Is the United States doomed... or should it be?

[junyo]

This is misleading though as the real rift is between inner city metrosexual types that want a socialist police state to protect them from the inner city criminals mainly made up of 'minorities' that are part of a subculture (hip hop oriented etc)..and those of a suburban or rural background that live more traditional conservative lifestyles and are intolerant of the subcultures that create the reduction in morals. The less crowded rural people also have room to 'play' and grow up enjoying outdoors that give one more of an appreciation for being tough and self reliant yet responsible.

It's all so clear now, and so simple too. If we all just got rid of those pesky "minorities", and citified metrosexual eggheads and got back to simple country living we'd be so much better off. Who'd have thought that Pol Pot was right?

Did it ever occur to anyone, that once you've established the principle of seperation rather than settling differences and compromising you've pretty much given up on civilization. Because the logical next step is having the Red Country split along social/religious lines, then the splinters split along economic or racial ones. Then you've just dialed the clock back a few thousand years to voluntarily become members of a tribe. which wouldn't be so bad except the people who weren't dumb enough to seperate their strength over petty differences and hatreds (i.e. countries) can now overpower any of the isolated groups. They don't have to divide and conquer, because you did the dividing for them.

 

[velojym]

enikkor,
I can't speak for all 'independents', only for myself. I vote on the side of smaller government. Every time. If there are no choices which reduce the size of government (or prevent its growth) I don't bother.
As to your concern about changing loyalties... I remember the right wing outcry about wiretapping back in the '90s when Her Klinton was in office, but most of the republicans I speak with nowadays are fine with it, so long as 'our guy' is in office.
On the other hand, the lefties who are whinging about it right now were perfectly fine with it when their golden boy was in office.

I'll stick with my principle, thankyouverymuch, and won't let it change merely because I've hitched my wagon to an elephant or a donkey.

 

[hugh damright]

Did it ever occur to anyone, that once you've established the principle of seperation rather than settling differences and compromising you've pretty much given up on civilization.

Virginians did not give up on civilization when we declared our independence in 1776 and again in 1861. Quite the contrary, we were trying to preserve our free government which is (was) the height of civilization.

Because the logical next step is having the Red Country split along social/religious lines, then the splinters split along economic or racial ones. Then you've just dialed the clock back a few thousand years to voluntarily become members of a tribe.

The Declaration of Independence explains that people are more likely to tolerate abuse and preserve their government, but that there is a breaking point. I do not believe it is logical to say that if the States exercise their right to secede then we will fall apart to the point of hunter/gatherer tribes. When has that every happened?

 

[jnojr]

This sounds like more sour grapes from a "conservative" who still can not get over the election. I guess you now realize that America is not as conservative as you thought, nor willing to through away our freedoms because some corrupt politicans want us too. Please quit wining.

Please re-read my post and then come back and comment.

 

[jnojr]

Did it ever occur to anyone, that once you've established the principle of seperation rather than settling differences and compromising you've pretty much given up on civilization.

So every secession in history has driven the human race back thousands of years worth of progress? Holy Cow, my history books are all wrong!

There's something fundamentally broken about our country today. Insisting the we ignore it and do nothing about it because we really admire the principles upojn which it was formed 200+ years ago is silly.

Why should we try to force people to live together and "get along"? What is so terrible about saying, "I don't agree with the way you want to do things, so I'm going to let you do what you want... but I'm going to stay here and keep doing what I want"?

I don't want to "get along" with Socialists, because their definition of "getting along" includes me opening up my wallet to fund their schemes and giving up the personal liberties that they feel are outdated or not of any use in their New World. I don't want to stop them from handling theings as they see fit... I just don't want to be forced to take part.

 

[malix]

Look at the extreme, and growing, polarization between red states vs. blue. Just as they have no right to force us to accept Socialism, "universal health care", paying for millions of illegal aliens and welfare bums, etc; we have no right to tell them that they must become conservative and support our ideals.

We should split. Let the liberals form their Socialist Utopia, and let conservatives/libertarians create a society with minimal government.

Minimal government?

Am i missing something here? The Republicans have been massively expanding government power for the past 6 years. So how is it that 'red states' have anything to do with minimal government?

 

[mindwip]

The civil war was lost becuase the reds went from defense to offense which made no sense. They declared them selfs free, then attacked another country(i am not saying the blues did not attack first) If they stayed in there home land they could of laster longer, and after time the blues would of had no support in there own land for attacking a stale mate.

If state were to split off now, all they would have to do is just declare them selfs free of the "USA" goverment thats it. The USA cant force the states back in. Even if the USA sent troops in so what you not have to fight them just dont follow any of there laws. If the USA demands taxes, how are they going to collect the money, if 80 million poeple say no, troop dont work as tax collector not for that many.

 

[jnojr]

Am i missing something here? The Republicans have been massively expanding government power for the past 6 years. So how is it that 'red states' have anything to do with minimal government?

The Republican party haas been taken over by the "neo-cons", just as the Democratic party has been taken over by the extreme-left-wing-fringe-nutjob-Socialists. "Red states" are voting Republican because they're voting for the lesser of two evils, not because they joyfully look forward to a Neo-Con future! And, frankly, an awful lot of Democrats hate what their party has become... I can't really picture a union factory worker thinking a vast welfare state is a great idea when he has to get up and work every day. But, again, he's voting for what he perceives as the lesser of two evils... the party that supports a vast government but also his union, vs. the party that supports a vast government and doesn't support unions.

 

[tincat2]

impending doom

greed, gentlemen, will be the reaper's agent. political hagglings are a cover for "i want what i want, and i'll do as much as i can to get it and to feel good about having it". what a load, you say. i ask, why do i see little if no discussion on the moral dimensions of what we want for a society-its structure and its purpose? and no, grammaw said so, or, we on the remote island of whatever always did it this way, or, the sacred papers of the bottomless pit command thus, are not likely to bring understanding to the discussion. what's a human being, what is a life that's human, what can a human do with his life.
again, no, the current corporate structure of existing society won't bring truth to the table here. i suspect that a lot of christian stuff would be trotted out as well, but i would point out that the Savior willingly went to His death(mean, cruel, and humiliating by all accounts) for the sake of His kind and yet i see little of that depth of committment amongst His avowed followers today. Few, even with their perfunctory charities, miss even a spoonful of gravy at sunday's dinner. i keep getting the feeling that we are missing the point entirely, and that we won't get it without catastrophe to clear our vision- and true cataclysm is in no way pleasant or to be hoped for(to those who are certain that they are "saved").

 

[hugh damright]

Am i missing something here? The Republicans have been massively expanding government power for the past 6 years. So how is it that 'red states' have anything to do with minimal government?

The last six years ... that's one President in an era of unprecedented terrorist attacks. The blue states have been massively expanding government power for centuries.

 

[Zoogster]

It's all so clear now, and so simple too. If we all just got rid of those pesky "minorities", and citified metrosexual eggheads and got back to simple country living we'd be so much better off.

I qualified 'minority' for a reason. It has to do with cultural identity not race, however among the uneducated self identity follows along the most obvious differences such as race. So while not racial it follows racial lines due to self identifying with a culture contrary to other Americans. Read my response here for a good understanding of why some don't share our American identity: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=235153
As for the metrosexual, yes the material possession ruled, looking for best latte mocha grande, getting thier nails done, "bling bling" men that make up a large part of the professional successful educated masses of the cities are afraid of the other inner city dwellers and wish to restrict everyone elses rights to what is required for them to enjoy life. So are anti gun, pro government expansion etc and think that paying for lots and lots of police everywhere while taking away anyones rights to have anything that potentialy could harm anyone is ideal. They have money and therefore power, and are an expanding segment of society, combined with the numerical backing of the unions they make up the progressives, and somehow even manage to convince the very 'minorites' they are afraid of to join thier cause because it supports them with free handouts.

 

[junyo]

Virginians did not give up on civilization when we declared our independence in 1776 and again in 1861. Quite the contrary, we were trying to preserve our free government which is (was) the height of civilization.

Virginians most certainly did give up some civilization when they declared independence. Both of those declarations were followed immediately by years of bloodshed and destruction. In the case of the former it went from being a part of one of the world's great powers to a frontier civilization that wasn't fully secure for decades. And it arguably still hasn't fully recovered from the latter.

I do not believe it is logical to say that if the States exercise their right to secede then we will fall apart to the point of hunter/gatherer tribes. When has that every happened?

post Alexander Greece, the Dark Ages, post colonial Africa, post Communist Eastern Europe, post Saddam Iraq, off hand.

So every secession in history has driven the human race back thousands of years worth of progress? Holy Cow, my history books are all wrong!

Not every seccession, but the US is such a small insignificant country. And the history books don't have anything to say about bad things happening when you attempt to dismantle an empire. Especially because of a highly evolved reason like "...I have to insist that it be run the way I want...".

What people are advocating isn't principled seperation (any more than the Civil War was, sorry neoConfederates), it's a temper tantrum. It's not just I want my libertarian/Christian/white/rural slice of heaven, it's I want my libertarian/Christian/white/rural slice of heaven AND I don't want to have to deal with anyone that disagrees with me. I want to be surrounded by my tribe; people that look like me, act like me, and think like me. And while that seems like a good idea on paper it's ridiculously detrimental to society and to liberty. Society as a whole is weakened because the dearth of opinion and viewpoints weakens the thinking and reasoning of the majority; even if they're right, since they're never seriously challenged, they lose the ability to articulate, understand or explain why they're right to people that don't share their worldview. One of the reason we're fighting the fight we are is because education is this country became a single viewpoint enterprise, and generations were brainwashed without the basis of reasoning to reject it. Secessionist would have also established precedence a flawed stratagy; rather than fight to preserve or expand their beliefs in the current situation through reasoning, dialog, and discourse, we'll prefer isolationism and seperatism. And in real political terms, a handful of beseiged mini-Utopias are distinctly less likely to preserve individual freedoms more (no matter with what intentions they begin) than a less ideal but stronger state. And where does it stop? Boutique states for every single idealogical niche? Do the Gay Wiccan Vegetarian Stoner Levergun in a Cowboy Caliber have the right to carve out a chunk of the Gay Wiccan Vegetarian Stoner Levergun State over their fundamental failure to condemn the .357 Magnum? How do you draw the line over what gives you the right to form a state? And how is that different from anarchy? Because you could save a lot of time and just advocate that.

 

[Soybomb]

let conservatives/libertarians create a society with minimal government

What makes you think the conservates want that? Aren't the conservates the ones who push the war on drugs, gay marriage amendments, flag burning amendments, stem cell research bans, teaching of religious ideas in public schooles, etc?

Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free. -- Harry Browne

 

[DFW1911]

A fascinating read...

All,

It dawns on me that those of us in this forum share at least one common interest, yet despite that / those common interest(s) we can't bring ourselves to agreement re: this topic. The point is not whether the topic has validity, it's whether we can learn to collaborate and work with each other, not against each other.

The need to be "right" is the cornerstone of political argument and leads to the need to "win." The problem with both is that someone, as such, loses... and animosity remains in tact.

Our current political structure has adopted an "us verses them" mindset: winner take all. How helpful is it in trying to fix what's wrong with our country when we're working against each other on what "wrong" is? I believe there's very little room amongst the parties, and it pains me greatly to type "the parties", to rectify our disparate attitudes. We need to collaborate, not compromise.

Is the U.S. doomed, I have no idea. If history is accurate and repetitive, then yes, it is, but I doubt it. I do know, however, that if those of us who agree on an ideal or doctrine cannot get along we are, in fact, done for. When we start labeling each other by red or blue, what have we achieved, other than being pawns in the game of the anti politicians?

One united voice is heard more strongly than many scattered voices.

Just my thoughts.

Take care,
DFW1911

 

[DRMMR02]

Truth be told, Red or Blue, not one of the states is in 100% accord with the Constitution. It's just that some(Blue) are worse than others(Red).

The disease afflicting our nation is liberalism. If we in this nation stuck with the Constitution, we'd be colonizing Mars by now. All the wealth spent supporting Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all the other loaves of bread tossed to the mob, accomplished only one thing: The job security of those tossing out loaves of bread that we baked for them.

Look where everyone seems to want to compromise. It's to the left of the Constitution. Not on the Constitution, not to the right of the Constitution, but to the left of the Constitution, where every take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-lazy program for big government comes from. If you want an effective revolution to obtain small government, personal wealth, and staggering growth and advancement, throw every liberal out of government. The Constitution isn't about strong government, it's about a strong us - we the people.

+1

Liberals cannot survive without Conservative. They are like leeches. If they had their own country with just them populating it, it would colapse as surely as the Soviet Union did. For they would have no one to suck funds from. Think about it. Conservative believe in buisness, working hard, and capitalism. Liberals believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Without the rich, where would they take from? It would end up as a nation of people with open hands asking for handouts but with no one to give them anything. It would be New Orleans, but on a national scale.

Woodcdi is right on. Liberals mostly live in big cities. And many conservative live in somewhat rurla areas. And how they live their lives effects how they think. Who shovels the snow in the city ? The government. Who is responsible for your safety in the city? The government. Who runs the buses and trains? The government. Many aspects of life in a city are reliant of the Government to give you your needs. And thus liberals grow up expecting the government to take care of them. "You don't need a gun, just call the police".

Rural conservative are used to doing things themselves? Who clears the snow from their driveway? They wake up at 4am, strap on the plow to their truck and do it themselves. Who protects them from 2 and 4 legged predators? They grab the shotgun off the wall and do it themselves. Who is responsible for getting them from A to B? They do it, or walk.

Living outside of a city teaches you to rely on yourself, and also to desire to make your own decisions, and to bring up your kids how you want. Liberals on the other hand are big on collectivism. They want the state to give them jobs, give them money, take care and teach their kids, give them rides to work, give them health-care, and to protect them.

And that is why a state/nation of just liberals would never work. There would be 100% asking, and 0% footing the bill.

What people are advocating isn't principled seperation (any more than the Civil War was, sorry neoConfederates), it's a temper tantrum. It's not just I want my libertarian/Christian/white/rural slice of heaven, it's I want my libertarian/Christian/white/rural slice of heaven AND I don't want to have to deal with anyone that disagrees with me. I want to be surrounded by my tribe; people that look like me, act like me, and think like me.

Except we don't live in a universe where everyone can magically have just what they want. You either pay higher taxes to support the lower class or you don't. You either have the right to keep and bear arms or you don't. You either allow abortions, or you don't. There is no magical middle ground where I have the right to keep and bear arms and someone else under the same law doesn't. There is no way for you to pay more taxes and I don't if I don't feel like it. That is the thing about Federal Law; it applies to everyone, no matter what they feel about it. So if the libs voter to curtail our RKBA, that's the law of the land, no matter how we feel about it. "I want my libertarian/Christian/white/rural slice of heaven and I want my socialist/Secular/minority/big city elite slice of heaven" cannot coexist under the same law. It is impossible. Each law pending acceptance is a YES/NO question. There is no "Both for some" option. Let's say there is a Federal Law on the table making a National ID. If it's passed, you have to get one. You can't say "I don't agree with this law, so I don't have to follow it". Federal Law applies to everyone. So Junyo, your idea of everyone getting to have their ideal under the same law is impossible.



As for America being doomed...I would have to say...Yes. I do believe that as the nation gets more populated, and the "World Government" idea gets more steam, that stuff combined with the systematic indoctrination of our youths at College to the liberal mindset, I think Conservative as a true force in America is on a permanent downward slide.

 

[Cousin Mike]

I, for one, favor the idea of taking all you folks who hate minorities and/or blame them for all your problems, and putting you in your very own section of the USA.

Then, the rest of us who actually care about our country (and all the different types of people in it) will know exactly where to send the bomb, and we can start over without all the hatred and intolerance you and your ilk contribute to this society.

 

[DRMMR02]

Mike, be careful not to fall into the PC trap. Citing the hard truth, and hatred are totally different things. The fact is, for instance, there is a certain % of blacks in the prison system today. And there is a certain % of whites. One is substantially higher than the other, and it's not because of some vast racist conspiracy. Pointing out hard truths is not racism. In fact, pointing out the truth with a desire to change is actually compassionate. Burying your head in the sand and saying "it's not really a problem" or simply pointing the finger at "the white man" is neither compassionate, accurate, or helpful.

The hard reality is, when I look in my weekly "Police Report" section of the newspaper, the most crime is in certain areas. And those areas are racially separated. When I deliver a pizza to a neighborhood of one race, there seems to be a lot more people hanging around outside looking suspicious than in other areas. In fact, 2 pizza drivers got robbed at gun point just last week in one neighborhood of Ann Arbor Michigan(where I live and work). And wouldn't you know it, it is in one of the more "non-white" neighborhoods.

Admitting that certain groups that make up the minority of the population, but commit the majority of crimes is not racism. Admitting the truth, and finding the solution is actually the height of compassion. Let's actually solve the real problems, instead of getting PC.

 

[Cousin Mike]

DRMMR02

Finding a solution to certain problems is not what I have a problem with. And citing facts about crime is not a problem for me either.

What IS the problem... WHY I posted the reaction that I did... is because of something you touched on.

Admitting the truth, and finding the solution is actually the height of compassion. Let's actually solve the real problems, instead of getting PC.

If I felt that certain people in this thread were doing just that... trying to find a solution...

I'd be more than happy about being a part of that solution. However, just because minorities are disproportionately jailed doesn't mean that we're the problem with this country...

The fact that black kids often get light years in prison for drug cases that white kids get probation for is just PART of the reason blacks are disproportionately imprisoned in this country. Anyone wanna dispute that?

When it comes to VIOLENT crime, the numbers are a lot less racially divided. And when it comes to violent crimes against women, like rape, domestic violence, etc. white guys make up a disproportionate amount of those imprisoned... Since minorities are all poor, bloodsucking welfare bums -according to some in this thread- am I to make the assumption that all white men are brutal, oppressive misogynists? That is a VERY widespread stereotype among non-white people, you do know... So I guess that makes it true.

Well, that's what some folks here are doing.

Finding solutions to problems like THAT is also part of what it would take to make this country a better place. Not simply blaming poor people and minorities for every problem in this country. It's not accurate, it's not a forthright way of thinking, and it is, in fact, racism.

If we want to find solutions to the problems that face this country, I'm all for it... But praising the confederacy, and basically making the claim that we simply need to roll over anyone else with a different point of view IS the problem, and NOT a solution.

The thing you folks often don't understand - you turn people off to your way of thinking by the words you use and the sentiments you echo.

I'm young. I'm black. I'm not rich. I'm male. I was raised in a single-parent home. I listen to hip-hop. I live in the inner-city.

Yet, I'm here, with you guys on this board dedicated to THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS because I believe in the same things you guys do.

When you split these things along racial lines, and say minorities are the problem with this country, you take a lot of people who fundamentally agree with you, and put them onthe other side of the fence...

Why?

Because some of you can't keep your bigoted opinions to yourself.

The fact is, oftentimes, gun-owners are their own worst enemy... and as long as people want to use the racial demographic of certain crimes to justify a fundamentally racist philosophy, the more damage you do to the RKBA movement, and people who actually AGREE with the 2nd amendment - regardless of how they feel about gunowners.

If I'm a fence-sitter, and I read this - you guys have just pissed me off and reinforced every negative stereotype about gun-owners that I've ever heard.

How is pissing off 1/2 the country going to help us?

Simple answer.... it isn't.

 

[ojibweindian]

Doomed.

Why? Because our choices pretty much boil down to either financial or social oppression.

Only question is how long do we have left?

 

[DRMMR02]

Well if bigotry is making sure my .45 is loaded and ready to go when I deliver to one neighborhood vs another simply from crime rates, and more importantly crimes I have witnessed, than I guess I'm a bigot.

Not to sound racist or insensitive, but Chris Rock(a black man) said it best "When I go to the money machine at night, I'm not lookin over my shoulder for the media. I'm lookin for..."

I'm sorry, but at least where I live, one group of people really is more threatening than another. That is something I have to deal with. Call it racism if you want, but I still need to be at High Condition Red on certain streets, and not others. And that is just fact. And until THAT changes, my opinions really aren't going to change.

 

[Cousin Mike]

The fact that I take MY .45 to bad neighborhoods (full of people who look like me) must also make me a self-hater.

For someone who I regard as a very intelligent person, DRMMR02, you sure seem to be missing about 95% my point. I have a lot of trouble believing that you can't understand what I'm saying - so it seems to me that you're ignoring the point in favor of making clever 'soundbites'.

Also... who the hell doesn't know who CHRIS ROCK IS?!

And considering the fact that I've listened to Chris Rock since LONG before most of you even knew who he was, I think it's kind of extra amusing to parenthesize the fact that he's black.

 

[Baba Louie]

Who was it that once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. But rather, ask what you can do for your country." (Rhetoric question, I know who authored/orated)

That quote seems to sum up a majority of our national problems. It came from a Democrat who was (as it was told to me by several) a "bleeding heart liberal Harvard Democrat".

More government... is that the answer? I think all here would vote "NAY"... yet we seem to be living in a form of democracy where 50% + 1 gets their way, where politicians entrench themselves into power once elected and refuse to listen to their constituents (unless they contribute large sums to campaign finances or political pet charities ... like Dem and Repub nat'l parties).

You can "red" or "blue" all day long if it makes you happy. But it's really "GREEN" ($$$) that runs things.

Big business runs things. Like politics. Like economics.

So maybe we should alter JFK's quote somewhat (tongue in cheek of course) and say "Ask not what your money (big business) can do for you, but ask what you can do for your money (big business)".

Government IS (probably the largest) Big Business. Look at what you own and how you live today compared to 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 20 years ago. More toys, more bills, more taxes, but maybe less freedoms or perceived liberty? Less leisure time or more? Less helping your neighbors bring in their crops or more (metaphorically speaking)?

Or is it about the same all things considered?

We're not doomed. We're just evolving. Which is something we've been doing as a nation, since day one. The pendulum swings back and forth while time marches on.

But... whaddaIknow? I do know I love JFK's quote and wish everyone would or could take it to heart and live it. Maybe.

 

[DRMMR02]

You seemed to only be making a point about prison population/sentencing and wife beaters. Neither of which concern me. What concerned me when I'm out and about is drug dealers, car thiefs, muggers, and gangbangers. And where I come from, those things ARE mostly one race. If I lived somewhere else, maybe it would be different. But I don't and it's not. I'm not making this stuff up. I drive around at 2AM 4 nights a week. I see this stuff every time. I see drug deals happen. I see cars with broken in windows. And I see where in the city things go from alright, to bad, and back to alright again. And it happens to be close to where people of certain races live. I'm truly sorry, but that's the truth.

And the () was simply pointing out that it's not just white guys making up racist nonsense. I'm sorry it bothered you so much.

 

[Cousin Mike]

You seemed to only be making a point about prison population/sentencing and wife beaters.

Really? Or is it you that is ONLY making references to your local crime dynamic? It appears then, that if you took ONLY THAT from my entire first post... well.. maybe I'm giving you too much credit.

Finding solutions to problems like THAT is also part of what it would take to make this country a better place. Not simply blaming poor people and minorities for every problem in this country. It's not accurate, it's not a forthright way of thinking, and it is, in fact, racism.

If we want to find solutions to the problems that face this country, I'm all for it... But praising the confederacy, and basically making the claim that we simply need to roll over anyone else with a different point of view IS the problem, and NOT a solution.

The thing you folks often don't understand - you turn people off to your way of thinking by the words you use and the sentiments you echo.

I'm young. I'm black. I'm not rich. I'm male. I was raised in a single-parent home. I listen to hip-hop. I live in the inner-city.

Yet, I'm here, with you guys on this board dedicated to THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS because I believe in the same things you guys do.

When you split these things along racial lines, and say minorities are the problem with this country, you take a lot of people who fundamentally agree with you, and put them onthe other side of the fence...

The fact is, oftentimes, gun-owners are their own worst enemy... and as long as people want to use the racial demographic of certain crimes to justify a fundamentally racist philosophy, the more damage you do to the RKBA movement, and people who actually AGREE with the 2nd amendment - regardless of how they feel about gunowners.

If I'm a fence-sitter, and I read this - you guys have just pissed me off and reinforced every negative stereotype about gun-owners that I've ever heard.

How is pissing off 1/2 the country going to help us?

Simple answer.... it isn't.

Sorry you missed all that.

 

[DRMMR02]

I'm reading a lot of generalized philosophy about coming together and gun-owners being close minded. But I really don't see where you are proving anything I said wrong.