Keep in mind that Plymouth was 400 years ago and white Christians began building a majority which would ultimately become the country we love.
The past 160 years have resulted in a change of the numbers.
The population of the US in 1860 was 30 million.
Today, 330 million.
11 times what it was then.
We have become too large, and too diverse to force all these people to live in the same culture, in the same manner, and under the same government.
The true underlying concept of "democracy" is more about allowing people to live with the government they want, than it is about a "majority ruling over a minority."
When the "minority" gets to be a very large number - then the minority needs become the "majority" in their own right.
Otherwise you have a large number of persons forced to live in a way they dont want to.
If a minority population is small in number, it is not too difficult to make provisions for their rights to be protected, while living in the midst of a much, much larger "majority."
But when the "minority" is a very large number living in the midst of a "majority" that is almost the same in number - they are TWO NATIONS.
It's time for change.
YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT
XXX
Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon
Sonny Magoo wrote:
Keep in mind that Plymouth was 400 years ago and white Christians began building a majority which would ultimately become the country we love.
The past 160 years have resulted in a change of the numbers.
The population of the US in 1860 was 30 million.
Today, 330 million.
11 times what it was then.
We have become too large, and too diverse to force all these people to live in the same culture, in the same manner, and under the same government.
The true underlying concept of "democracy" is more about allowing people to live with the government they want, than it is about a "majority ruling over a minority."
When the "minority" gets to be a very large number - then the minority needs become the "majority" in their own right.
Otherwise you have a large number of persons forced to live in a way they dont want to.
If a minority population is small in number, it is not too difficult to make provisions for their rights to be protected, while living in the midst of a much, much larger "majority."
But when the "minority" is a very large number living in the midst of a "majority" that is almost the same in number - they are TWO NATIONS.
It's time for change.
YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT
Keep in mind that Plymouth was 400 years ago and w... (
show quote)
I want the democrat minority to get smaller and republicanism to take the majority! This is the only way it will work!
Sonny Magoo wrote:
Keep in mind that Plymouth was 400 years ago and white Christians began building a majority which would ultimately become the country we love.
The past 160 years have resulted in a change of the numbers.
The population of the US in 1860 was 30 million.
Today, 330 million.
11 times what it was then.
We have become too large, and too diverse to force all these people to live in the same culture, in the same manner, and under the same government.
The true underlying concept of "democracy" is more about allowing people to live with the government they want, than it is about a "majority ruling over a minority."
When the "minority" gets to be a very large number - then the minority needs become the "majority" in their own right.
Otherwise you have a large number of persons forced to live in a way they dont want to.
If a minority population is small in number, it is not too difficult to make provisions for their rights to be protected, while living in the midst of a much, much larger "majority."
But when the "minority" is a very large number living in the midst of a "majority" that is almost the same in number - they are TWO NATIONS.
It's time for change.
YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT
Keep in mind that Plymouth was 400 years ago and w... (
show quote)
So you favor two nations for a solution? How would you approach this? Divide the country at the MississippiRiver?
XXX
Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon
Radar OReilly wrote:
So you favor two nations for a solution? How would you approach this? Divide the country at the MississippiRiver?
A division there would solve little i'm afraid. You would just have 2 countrys acting as 4!
Sonny Magoo wrote:
Keep in mind that Plymouth was 400 years ago and white Christians began building a majority which would ultimately become the country we love.
The past 160 years have resulted in a change of the numbers.
The population of the US in 1860 was 30 million.
Today, 330 million.
11 times what it was then.
We have become too large, and too diverse to force all these people to live in the same culture, in the same manner, and under the same government.
The true underlying concept of "democracy" is more about allowing people to live with the government they want, than it is about a "majority ruling over a minority."
When the "minority" gets to be a very large number - then the minority needs become the "majority" in their own right.
Otherwise you have a large number of persons forced to live in a way they dont want to.
If a minority population is small in number, it is not too difficult to make provisions for their rights to be protected, while living in the midst of a much, much larger "majority."
But when the "minority" is a very large number living in the midst of a "majority" that is almost the same in number - they are TWO NATIONS.
It's time for change.
YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT
Keep in mind that Plymouth was 400 years ago and w... (
show quote)
That was the reason we are supposed to be 50 self governing states, united ONLY by mutual defense and a few other things. We were NEVER supposed to be under Washington DC's daily control. It's what we need to get back to, so that people can live in the state they like the best, and have some control over what happens there.
I wonder......will all the Democrats fit into the west coast and the upper east coast?
XXX
Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon
RandyBrian wrote:
That was the reason we are supposed to be 50 self governing states, united ONLY by mutual defense and a few other things. We were NEVER supposed to be under Washington DC's daily control. It's what we need to get back to, so that people can live in the state they like the best, and have some control over what happens there.
I wonder......will all the Democrats fit into the west coast and the upper east coast?
They will fit in there if they have too!
XXX wrote:
A division there would solve little i'm afraid. You would just have 2 countrys acting as 4!
I like the 2 countries idea but it should be 3.
Left coast from I-5 to the pacific is LaLa land.
East coast from wh**ever interstate goes up to Canada to the Atlantic is new new york.
From I-5 at the Mexican border or wh**ever hwy1 in Baja is, to the intersection of the Atlantic highway is now called reality ville!
Population will be approximately the same in each new country.
If you bums fly over us gun and Bible lovers land, there will be a toll.
XXX
Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon
Marty 2020 wrote:
I like the 2 countries idea but it should be 3.
Left coast from I-5 to the pacific is LaLa land.
East coast from wh**ever interstate goes up to Canada to the Atlantic is new new york.
From I-5 at the Mexican border or wh**ever hwy1 in Baja is, to the intersection of the Atlantic highway is now called reality ville!
Population will be approximately the same in each new country.
If you bums fly over us gun and Bible lovers land, there will be a toll.
What about alaska and hawaii? They form 2 other countrys?
RandyBrian wrote:
That was the reason we are supposed to be 50 self governing states, united ONLY by mutual defense and a few other things. We were NEVER supposed to be under Washington DC's daily control. It's what we need to get back to, so that people can live in the state they like the best, and have some control over what happens there.
I wonder......will all the Democrats fit into the west coast and the upper east coast?
You my friend are exactly right.
XXX wrote:
What about alaska and hawaii? They form 2 other countrys?
🤷♂️
Hawaii is useless
But Alaska has oil and moose!
Big crabs and salmon too. We will take Alaska, liberals can have Hawaii and Cuba and Puerto Rico.
Marty 2020 wrote:
🤷♂️
Hawaii is useless
But Alaska has oil and moose!
Big crabs and salmon too. We will take Alaska, liberals can have Hawaii and Cuba and Puerto Rico.
We get the food and the energy, and let them have the vacation resorts......sounds like a plan to me!
Marty 2020 wrote:
🤷♂️
Hawaii is useless
But Alaska has oil and moose!
Big crabs and salmon too. We will take Alaska, liberals can have Hawaii and Cuba and Puerto Rico.
Alaska was part of Russia long ago.. So....
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.