Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:18 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
I would rather divide the country into 3 parts.
I prefer to divide the nation in to 50 parts, with a few spare territories thrown in for good measure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:21 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,169,069 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
I prefer to divide the nation in to 50 parts, with a few spare territories thrown in for good measure.

nah, 3 parts is fine by me, republican, liberal and Libertarian.

see which one would have the most liberty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:35 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
nah, 3 parts is fine by me, republican, liberal and Libertarian.

see which one would have the most liberty.
That is easy: The one with the most property.

The higher the density of the population, the more liberal and the less free it becomes. The New England States are a perfect example, but it also holds true for any major metropolis.

As far as Libertarians are concerned, they are just closet anarchists so no amount of government would suffice.

Just let Alaska secede from the Union before you divide the lower-48 into three parts. I like it here and want no part of what the lower-48 has to offer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:38 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,169,069 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
That is easy: The one with the most property.

The higher the density of the population, the more liberal and the less free it becomes. The New England States are a perfect example, but it also holds true for any major metropolis.

As far as Libertarians are concerned, they are just closet anarchists so no amount of government would suffice.

Just let Alaska secede from the Union before you divide the lower-48 into three parts. I like it here and want no part of what the lower-48 has to offer.

nope, Libertarians believe in goverment, they just believe in limited goverment, goverment by the people and for the people. not goverment for a lifetime career.

actually, I would take Alaska, 3 provinces in Canada and 5 states in the USA for Libertarian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
nope, Libertarians believe in goverment, they just believe in limited goverment, goverment by the people and for the people. not goverment for a lifetime career.

actually, I would take Alaska, 3 provinces in Canada and 5 states in the USA for Libertarian.
Not according to the Libertarian Party official platform:

Quote:
The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. [emphasis added]

Source: Platform | Libertarian Party
I do not know about you, but that is precisely how I define anarchy - "...without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:47 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,169,069 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Not according to the Libertarian Party official platform:



I do not know about you, but that is precisely how I define anarchy - "...without interference from government or any authoritarian power."


Quite a few chapters in the Libertarian platform talk about goverment and its uses. I agree with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:52 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,769 posts, read 40,902,683 times
Reputation: 62076
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNLV09 View Post
The United States is one of the most partisan countries in the developed world. There are two very distinct political ideologies that are diametrically opposed to one another. Add to that the vast distance that the federal government controls, which means people from states with entirely different cultures, histories, and demographics, have to all live under the same set of federal laws. Case in point: The distance from Los Angeles to Columbia, South Carolina is greater than the distance from London to Moscow (and the cultural difference is greater too). Yet, while the Europeans have over 50 independent nations, over here people in San Francisco have to live under the same federal laws as those in Charleston.

What does this mean for us? That we're all unhappy. We are all living under policies we don't want to live under (Health care is the best example, an odd mixture of public [democratic] and private [republican] that make us get the worst of both worlds and the benefits of neither).

Why are we so naive to think that someday things will be better? Are we that shortsighted to believe that "if we can just win this next election, everything will be ok!" Lets just be honest here, we will NEVER be happy living together. Every 4-12 years someone from the other party will gain office, and the majority in congress will shift, and they will remove old policies and implement new ones that will make half the nation ecstatic and leave the other half seethingly bitter and angry. This means no policies will ever be in place long enough to have a real effect, there will always be constant congressional gridlocks so very little will ever get done, and our taxation and economic regulatory systems will constantly be in flux.

When we will all realize that our country isn't "too big to fail" and that completely independent, smaller regional nations would be much more effective. Why can't people in Oregon smoke pot? Why can't kids in Alabama pray in schools? Why can't Arizona enforce it's own immigration laws? Why are Californian's paying for and engaged in a war both of their senators voted againts?

One day you will all wake up and realize this union needs to be divided. I just hope we can do it without any bloodshed.
Hope the working libs will be ready to turn over more than half their salary because all the people who get government freebies will be living with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 07:38 AM
 
4,127 posts, read 5,059,149 times
Reputation: 1621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
That is easy: The one with the most property.

The higher the density of the population, the more liberal and the less free it becomes. The New England States are a perfect example, but it also holds true for any major metropolis.

As far as Libertarians are concerned, they are just closet anarchists so no amount of government would suffice.

Just let Alaska secede from the Union before you divide the lower-48 into three parts. I like it here and want no part of what the lower-48 has to offer.
Who's in the closet? I'm a total card carrying anarchist. I feel that if we absolutely must have a centralized government, and it's clear from the hordes of people who just can't seem to function without someone guiding them along that we do apparently need one, I prefer to keep it as limited as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 07:39 AM
 
Location: southern california
61,289 posts, read 87,253,323 times
Reputation: 55556
no need for that, i cant see the difference between bush and obama. heavy debting and lots of bailouts and war mongering. .all rubber stamped by congress. how are GOP and DEMS different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Capital Hill
1,599 posts, read 3,127,772 times
Reputation: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNLV09 View Post
The United States is one of the most partisan countries in the developed world. There are two very distinct political ideologies that are diametrically opposed to one another. Add to that the vast distance that the federal government controls, which means people from states with entirely different cultures, histories, and demographics, have to all live under the same set of federal laws. Case in point: The distance from Los Angeles to Columbia, South Carolina is greater than the distance from London to Moscow (and the cultural difference is greater too). Yet, while the Europeans have over 50 independent nations, over here people in San Francisco have to live under the same federal laws as those in Charleston.

What does this mean for us? That we're all unhappy. We are all living under policies we don't want to live under (Health care is the best example, an odd mixture of public [democratic] and private [republican] that make us get the worst of both worlds and the benefits of neither).

Why are we so naive to think that someday things will be better? Are we that shortsighted to believe that "if we can just win this next election, everything will be ok!" Lets just be honest here, we will NEVER be happy living together. Every 4-12 years someone from the other party will gain office, and the majority in congress will shift, and they will remove old policies and implement new ones that will make half the nation ecstatic and leave the other half seethingly bitter and angry. This means no policies will ever be in place long enough to have a real effect, there will always be constant congressional gridlocks so very little will ever get done, and our taxation and economic regulatory systems will constantly be in flux.

When we will all realize that our country isn't "too big to fail" and that completely independent, smaller regional nations would be much more effective. Why can't people in Oregon smoke pot? Why can't kids in Alabama pray in schools? Why can't Arizona enforce it's own immigration laws? Why are Californian's paying for and engaged in a war both of their senators voted againts?

One day you will all wake up and realize this union needs to be divided. I just hope we can do it without any bloodshed.
Seems they tried to devide this country once before and what happened? It was called 'The Civil War'.
I have a better idea. Since there are so many Mexicans trying to get into this country illegally, why doesn't the United States just take over Mexco. The illegal alien problem will be solved and we will all morph into Mexicans and there will be far less diversity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top