

So, you want a divorce. I read the agreement. I live east of the Mississippi. We'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too. I would also like south Philadelphia and Boston as well as my native Pittsburgh. Conservatives can have all the rural areas populated by Fundamentalists, Snake Handlers, militia groups, gun nuts and Rednecks.

I would like custody of baseball, the National Football League and college football (with the exception of the SEC). Conservatives can have NASCAR.

If we Liberals have custody of the EPA and the Conservatives believe they can get along without one, I would insist on a tall hedge. It would be like having the hillbilly family move next door. They proudly place a 1979 Ford F-150 up on blocks and tie a pit bull to the bumper. They would burn their garbage instead of having a service haul it away. Our property values would suffer as a result. So please keep all the resulting pollution to yourselves.

Our children would not be available to do your lawn work as we would insist on paying them a fair wage for a fair day's work. Since Conservatives look at labor as merely a commodity, you will have to import immigrants or go back to slavery. Good luck with that.

As marriage equality would never exist in a Conservative America, we insist that the marriage contract issued in Liberal America be honored here, could you provide reciprocity?

 

[Foxfyre]

So, you want a divorce. I read the agreement. I live east of the Mississippi. We'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too. I would also like south Philadelphia and Boston as well as my native Pittsburgh. Conservatives can have all the rural areas populated by Fundamentalists, Snake Handlers, militia groups, gun nuts and Rednecks.

I would like custody of baseball, the National Football League and college football (with the exception of the SEC). Conservatives can have NASCAR.

If we Liberals have custody of the EPA and the Conservatives believe they can get along without one, I would insist on a tall hedge. It would be like having the hillbilly family move next door. They proudly place a 1979 Ford F-150 up on blocks and tie a pit bull to the bumper. They would burn their garbage instead of having a service haul it away. Our property values would suffer as a result. So please keep all the resulting pollution to yourselves.

Our children would not be available to do your lawn work as we would insist on paying them a fair wage for a fair day's work. Since Conservatives look at labor as merely a commodity, you will have to import immigrants or go back to slavery. Good luck with that.

As marriage equality would never exist in a Conservative America, we insist that the marriage contract issued in Liberal America be honored here, could you provide reciprocity?

Well thank you Mr. Nosmo King. I KNEW there had to be at least one bright liberal with a sense of humor and some imagination on USMB who would grasp the concept of the exercise. You might even rescue some of liberalism from the really crappy state to which some of your friends here have reduced it. Kudos!!!!

We'll have to work on land mass allocations as earlier in the thread there was no dispute over that--by anybody playing the game anyway--and we pretty well had it divided up proportionately according to the numbers. There are a lot more of us, but we can certainly work on that once we get the other issues worked out.

I think no conservative will object to Liberalland taking the EPA as it currently exists. We will of necessity need some federal environmental controls but we will come up with the necessary laws and regs that will secure our rights while not hamstringing commerce and industry or property rights any more than absolutely necessary to do that. The habitat of some endangered rat for instance will not take precedence over a homeowner being able to use his/her property as he chooses and will not take precedence over his protecting it from wild fires, etc.

And you are right that conservatives look at labor as a commodity but since it was we evil narrow minded religious conservatives who freed the slaves in the first place and it was our votes that made it possible to put civil rights into the legal system, I can't imagine there being a single soul in Conservatibveland who will condone slave labor in any form. Conservativeland will be organized on the original concept of unalienable rights. We will not have a system that makes people dependent on the federal government and keeps them as slaves to government either.

We might or might not provide work programs for temporary immigrant labor depending on the need for more labor. I suspect, that Conservativeland will enjoy full employment and be more likely to need temporary work programs than will Liberalland that we have already agreed will get those on welfare and other government assistance, the illegal immigrants, and the OSW groups as we won't have any federal programs to accommodate them.

And Conservativeland will leave the issues of marriage equality to the states as it does now and I suspect most states will keep the marriage laws that currently exist to protect the children and that do not discriminate against anybody regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, political leanings, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. But in Conservativeland the people will make those decisions, not a central government. In Conservativeland the people govern themselves rather than have their rights assigned by a central authority.

 

[Claudette]

So, you want a divorce. I read the agreement. I live east of the Mississippi. We'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too. I would also like south Philadelphia and Boston as well as my native Pittsburgh. Conservatives can have all the rural areas populated by Fundamentalists, Snake Handlers, militia groups, gun nuts and Rednecks.

I would like custody of baseball, the National Football League and college football (with the exception of the SEC). Conservatives can have NASCAR.

If we Liberals have custody of the EPA and the Conservatives believe they can get along without one, I would insist on a tall hedge. It would be like having the hillbilly family move next door. They proudly place a 1979 Ford F-150 up on blocks and tie a pit bull to the bumper. They would burn their garbage instead of having a service haul it away. Our property values would suffer as a result. So please keep all the resulting pollution to yourselves.

Our children would not be available to do your lawn work as we would insist on paying them a fair wage for a fair day's work. Since Conservatives look at labor as merely a commodity, you will have to import immigrants or go back to slavery. Good luck with that.

As marriage equality would never exist in a Conservative America, we insist that the marriage contract issued in Liberal America be honored here, could you provide reciprocity?

Well thank you Mr. Nosmo King. I KNEW there had to be at least one bright liberal with a sense of humor and some imagination on USMB who would grasp the concept of the exercise. You might even rescue some of liberalism from the really crappy state to which some of your friends here have reduced it. Kudos!!!!

We'll have to work on land mass allocations as earlier in the thread there was no dispute over that--by anybody playing the game anyway--and we pretty well had it divided up proportionately according to the numbers. There are a lot more of us, but we can certainly work on that once we get the other issues worked out.

I think no conservative will object to Liberalland taking the EPA as it currently exists. We will of necessity need some federal environmental controls but we will come up with the necessary laws and regs that will secure our rights while not hamstringing commerce and industry or property rights any more than absolutely necessary to do that. The habitat of some endangered rat for instance will not take precedence over a homeowner being able to use his/her property as he chooses and will not take precedence over his protecting it from wild fires, etc.

And you are right that conservatives look at labor as a commodity but since it was we evil narrow minded religious conservatives who freed the slaves in the first place and it was our votes that made it possible to put civil rights into the legal system, I can't imagine there being a single soul in Conservatibveland who will condone slave labor in any form. Conservativeland will be organized on the original concept of unalienable rights. We will not have a system that makes people dependent on the federal government and keeps them as slaves to government either.

We might or might not provide work programs for temporary immigrant labor depending on the need for more labor. I suspect, that Conservativeland will enjoy full employment and be more likely to need temporary work programs than will Liberalland that we have already agreed will get those on welfare and other government assistance, the illegal immigrants, and the OSW groups as we won't have any federal programs to accommodate them.

And Conservativeland will leave the issues of marriage equality to the states as it does now and I suspect most states will keep the marriage laws that currently exist to protect the children and that do not discriminate against anybody regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, political leanings, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. But in Conservativeland the people will make those decisions, not a central government. In Conservativeland the people govern themselves rather than have their rights assigned by a central authority.

LMAO again. Yo Foxy. Conserativeland sure looks way better than liberalland.

Wonder what Liberalland will do when it runs out of other peoples money??

 

[Nosmo King]

Of course Liberal America would insist on custody of NPR, PBS, Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall, The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Preservation Hall in New Orleans and the Hollywood Bowl. Conservatives are welcome to keep Dollywood, Branson Missouri and we might even throw in Las Vegas to sweeten the deal.

While Conservative America would no doubt insist on being served exclusively by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Fox News, we in Liberal America would like a subscription to those services for comic relief.

Please don't dodge the tolls we would impose on automobiles with Conservative America license plates as you tour through Liberal America. We insist on maintaining our infrastructure even if Conservative America remains steadfast in their belief that those particular tax dollars could be better spent paying for $700 Army hammers. I'm sure that shocks, struts and alignments will be booming service orders in Conservative America as the roads continue to deteriorate.

Oh, and we strictly enforce littering laws here. Sorry! Government has a role to play. How are those privatized efforts at keeping Conservative America clean working out?

Will Conservative America have access to ice flows? If not, please find a way to care for your senior citizens. We will keep Social Security. Please refrain from shipping your seniors here if they were not lucky enough to be a hedge fund manager during their working years.

Women workers here in Liberal America will enjoy being paid the same amount for the same wok. We anticipate a flood of working women once they realize that Conservative America would just as soon have them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen than running any of the corporations there.

By the way, we welcome immigrants in Liberal America. Why? Because we all realize that we too were once immigrants. Not to be feared, demonized, terrorized or otherwise induced to 'self deport'. No authority can stop anyone who does not have distinctively Caucasian features and demand to 'see their papers'.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course Liberal America would insist on custody of NPR, PBS, Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall, The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Preservation Hall in New Orleans and the Hollywood Bowl. Conservatives are welcome to keep Dollywood, Branson Missouri and we might even throw in Las Vegas to sweeten the deal.

While Conservative America would no doubt insist on being served exclusively by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Fox News, we in Liberal America would like a subscription to those services for comic relief.

Please don't dodge the tolls we would impose on automobiles with Conservative America license plates as you tour through Liberal America. We insist on maintaining our infrastructure even if Conservative America remains steadfast in their belief that those particular tax dollars could be better spent paying for $700 Army hammers. I'm sure that shocks, struts and alignments will be booming service orders in Conservative America as the roads continue to deteriorate.

Oh, and we strictly enforce littering laws here. Sorry! Government has a role to play. How are those privatized efforts at keeping Conservative America clean working out?

Will Conservative America have access to ice flows? If not, please find a way to care for your senior citizens. We will keep Social Security. Please refrain from shipping your seniors here if they were not lucky enough to be a hedge fund manager during their working years.

Women workers here in Liberal America will enjoy being paid the same amount for the same wok. We anticipate a flood of working women once they realize that Conservative America would just as soon have them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen than running any of the corporations there.

By the way, we welcome immigrants in Liberal America. Why? Because we all realize that we too were once immigrants. Not to be feared, demonized, terrorized or otherwise induced to 'self deport'. No authority can stop anyone who does not have distinctively Caucasian features and demand to 'see their papers'.

Of course we will concede PBS and NPR and any other communication and entertainment groups, processes, and facilities that cannot make it on their own without federal government subsidy. Your side enjoys paying taxes to support such things. Ours doesn't so that works out really well. Any programming that can attract the advertisers and meet minimum standards of decency will have free rein on our airways if they can persuade somebody to hire them or provide a time slot for them.

In Conservativeland, women will be paid what their work is worth just like the men will be paid what their work is worth and that will not be artificially manipulated in any way nor based on gender in any way. The free market, not unions and not politicians will determine what work is worth. Being a woman who has worked in such a system for more decades than most of you have been alive, and who has never been paid less than any man doing the same work, I know that is the fairest and most equitable and most profitable system for all. And it will help us provide full employment to our people. An entitlement mentality will not be cultivated nor encouraged in any form in Conservativeland.

But certainly Liberalland can finally have free rein to vote a living wage for every man, woman, and child in Liberalland because the amount of taxes necessary to do that has never been an issue for liberals. Ya'll have always liked taxes much more than we do so that too will work out great. You are welcome to Social Security, Medicaid, and Obamacare as they currently exist. In Conservativeland there will be no such federal programs, but the states will adopt whatever programs the people wish to have for those who cannot work. In Conservativeland, people will be taught from kindergarten on the importance of saving and wisely investing so that they will be able to weather a rainy day and will be able to enjoy a pleasant retirement when the time comes.

Immigrants will be welcome in Conservativeland too provided that they come in legally and want to be Americans including renouncing all loyalty to their former country and flag, learning the language, laws, and customs at their own expense, and are capable of seamlessly assimilating into the culture and being productive members of society and earning their own way as everybody else is expected to do. Conservatives have long supported such a concept. (I personally spent a lot of years teaching Constitution and English as a second language to new immigrants and swelled with pride when I was privileged to attend their swearing in ceremoniies as new citiizens.)

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Hey, at least in Conservativeland we can finally see Hitler's dream race in action. Can't see too many gays or black people sticking around down there.

 

[tjvh]

So, you want a divorce. I read the agreement. I live east of the Mississippi. We'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too. I would also like south Philadelphia and Boston as well as my native Pittsburgh. Conservatives can have all the rural areas populated by Fundamentalists, Snake Handlers, militia groups, gun nuts and Rednecks.

I would like custody of baseball, the National Football League and college football (with the exception of the SEC). Conservatives can have NASCAR.

If we Liberals have custody of the EPA and the Conservatives believe they can get along without one, I would insist on a tall hedge. It would be like having the hillbilly family move next door. They proudly place a 1979 Ford F-150 up on blocks and tie a pit bull to the bumper. They would burn their garbage instead of having a service haul it away. Our property values would suffer as a result. So please keep all the resulting pollution to yourselves.

Our children would not be available to do your lawn work as we would insist on paying them a fair wage for a fair day's work. Since Conservatives look at labor as merely a commodity, you will have to import immigrants or go back to slavery. Good luck with that.

As marriage equality would never exist in a Conservative America, we insist that the marriage contract issued in Liberal America be honored here, could you provide reciprocity?

Well thank you Mr. Nosmo King. I KNEW there had to be at least one bright liberal with a sense of humor and some imagination on USMB who would grasp the concept of the exercise. You might even rescue some of liberalism from the really crappy state to which some of your friends here have reduced it. Kudos!!!!

We'll have to work on land mass allocations as earlier in the thread there was no dispute over that--by anybody playing the game anyway--and we pretty well had it divided up proportionately according to the numbers. There are a lot more of us, but we can certainly work on that once we get the other issues worked out.

I think no conservative will object to Liberalland taking the EPA as it currently exists. We will of necessity need some federal environmental controls but we will come up with the necessary laws and regs that will secure our rights while not hamstringing commerce and industry or property rights any more than absolutely necessary to do that. The habitat of some endangered rat for instance will not take precedence over a homeowner being able to use his/her property as he chooses and will not take precedence over his protecting it from wild fires, etc.

And you are right that conservatives look at labor as a commodity but since it was we evil narrow minded religious conservatives who freed the slaves in the first place and it was our votes that made it possible to put civil rights into the legal system, I can't imagine there being a single soul in Conservatibveland who will condone slave labor in any form. Conservativeland will be organized on the original concept of unalienable rights. We will not have a system that makes people dependent on the federal government and keeps them as slaves to government either.

We might or might not provide work programs for temporary immigrant labor depending on the need for more labor. I suspect, that Conservativeland will enjoy full employment and be more likely to need temporary work programs than will Liberalland that we have already agreed will get those on welfare and other government assistance, the illegal immigrants, and the OSW groups as we won't have any federal programs to accommodate them.

And Conservativeland will leave the issues of marriage equality to the states as it does now and I suspect most states will keep the marriage laws that currently exist to protect the children and that do not discriminate against anybody regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, political leanings, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. But in Conservativeland the people will make those decisions, not a central government. In Conservativeland the people govern themselves rather than have their rights assigned by a central authority.

LMAO again. Yo Foxy. Conserativeland sure looks way better than liberalland.

Wonder what Liberalland will do when it runs out of other peoples money??

Print Money, and Raise Taxes.

 

[Nosmo King]

Immigrants to Liberal America will be encouraged to bring their culture along. That way, we can enjoy more than boiled beef and Yorkshire pudding! We will have pizza and matzo ball soup and egg fu yung and pirogies. We will dance the hora and the flamenco and the waltz. Our music will ring with sounds of guitars and castanets and klezmer clarinets rather than just bagpipes and old moaning chants. None of that 'seamless integration' stuff here in the melting pot.

Labor here will be fairly represented and treated as an asset to companies. We will retain the items we originally brought to the party: the eight hour work day, the five day work week, paid sick time and a vacation. We believe that the worker is the backbone of society and the worker's family is the reason we do damn near everything. If we allow corporate executives to treat our workers like so much chattel, how can those workers ever expect to raise a healthy, happy family?

Isn't it grand to enjoy television and radio programming free of commercials and the restrictions those advertisers place on the programmers? So, thanks for the enlightening PBS and NPR. We will have commercial broadcasters, of course. But a thinking person's alternative is a welcome repast.

Here in Liberal America, we will not starve education at the expense of a few more shekels from those who can really afford it. Ignorance, as it turns out, is far more expensive than education. Raising smart, capable kids to take their place in society is a priority for us. And every child will have an opportunity at a great education. Merely educating those with means seems to perpetuate a divisive class in society. The haves and the have nots. I wonder what gems we would leave in the dust if we only educated those who could afford it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Conservatives by definition do not want change, play it safe and side with strength.

If that's true, then who you call "conservatives" are anything but.

The founders were the opposite of conservative.

This will shock you, but the founding fathers were not drones, as you leftists are. They did not have a hive mind telling them what they think and believe, as you of the left do.

In fact, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr (founder of the Democratic party) hated each other so much so much that the fired pistols at each other until Burr murdered Hamilton, starting the long tradition of violence by democrats.

This bullshit where the vision of the founders reflect conservative values is not at all accurate.

{“The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale”} - Thomas Jefferson.

The problem isn't that you're wrong - which of course you are; the problem is that you're simply making it all up based on your partisanship, with no knowledge, much less care, of what the factions of the founding fathers actually stood for.

The founders were not conservatives, conservatives just value their revolutionary new ideas because now they are old traditional ideals.

Again, you display the depth of your ignorance. Jefferson and Payne herald back to great thinkers like Locke, Bacon, Voltair, Rousseau, et al. These were well established ideas that men like Jefferson and Franklin put into action.

The spark that drove the founders, the most important part of them, is now called progressivism,

Quite the opposite. Progressive thought seeks to dissolve individualist thought in favor of collective responsibility. In fact, progressiveness is much closer to the Monarchy that the founders opposed, in that both progressives and monarchists hold that man is simply a cog in the wheel of state, and only has value insofar as he serves the state or the kingdom.

The modern progressive movement is essentially the reestablishment of feudalism. The goal of the left is to establish a peasantry that is without defense or responsibility, dependent on government (the nobility) to provide for needs and offer defense. In exchange, the peasants are to work and obey without question.

and you despise it so much that you would see it purged from our country and never seen again. Quit insulting the founders with that silly conservative label, you may love what they did but you hate why they did it.

Your ignorant fantasy does not alter reality.

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

An anachronism with no relation to modern conservatives. If you don't know this, you're ignorant, if you do, you're a liar.

Don't like the real definition? Call yourself something else.

I don't like that you call yourself liberal, which you are not - you are a totalitarian leftist. So I refer to you with the proper term "leftist" and not "liberal."

I am a liberal, you are a leftist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey, at least in Conservativeland we can finally see Hitler's dream race in action.

Only if we televise what's going on in leftist land.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

So you think the Founders were not all classical liberals (which is what modern American conservatives are)? Perhaps you could find a quotation or comment from any of them that would suggest they were not.

Conservatives aren't trying to take away anybody's rights. In fact they are fighting to restore our unalienable rights that the liberals would take away in favor of big government assigning us what right we will have.

Which brings us back to the concept of a divorce. I presume you have never read the Declaration of Indpendence? That was their petititon sent to King George to divorce America from England. You might have heard of it at least? And the Revolutionary War? What in the heck do you think that was all about if it was not a divorce?

(I also notice that you quickly abandoned the debate on anything substantive. Liberals so often do that. I wonder why that is?)

Wait a minute... You just got done saying that we aren't free unless we can order our society the way we want. What method of ordering society other than government and law do you propose?

What inalienable rights have been taken away from us by liberals? I can see lots of our rights being chipped away by conservatives - 1st amendment rights to free speech replaced by free speech zones. Freedom of association being taken away from public workers. 4th amendment rights being replaced with warrantless wiretaps and searches. 5th amendment rights to due process replaced with extraordinary rendition and presidential power to simply declare you an enemy combatant. 6th amendment rights to a speedy trial replaced by star chambers and military tribunals. 7th amendment rights of civil trial replaced by tort reform. 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment replaced with Gitmo and torture. 9th amendment rights that are not enumerated in the constitution - like a woman's right to privacy replaced by invasive ultrasound. Invasive scans by the TSA, etc. 10th amendment limiting government power replaced by republican notions of an "Imperial Presidency". Sadly the democrats didn't repeal all that crap early in Obama's presidency and we are left with Bush's shameful legacy in that regard.

And yes, the founders wanted a divorce from England. Not from one another.

I am sorry if I didn't respond to every one of your points, but then again not all my points get addressed either. I'll leave deciding what is substantive in this thread to other readers and contributors. I have tried my best to make my posts substantive, and to avoid snarky one liners. (OK, I've been guilty of that too, on occasion.)

You see, you are mixing liberal talking points and propaganda with actual concepts and methodology to which this thread is devoted. I don't want to debate the issues here and therefore don't do that. And do not respond to those who are attempting to do that. I do want to conceptualize how the issues would be addressed in a Conservativeland vs a Liberalland.

So as far as unalienable rights are concerned, in Conservativeland we will not take away what we see as the people's unalienable right to plan for and work for their own retirement. Federal programs such as Social Security give the people no option to opt out. That, to a Classical Liberal/modern day American conservative, forcibly confiscates property in a way that violates the unalienable rights of the people. Conservatives have no problem with the people themselves forming a social contract to accomplish whatever they want accomplished, but it must be done by their will at the local or state level rather than at the federal level.

In Conservativeland, the federal government will be restricted to passing whatever laws and regualtions are necessary to allow the states to work together seamlessly and effectively and what laws and regualtions are necessary to secure our rights. Then it will leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Liberalland no doubt will want to continue to have the federal government assign the rights of the people and rules for all to follow as they see that as the best way to have government.

That is probably the No. 1 reason the divorce has become necessary.

 

[Claudette]

Of course Liberal America would insist on custody of NPR, PBS, Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall, The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Preservation Hall in New Orleans and the Hollywood Bowl. Conservatives are welcome to keep Dollywood, Branson Missouri and we might even throw in Las Vegas to sweeten the deal.

While Conservative America would no doubt insist on being served exclusively by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Fox News, we in Liberal America would like a subscription to those services for comic relief.

Please don't dodge the tolls we would impose on automobiles with Conservative America license plates as you tour through Liberal America. We insist on maintaining our infrastructure even if Conservative America remains steadfast in their belief that those particular tax dollars could be better spent paying for $700 Army hammers. I'm sure that shocks, struts and alignments will be booming service orders in Conservative America as the roads continue to deteriorate.

Oh, and we strictly enforce littering laws here. Sorry! Government has a role to play. How are those privatized efforts at keeping Conservative America clean working out?

Will Conservative America have access to ice flows? If not, please find a way to care for your senior citizens. We will keep Social Security. Please refrain from shipping your seniors here if they were not lucky enough to be a hedge fund manager during their working years.

Women workers here in Liberal America will enjoy being paid the same amount for the same wok. We anticipate a flood of working women once they realize that Conservative America would just as soon have them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen than running any of the corporations there.

By the way, we welcome immigrants in Liberal America. Why? Because we all realize that we too were once immigrants. Not to be feared, demonized, terrorized or otherwise induced to 'self deport'. No authority can stop anyone who does not have distinctively Caucasian features and demand to 'see their papers'.

Of course we will concede PBS and NPR and any other communication and entertainment groups, processes, and facilities that cannot make it on their own without federal government subsidy. Your side enjoys paying taxes to support such things. Ours doesn't so that works out really well. Any programming that can attract the advertisers and meet minimum standards of decency will have free rein on our airways if they can persuade somebody to hire them or provide a time slot for them.

In Conservativeland, women will be paid what their work is worth just like the men will be paid what their work is worth and that will not be artificially manipulated in any way nor based on gender in any way. The free market, not unions and not politicians will determine what work is worth. Being a woman who has worked in such a system for more decades than most of you have been alive, and who has never been paid less than any man doing the same work, I know that is the fairest and most equitable and most profitable system for all. And it will help us provide full employment to our people. An entitlement mentality will not be cultivated nor encouraged in any form in Conservativeland.

But certainly Liberalland can finally have free rein to vote a living wage for every man, woman, and child in Liberalland because the amount of taxes necessary to do that has never been an issue for liberals. Ya'll have always liked taxes much more than we do so that too will work out great. You are welcome to Social Security, Medicaid, and Obamacare as they currently exist. In Conservativeland there will be no such federal programs, but the states will adopt whatever programs the people wish to have for those who cannot work. In Conservativeland, people will be taught from kindergarten on the importance of saving and wisely investing so that they will be able to weather a rainy day and will be able to enjoy a pleasant retirement when the time comes.

Immigrants will be welcome in Conservativeland too provided that they come in legally and want to be Americans including renouncing all loyalty to their former country and flag, learning the language, laws, and customs at their own expense, and are capable of seamlessly assimilating into the culture and being productive members of society and earning their own way as everybody else is expected to do. Conservatives have long supported such a concept. (I personally spent a lot of years teaching Constitution and English as a second language to new immigrants and swelled with pride when I was privileged to attend their swearing in ceremoniies as new citiizens.)

Once again you go Foxy.

I'll take Conserative land over Liveral land any day of the week.

Jeeze. Wonder what Liveralland will do when they have only their own money to use?/

I mean taking care of everyone and funding everything is gonna take loads of money.

They won't have everyone elses to spend. I see a rocky debt ridden road ahead for Liberalland. LOL