Dear Liberals: I Want a Divorce!

[occupied]

Wow the fantasy secession thread is still going. Anyone decide who gets the debt yet?

Amazing, isn't it? I suppose it is only fair that conservastan gets the debt run up by republicans and libertopia gets the debt run up by democrats. The original premise of the OP was that they get the whole country minus California, Oregon, and Washington. I guess that would give them 47/50ths of the debt.

Here's an even better question, who gets the federal reserve bank of the US? Suckers would probably exile them too in spite of the fed being key to a strong dollar, and go back to the gold standard. Might as well have an economy based on a useless metal to match their useless ideology.

 

[Borillar]

You are wrong in your defiition of modern day American Conservatiism who in no way wants to deny anybody the rights afforded to all society. Modern day American Conservatism wants the government to secure our unalienable rights--everybody's rights--and provide the glue that hold the union together and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and create whatever sort of society we wish to have.

The men you named in your post wanted government to deny rights to some people. That is not modern day American conservatism. That is statism and is antithesis to classical liberal aka modern American conservative values.

You cannot assign conservative or liberal labels to people based on political party. You CAN asign conservative or liberal labels to their actiions however. Short of violating somebody's rights, anybody who wants government to dictate how people shall live their lives or who is allowed to do what to the exclusion of others, you are dealing with modern American liberalism, not conservatism.

So it's really Conservative groups spearheading the drive for marriage equality? It was the sterling conservative Phyllis Schlafly who pushed hard for the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s? It is really Conservatives who want to ensure voter's rights among the elderly, Hispanic and Black community by easing voter registration and eliminating a photo I.D. law? C'mon, Foxy!

It is not a matter of marriage equality. Currently every man, woman, and child is subject to exactly the same laws regarding marriage in every state regardless of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, political leanings, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. You simply don't get any more equal than that.

The issue is whether the definition of marriage that has been in the vernacular throughout the world since the beginnings of recorded history will remain the definition of marriage. You cannot change the definition of marriage without making it something very different from what it is.

So freedom allows people to change the definition if they wish and to retain the definition if they wish. In Conservativeland that would be the expectation--those states or communities who wish to change the deifnition of marriage will do so. Those who do not will not do so. In Liberalland everybody will be expevcted to do so; therefore, there will be no freedom on that subject.

Throughout history, marriage has meant many things. In the Bible alone, marriage has meant many things: one man - one wife, one man - one wife - one slave, one man - 700 wives - 300 concubines, one man - dead brother's wife, man - prisoner of war, etc. Each one of these was proper at the time and society. Which of these do you want to hold to?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

So it's really Conservative groups spearheading the drive for marriage equality? It was the sterling conservative Phyllis Schlafly who pushed hard for the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s? It is really Conservatives who want to ensure voter's rights among the elderly, Hispanic and Black community by easing voter registration and eliminating a photo I.D. law? C'mon, Foxy!

It is not a matter of marriage equality. Currently every man, woman, and child is subject to exactly the same laws regarding marriage in every state regardless of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, political leanings, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. You simply don't get any more equal than that.

The issue is whether the definition of marriage that has been in the vernacular throughout the world since the beginnings of recorded history will remain the definition of marriage. You cannot change the definition of marriage without making it something very different from what it is.

So freedom allows people to change the definition if they wish and to retain the definition if they wish. In Conservativeland that would be the expectation--those states or communities who wish to change the deifnition of marriage will do so. Those who do not will not do so. In Liberalland everybody will be expevcted to do so; therefore, there will be no freedom on that subject.

Throughout history, marriage has meant many things. In the Bible alone, marriage has meant many things: one man - one wife, one man - one wife - one slave, one man - 700 wives - 300 concubines, one man - dead brother's wife, man - prisoner of war, etc. Each one of these was proper at the time and society. Which of these do you want to hold to?

Exactly. Proof once more of her revisionist view of life based solely on her sycophantic worship of her ideology. Fuck...it must be so fun to go through life not caring about reality.

 

[Borillar]

Wow the fantasy secession thread is still going. Anyone decide who gets the debt yet?

Amazing, isn't it? I suppose it is only fair that conservastan gets the debt run up by republicans and libertopia gets the debt run up by democrats. The original premise of the OP was that they get the whole country minus California, Oregon, and Washington. I guess that would give them 47/50ths of the debt.

Here's an even better question, who gets the federal reserve bank of the US? Suckers would probably exile them too in spite of the fed being key to a strong dollar, and go back to the gold standard. Might as well have an economy based on a useless metal to match their useless ideology.

That's a bit of a bugger, isn't it? One the one hand, the federal reserve may not be entirely constitutional. On the other hand, who wants to give politicians the controls to the printing press? I don't have a better answer than the Fed. Perhaps they can base their currency on "Unobtainium".

 

[occupied]

It is not a matter of marriage equality. Currently every man, woman, and child is subject to exactly the same laws regarding marriage in every state regardless of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, political leanings, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. You simply don't get any more equal than that.

The issue is whether the definition of marriage that has been in the vernacular throughout the world since the beginnings of recorded history will remain the definition of marriage. You cannot change the definition of marriage without making it something very different from what it is.

So freedom allows people to change the definition if they wish and to retain the definition if they wish. In Conservativeland that would be the expectation--those states or communities who wish to change the deifnition of marriage will do so. Those who do not will not do so. In Liberalland everybody will be expevcted to do so; therefore, there will be no freedom on that subject.

Throughout history, marriage has meant many things. In the Bible alone, marriage has meant many things: one man - one wife, one man - one wife - one slave, one man - 700 wives - 300 concubines, one man - dead brother's wife, man - prisoner of war, etc. Each one of these was proper at the time and society. Which of these do you want to hold to?

Exactly. Proof once more of her revisionist view of life based solely on her sycophantic worship of her ideology. Fuck...it must be so fun to go through life not caring about reality.

The slippery slope of any government being obsessed with the moral or immoral goings on in the lives of its citizens is reason enough to expect a theocratic nightmare in a conservative blue nose Christian jihad America.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Throughout history, marriage has meant many things. In the Bible alone, marriage has meant many things: one man - one wife, one man - one wife - one slave, one man - 700 wives - 300 concubines, one man - dead brother's wife, man - prisoner of war, etc. Each one of these was proper at the time and society. Which of these do you want to hold to?

Exactly. Proof once more of her revisionist view of life based solely on her sycophantic worship of her ideology. Fuck...it must be so fun to go through life not caring about reality.

The slippery slope of any government being obsessed with the moral or immoral goings on in the lives of its citizens is reason enough to expect a theocratic nightmare in a conservative blue nose Christian jihad America.

It's scary though, because you know she's not alone. She actually believes her completely inaccurate account of history. This isn't even something that should be up for debate. It's like climate change. Why are we even still arguing its existence? People like her, who even in the face of FACT, like unbiased, undeniable fact, she still plugs her ears, and screams "LA LA LA, CLASSICAL LIBERAL! LA LA LA!"

 

[occupied]

Amazing, isn't it? I suppose it is only fair that conservastan gets the debt run up by republicans and libertopia gets the debt run up by democrats. The original premise of the OP was that they get the whole country minus California, Oregon, and Washington. I guess that would give them 47/50ths of the debt.

Here's an even better question, who gets the federal reserve bank of the US? Suckers would probably exile them too in spite of the fed being key to a strong dollar, and go back to the gold standard. Might as well have an economy based on a useless metal to match their useless ideology.

That's a bit of a bugger, isn't it? One the one hand, the federal reserve may not be entirely constitutional. On the other hand, who wants to give politicians the controls to the printing press? I don't have a better answer than the Fed. Perhaps they can base their currency on "Unobtainium".

The fed is a necessary evil, if they done away with it they would just have to build it back because the thought of a country without a central bank is retarded.

 

[Foxfyre]

So it's really Conservative groups spearheading the drive for marriage equality? It was the sterling conservative Phyllis Schlafly who pushed hard for the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s? It is really Conservatives who want to ensure voter's rights among the elderly, Hispanic and Black community by easing voter registration and eliminating a photo I.D. law? C'mon, Foxy!

It is not a matter of marriage equality. Currently every man, woman, and child is subject to exactly the same laws regarding marriage in every state regardless of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, political leanings, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. You simply don't get any more equal than that.

The issue is whether the definition of marriage that has been in the vernacular throughout the world since the beginnings of recorded history will remain the definition of marriage. You cannot change the definition of marriage without making it something very different from what it is.

So freedom allows people to change the definition if they wish and to retain the definition if they wish. In Conservativeland that would be the expectation--those states or communities who wish to change the deifnition of marriage will do so. Those who do not will not do so. In Liberalland everybody will be expevcted to do so; therefore, there will be no freedom on that subject.

Throughout history, marriage has meant many things. In the Bible alone, marriage has meant many things: one man - one wife, one man - one wife - one slave, one man - 700 wives - 300 concubines, one man - dead brother's wife, man - prisoner of war, etc. Each one of these was proper at the time and society. Which of these do you want to hold to?

Marriage has had many purposes over the years but it has only had one definition. One man with one woman. The guys have had multiple wives all at the same time but they got married one guy with one woman just the same.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Marriage has had many purposes over the years but it has only had one definition. One man with one woman. The guys have had multiple wives all at the same time but they got married one guy with one woman just the same.

So that's the difference to you, who's standing at the altar at the time?

 

[occupied]

It is not a matter of marriage equality. Currently every man, woman, and child is subject to exactly the same laws regarding marriage in every state regardless of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, political leanings, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. You simply don't get any more equal than that.

The issue is whether the definition of marriage that has been in the vernacular throughout the world since the beginnings of recorded history will remain the definition of marriage. You cannot change the definition of marriage without making it something very different from what it is.

So freedom allows people to change the definition if they wish and to retain the definition if they wish. In Conservativeland that would be the expectation--those states or communities who wish to change the deifnition of marriage will do so. Those who do not will not do so. In Liberalland everybody will be expevcted to do so; therefore, there will be no freedom on that subject.

Throughout history, marriage has meant many things. In the Bible alone, marriage has meant many things: one man - one wife, one man - one wife - one slave, one man - 700 wives - 300 concubines, one man - dead brother's wife, man - prisoner of war, etc. Each one of these was proper at the time and society. Which of these do you want to hold to?

Marriage has had many purposes over the years but it has only had one definition. One man with one woman. The guys have had multiple wives all at the same time but they got married one guy with one woman just the same.

What a stupid thing to argue about, who gives a damn about the tradition of marriage bondage in a free society? When women gained equality the tradition of marriage was turned on its head. You are apparently a married woman, does your husband own you? Answer yes if you believe in traditional marriage, otherwise allow your citizens to do whatever they want and butt the hell out of their lives.

 

[Immanuel]

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?

Not acceptable.

I'll be doggoned if you get the NFL. You can have that sissy sport known as the NBA, but no way on the NFL!

Immie

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You can't have ANY professional organized sports; they all are made up of employees in unions.

 

[occupied]

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?

Not acceptable.

I'll be doggoned if you get the NFL. You can have that sissy sport known as the NBA, but no way on the NFL!

Immie

The public execution channel and the Saturday night death fights would kill football in corporate land, give it up.

 

[Immanuel]

Lordy I'll be glad when the children are put down for their naps so that the grown ups can have an adult conversation.

Look, you condescending fool. This entire thread was based on a bullshit proposition that your political ideology is so morally superior to ours that you deserve to be allowed to secede. Yes, that is what you're advocating, secession. Then you've spent page after page stupidly and blindly repeating the same condescending, bullshit arguments.

Funny, I read it the other way. It seemed to me that she was suggesting that you secede. I mean her offer included conservatives keeping the Constitution and the halls of our government and you would be taking the smaller porporation of land (if the initial offer were accepted that is). Yes, it seemed to me that it was you who would be seceding rather than conservatives.

Immie

 

[MuadDib]

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?

Not acceptable.

I'll be doggoned if you get the NFL. You can have that sissy sport known as the NBA, but no way on the NFL!

Immie

The public execution channel and the Saturday night death fights would kill football in corporate land, give it up.

Those would be better than any reality show that's ever been on TV.

 

[occupied]

Lordy I'll be glad when the children are put down for their naps so that the grown ups can have an adult conversation.

Look, you condescending fool. This entire thread was based on a bullshit proposition that your political ideology is so morally superior to ours that you deserve to be allowed to secede. Yes, that is what you're advocating, secession. Then you've spent page after page stupidly and blindly repeating the same condescending, bullshit arguments.

Funny, I read it the other way. It seemed to me that she was suggesting that you secede. I mean her offer included conservatives keeping the Constitution and the halls of our government and you would be taking the smaller porporation of land (if the initial offer were accepted that is). Yes, it seemed to me that it was you who would be seceding rather than conservatives.

Immie

I took it more as an ultimatum than anything resembling an agreement, she just left off the part that says "or else". Why would any liberal agree to such ruinous terms without the real threat of an "or else" situation that is much worse than the insulting OP?

 

[occupied]

Not acceptable.

I'll be doggoned if you get the NFL. You can have that sissy sport known as the NBA, but no way on the NFL!

Immie

The public execution channel and the Saturday night death fights would kill football in corporate land, give it up.

Those would be better than any reality show that's ever been on TV.

Yes too bad it would be cast with wrongfully convicted people who did no more than blaspheme or fornicate.

 

[Borillar]

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?

Not acceptable.

I'll be doggoned if you get the NFL. You can have that sissy sport known as the NBA, but no way on the NFL!

Immie

The public execution channel and the Saturday night death fights would kill football in corporate land, give it up.

Heh, kind of like that old Arnold movie "The Running Man".

 

[Hum Dinger]

I'm all for dividing up - basically along the same lines as the civil war.

The only southern state that has an economy that's worth a damn is Texas and that's only because they sit on an ocean of oil - otherwise they'd be as poor as Alabama.

Florida was built on the money of Northern retirees and tourists - now that that's dried up, Florida is bust.

I see the south as nothing but a dead weight that's holding this country back.

The blue states have all the heavy industry, the high tech industry and most of the high tech military industry.

There's only one good thing that comes from the south - southern musicians!

 

[Immanuel]

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?

Not acceptable.

I'll be doggoned if you get the NFL. You can have that sissy sport known as the NBA, but no way on the NFL!

Immie

The public execution channel and the Saturday night death fights would kill football in corporate land, give it up.

Over my dead body!

Immie