LOL - you obviously don't understand the situation...

Yes, the Royal Family makes a lot of money... through their own investments. They are capitalists after all. The ONLY thing the "people of England" pay for is their security.

So if anyone is getting ripped off, it's the Americans who have a First Family... Not only do we Americans pay for their security but we also pay for their residence, their planes and helicopters, we even pay the president a hefty salary. The people of England don't pay for ANY of that.

But you go ahead and make your little jokes about other people getting screwed as you get your ass pounded, if that makes you feel any better. ;)

I'm glad you gave it a little more thought. Yes, I am in indeed suggesting completely separate governments not just two but several... and negotiations between them would be on the international level. That doesn't mean we can't have trade blocks and alliances it just means we won't have the levels of government gridlock and disenfranchised citizens that we have now.

It *is* kind of sad, and I realize it screws with our sense of nationality but I think you're right about our irreconcilable differences and the future of our children.

Yeah, it's a common perspective.


An alliance, if you will. ;)


Considering the fact that our military-industrial complex is almost entirely located in blue regions. I would think there would be some interest in those regions to support that industry and I'm fairly certain it's the technology produced by that industry that gives our military its edge.

BTW, a lot of the military-industrial complex is centered on universities and research labs typically funded by blue-thinking people.

Personally, I think we could defend ourselves easily with about a third of the current budget. I'm pretty sure the only reason why we spend as much as we do on "defense" is because the military-industrial complex is like... Cha-Ching! Do you need rocket launcher? No? Well, the Pentagon says you do. (LOL) Oh, you don't have the money? Don't worry, we'll get our people to pay for it... after all, your defense is our defense. (wink, wink, nudge, nuge)... Cha-Ching!

So I don't know bro. Maybe it will depend on which the of blue republics we're talking about, in any case I don't think defending ourselves from the unlikely event would be impeded by a more perfect separation.


I think healthcare is one area of concern that would benefit greatly, at least in the blue republics. In simple terms, it would be sufficiently funded. The beauty of this is that we wouldn't have to care about what the red republics are doing. They can decide not to force healthy people to pay for treatment of unhealthy people and when those healthy people get sick and have to pay more cost out of pocket because their system is underfunded they won't be able to siphon funds from us because our system is ours. They have their own.


I don't think there's a solution for stupid. People need to be aware of the rules in the jurisdictions they visiting or living in. That's kind of a universal rule.


Honestly cuda, I don't think it matters how many ways you slice the world up, trade will always resolve itself one way or another, it's human nature.

Ah... the fear factor. Watch out, the boogeyman will getcha! ;)

Nah, I hear ya... a lot of people share that concern with you. And don't get me wrong, I'm not making light of it, I just think that on the big list of threats, a military invasion isn't as close to the top as it was 100 years ago. I have several reasons for saying this, but for now I'll just mention the biggest. I believe we've been living the past 40 years under a "new" world order that is currently 98% globalized. Let's just call this world order, "financial markets". Conquering a financial market will essentially get you anything you could ever ask from conquering a physical country, but with a lot less effort. Why invade America when you can just buy it?

Again, there are other reasons like peak resources but this global order is the biggest.

I think you're still affected by all that Cold War propaganda, which even in the 50's and 60's was based on WW2 thinking. I run into this a lot. I made a bet on this site about 6 years ago that healthcare is now more critical to our national defense that the military is. I used the argument that a pandemic is a greater threat to our well-being than any foreign military force. He laughed and thought I was another idiot liberal.

Well... since then we haven't been invaded by any military force but we DID get hit by a pandemic that has shut down businesses, put us in lockdown and has so far killed 104,000 Americans.

I don't know about the squabbling... Maybe. But I think any solution beyond lip-service is going to cause disruption and some degree of squabbling.

Hmm... interesting choices. Personally, I don't think either one of them are foolproof. I can probably write 6 conflicting interpretations and claim each of them to be strict. So I'm curious about YOUR interpretation. As you probably know, both of them make a strong impression on our court system. I also know that Trump is putting a high priority on reconfiguring our court system, so your little rah-rah at the end intrigues me even more.

In any case, would there be a reason why you couldn't enforce the same concepts with a newly created constitution for your new sovereign state?

I'm initiating this thread because it was a topic that was taking focus away from another thread (Nancy Pelosi Derails The Stimulus Bill). I know that NEVER happens, right?

Someone had suggested that the east and west coasts are dictating to the entire country. (I'm sure others have the opposite opinion on that) There were a few responses but I made the suggestion that the U.S. is too big and that the "one-size fits all" format just isn't working for us. I suggested that we break into smaller sovereign nations to give people better representation. I think there would be no shortage of hurdles to clear, but I think there are only two things really, that dissuade us from even considering it.

1. A ruling class (plutocracy) that likes the control they have over a population of 300 million.
2. The American people may not have the courage to break free.

Just to be clear, I might be satisfied with a loose confederation which would still retain *some* level of centralized government as long as it gives the population more freedom to determine their own destiny.

This may surprise some of you, being that I'm a liberal but I do advocate smaller government. I think democracy works better in smaller batches. But you can't have a small government and expect to keep a giant country. IMO, that is as absurd as those women who cram their feet into shoes that are two sizes too small. If a government is too big, it means the country is too big and we need to face that.

So...

I've been thinking about this for years now and I've done a fair amount of research. I think for this to work we would have to go beyond the state level. If we look at the political and cultural contention in this oversized nation, we can see that the divisions don't actually run along state borders, it seems they run closer to the edges of urban zones, which is why blues states like California, New York and Pennsylvania still have a lot of red space between their cities.

So, I would suggest each county or district be given a choice and like-minded counties can join together to form new sovereign entities. I think much of the decision would be influenced by the prevailing industries in those regions and I would expect the result to look something like the maps we see from megalopian studies.



I can't imagine getting there would be easy to do... but I think ultimately, it would be better for everyone on all sides of the spectrum and it may be time to start talking about it.

Oh yeah, getting back to the original point of the post... It looks like the "stimulus" bill, passed. I hope it helps.

I got side-tracked with a religion dispute... Some good points here though...


Exactly! I don't think it serves anyone to be forced into this union that constantly oscillates between opposite agendas. We never get a chance to prove or disprove anything.


I would suggest we don't. It was never a concern when the states were drawn up. People need to learn to deal with what they have and if they want something they don't have then make some deals with people who do.


I would leave that up to the people in those "sections".


That probably wouldn't work out so well for the rednecks as they are massively outnumbered, considerably under-funded and basically surrounded.

I know *I* am.

Well, I appreciate the apology and I get the "collective" context, but it seems ill-placed in a conversation with someone who isn't an atheist.


Eh, we all do... And I might have confused your response with someone else. I do that sometimes.


Fair point. My wife and I raised two children and maybe we were lucky but they both seemed to understand right and wrong without much effort from us. I also used to coach youth sports and the problematic kids always seemed to be the exception to the norm and more times than not when I met the parents I would understand why.


I honestly don't remember... LOL

I think saying "thank you" is different though... Social conventions are about language and protocol and yes, people need to be educated about them. But how to we equate that to 'good' when murderous dictators will still say "thank you" when someone brings them tea?

I was referring to a more primitive level, based on interactions like crying or hugging or hitting or sharing. For instance, I think most kids inherently know there is something wrong with making other kids cry. We can even see this to some extent in the animal kingdom.

Well, I could have told you that... I hope you didn't get a disease from it. ;)

Too scared to be any more specific A1? - LOL

Look, I know there's no proving points to the dogmatic and the illiterate. It doesn't matter if it's Muslim Extremists in the Middle-East or wound-up deplorables in America, it's the same basic mix of illiteracy, dogma and emotions that no logic can ever penetrate. But then again, there are so many other reasons for doing what I do. In fact I should really be thanking you folks.

Why, because you don't understand simple economics?


I don't think so Sparky... The Navy (which is a socialist organization) is sending three hospital ships... One to NYC, one to LA and one to Seattle. That's been all over the news. But I've been running searches for the last 10 minutes and there is no mention of 127 hospital ships from the private sector. If there was half that many it would also be in the headlines. And I sure as hell can't watch a 20 minute video of Giuliani struggling with his senality, just to see if that's where you got the misinformation from.

Yes, there are a few hospital ships out there run by private organizations like Mercy Ships but we're only talking about five or six at most. I've also heard about the possibility of converting some ships to hospital ships but they are not fully staffed and at the ready.

That being said... I've already stood up to applaud the private sector for what they have done so far and in this case it's a really good thing because our socialists systems are failing to rise to the occasion. You know why? Because Trump is in charge of them now and he's a useless moron.

The problem is (and this is always the case) charity doesn't cut it. It's never enough. I've seen this play out so many times before... There might be a social system designed to deal with a crisis affecting 100,000 people but it gets pushed aside in favor of a privatized system designed to return profits which necessitated a draw down on capacity to deal with only 30,000 people. A crisis comes and 80,000 people are in trouble, but the anti-socialists are sure to point out how wonderful the private system is for saving 30,000 people.

In any case, none of this changes what I said about capitalists charging as much as the consumer can afford. That's just standard business. The charity is either occasional or marginal, often linked to public relations opportunities.


WTF are you talking about? I'm just being matter of fact. I have always expressed a neutral position on socialism and capitalism. I think socialism is better for some things and capitalism is better at other things. I've used analogies like salt and pepper, yin and yang endlessly to emphasize that neutrality. But apparently you are so freaked out about socialism that no can mention the word outside of an insult without you blowing up. Get a grip.


That sounds like BS to me.


Giuliani is a babbling idiot.


LOL - We both know I was being literal not figurative.


No.. it's based on money. Seriously, your fluffy-talk couldn't fool a 5th grader. I don't know what kind of sheltered life you've been living but ask anyone living in America without any money how much freedom of choice they have and see what they say.


Well, I never professed to be a socialist... I just don't freak out about it like you do. Then again, I understand how it works and you obviously don't. If you did, you would know that public funding is driven by NEED. To find the GREED the place to go is Wall Street. That's just common knowledge.


The problem I'm finding here is that you're barking up the wrong tree. It's not socialism, but ironically capitalism that poses the current threat to private ownership. Here's why...

Capitalism tends to concentrate wealth and it's this concentration of wealth that gentrifies real-estate markets. In other words, fewer people with more money are creating a demand on real-estate, driving up prices beyond the reach of an increasing number of middle-class families, hence the effect you mentioned.

The socialist threat you mention is theoretical. The only occasions where we've actually seen it happen were in communist revolutions. But the kind of socialism we see in America and in Europe is Democratic Socialism which is more concerned with social systems than state ownership of land.


Yeah? Well, who's gonna "properly zone" it?


Yeah, that's just sounds like right-wing propaganda. I'm not even going to bother with it.

I don't know what you think "this" is... but my criticism was leveled at religion, not God.


That's an incredibly arrogant thing to say. You are more than welcome to your own opinions and if you want to believe that you have to submit to a religion to understand God well, that's your prerogative. And there's nothing wrong with sharing your opinions either but some people are going to have a different point of view and you need to respect that.

There is certainly no call for getting in my face and telling me I will never understand God because you don't think I read the Bible. So back the F off.


Yeah, I know... I've read both. I've gone to Sunday school, I've been baptised, I've been confirmed, I was even an alter boy. And eventually, when I got older, I grew out of it.

I'm not saying that I'm right or that you are wrong. But I've learned to commune with God in my own way and I've come to believe that God is there for those that seek Him, but when people incessantly push it on others, it's sign that it has less to do with God and a lot more to do with political control, which was the point I was making.

Exactly!


Wrong about what? I never said God doesn't exist. I was bashing religion which doesn't have anything to do with God. Can you not make the distinction?


Didn't you just say it's up to God to decide who is good? Isn't evil the opposite of good? Wouldn't that mean that it's up to God to decide what is evil? I mean it's your hypocrisy, I'm just asking how that works for you.

As for me it's not such a matriculation. I think people inherently know what's good and evil, with true psychopaths being perhaps one exception... and perhaps the people who allow their inherent capacity to judge to be overruled by a submission to religion.