Red_Dragon wrote: 
You could always move to Cali. 

Hardly anyplace more open minded. 

Bakersfield is a lot like Oklahoma without the tornaders.

 ScottN wrote: 
That would be the last straw.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
As if.....!    Just make sure Texas takes OK along their road to "Succeed"....Just to amuse RD.   indeed.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Procede!

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

A friend of an RP buddy had this on his wall:
 


I lol'd. 

 islander wrote: 
Let's Eat The Rich...

 sirdroseph wrote: 

Argentina, not the Appalachians! 

 phineas wrote: 
True Dat!

 islander wrote: 
Indeed. Remember, we all came from Africa originally. The time period and circumstance of the migration of our ancestors is the only difference. There is a wide chasm of perspective on the surface, but I suspect ultimately most of us want the same things for our children.

 islander wrote: 
Then we'd start a war over who "gets" the values...

 Xeric wrote:  
I was thinking about this and I'm coming to like the idea. Not because I think it is a smart move, or would actually work in any way. I think if we should initiate the process of divvying up the country start w/ the premise of red/blue who don't like each other and don't share any values. As we all started picking the things we wanted, I think most people would come to realize that most things lie on a continuum with a range, and not a go/no-go black/white value system. If we all come to value a lot of the same things maybe we would realize we are not so different after all, and that a little compromise would get us the things that we really want.

 

 rosedraws wrote: 
The problem with that is that there really aren't "red states" and "blue states.  There are more like red and blue counties, or even neighborhoods.  We'd never agree on how to divide the city, much less the nation.

I am surprised the we (SC) are not clamoring to join them, it is usually our fair state that causes the most trouble!

 rosedraws wrote: 
They wouldn't be able to agree on how to divide it.

 islander wrote: 

islander,
Greetings...
I would agree that we are better as a whole, but I feel the same divisions coming on, or perhaps already  present, as existed in the late 60's and into the mid 70's or so. That creates tensions and sometimes remedies suggested are made without a full airing of thought. 75% of Texans wish to remain in The US. Gov. Perry has however, lit a fuse among some and often those sparks spread. I don't believe much will come of this. For many years now, Vermont has been making noises about a separation. They still remain in The Union.

mk

 islander wrote: 

It is interesting to note when someone is insisting upon "state rights" and when they are not. 

Take the same-sex marriage issue.  Some states have now recognized same-sex marriages; other states — and the federal government through the defense of marriage act — are refusing to provide full faith and credit to those marriages legally entered into in those jurisdictions. (All states, however, afford full faith and credit, as they must under the Constitution, to, say, a marriage of persons of a certain age who would not have been allowed to marry in another state because of that younger age).     

Those who applauded the federal defense of marriage act are also the same ones who, in a different context, are carrying the "states rights" banner.

Compare all that with the abortion debate, where there are those who argue that states should decide, not the feds (of course, in this context there also is a pesky Supreme Court decision to deal with )   

  

 musik_knut wrote: 
Compare and contrast these two items found here: http://www.governor.state.tx.us/



See this is the fundamental problem I have with the 'red states' in general. They claim to want small government, low taxes, independence, freedom to do as they please, write their own rules and govern as they see fit. But they routinely receive more in federal dollars than they give back in taxes.  Texas is one of the better 'red' states being near or even a tiny bit below parity. But it is still more than a bit disingenuous to claim your sovereignty, talk about secession and then the very next day go out and call on the feds for help.

Is Texas really just a fair weather friend to the rest of the nation? Do you recognize that we are better as a whole where we can support each other in times of need? Or do you think you are better off going it alone because everyone else is a drag on your greatness and you are just carrying everyone? Let's just take FEMA - Up here in Washington St. we wind up sending a lot of dollars to the fed that get redirected to Florida, Louisiana, Texas etc. for Hurricane relief. We don't get hurricanes here. But someday we're going to have an earthquake (or unless Bobby Jindal is right a Volcano eruption), and it might be a doozy. If that happens I'd like to think that the Floridians will remember the help that we have sent their way via FEMA and not bitch when FEMA brings a truck full of fresh water delivered because our water mains are all busted.

That is how it should work. Sure it pulls some of the highs down a bit, but it also brings up the lows. On average we can all do better by helping each other out. If you don't feel that way that is okay, but please stop accepting federal assistance *before* you go and carve yourself out of the pie.

 musik_knut wrote: 
I wondered if it would be better if the country separated into two... one country more conservative, one country more liberal.  Would that be so bad? 

But I guess that's the whole lesson of the civil war... we died horribly in droves just to keep in one piece.  We were a lot smaller then, we really needed eachother.

I suppose the real reason we need eachother now is to keep a balance.  I like the balance.  I hate the intolerance (my own included. )