Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ask the Chinese about that. They do it every few hundred years or so.

The break-up/reunification cycle happens so often, it is baked into Chinese culture and mythology:

“The world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide. This has been so since antiquity. ”
― Luo Guanzhong

Germany may have reunified, but they were the exception and not the rule. Just recall the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, the latter of which split into two nations, which I believe they originally were. Where the US is concerned, we may not have the equivalent of a Lincoln this time around. The country is much larger, more populous and more diverse than it was in his time, and there are many who feel that the idea of fifty states under one central government no longer makes sense. One prediction I read, however, did have the lower 48 somehow remain intact once the dust settles, with Alaska joining Canada and Hawaii becoming its own nation. Sound reasonable?

Well, many of the state lines don't make sense. having been drawn for reasons that are no longer apply

Originally Posted by Danilynn

a lesbian hooker probably has better reading skills and conversational abilities than you do. Besides we all know you don't pay for the sex, you pay for them to leave afterwards. Which is much more than can be said about you.

Perhaps you should drink, the ramblings coming out might possibly be of interest and coherent.

back to ignore for you. Get a life and leave your basement once in a while.

Is this supposed to be an insult? Are you insulting sex industry workers now (to which you are one) or lesbians?


Speaking of violence...

Via PM:

Originally Posted by Danilynn

go fuck yourself.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Germany may have reunified, but they were the exception and not the rule. Just recall the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, the latter of which split into two nations, which I believe they originally were. Where the US is concerned, we may not have the equivalent of a Lincoln this time around. The country is much larger, more populous and more diverse than it was in his time, and there are many who feel that the idea of fifty states under one central government no longer makes sense. One prediction I read, however, did have the lower 48 somehow remain intact once the dust settles, with Alaska joining Canada and Hawaii becoming its own nation. Sound reasonable?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Well, many of the state lines don't make sense. having been drawn for reasons that are no longer apply

how would you propose they be redrawn?


oh look my very own troll. :{ *waves at Calafia* hi troll. did you have a good day doing your troll things? Good day in the basement? Did Mom make spaghetti for your dinner or was it taco night?

Originally Posted by Danilynn

how would you propose they be redrawn?


oh look my very own troll. :{ *waves at Calafia* hi troll. did you have a good day doing your troll things? Good day in the basement? Did Mom make spaghetti for your dinner or was it taco night?

Well, in Indiana there is a constant battle over which time zone the state should be in. Logically, not only all of Indiana but the western portion of Ohio should be in the Central Time Zone with the Eastern zone beginning near Columbus. Somehow all but 12 counties of Indiana got thrown into the Eastern zone, where, since the state now observes DST statewide eight months of the year, the area is on nearly double DST as a result.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Well, in Indiana there is a constant battle over which time zone the state should be in. Logically, not only all of Indiana but the western portion of Ohio should be in the Central Time Zone with the Eastern zone beginning near Columbus. Somehow all but 12 counties of Indiana got thrown into the Eastern zone, where, since the state now observes DST statewide eight months of the year, the area is on nearly double DST as a result.

that sounds like a nightmare depending on where you live and work.

Revisited:

She said "white guilt" divides us as a nation -- not racism. That's orwellian, unless by divide she meant divides "white" people as a nation which could be accurate based on the Civil War alone, yet still is racist in that it excludes non-whites from "the nation." (non-white people don't get "white guilt" not merely because they aren't but because they typically do not benefit from the racial profiling and harsher sentencing that she doesn't feel the need to apologize for. In other words the TSA-type groping, Boston martial law policing is fine so long as it's directed toward "those" people.)

Again:

Originally Posted by Danilynn

I'm baffled by the number of people who seem to feel the need to apologize for their skin color.
White, black, green or slightly freckled. It doesn't matter and I for one feel no need to ever apologize for being a Christian that so happens to be a slight beige/off white-ish color with a multitude of freckles. Get over the "white guilt" crap. It's pointless and divides us as a nation.

There is such white supremacist arrogance here that a complete unawareness that anything is out of step. Presenting green or freckled alongside "black" equates the history, culture and experience of "black" people as something akin to fantasy or triviality.

It's a pattern.

While here she does not not feel the need to apologize for racism...

...here she apologizes for its occasional failure:

Originally Posted by Danilynn

We gave the world Oprah too, although I feel compelled to apologize for that one.

Again:

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

One prediction I read, however, did have the lower 48 somehow remain intact once the dust settles, with Alaska joining Canada and Hawaii becoming its own nation. Sound reasonable?

This video shows Native Hawaiians seeking soverernity from the Federal government by peaceful legal and political means. In contrast, the original conversation likened the white American Christians to Germans 85 years prior. Given the dehumanization and support/celebration of violent threats here alone, It is completely reasonable.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Well, many of the state lines don't make sense. having been drawn for reasons that are no longer apply

If anything I would have never had some of the states of 1890 come into existence. Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming make no sense today as they have no well-defined metropolitan area that anyone would seek as a destination in its own right. The original idea was to give a political advantage to one of the Parties at the time. The section of the Dakotas east of the north-south path of the Missouri should have remained in Minnesota.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I am about as white as they come -- I have vitaligo that is barely noticeable in the winter time -- and I'm in a relationship with a gentleman whose skin is a delicious chocolate brown. You are absolutely right, nobody should ever feel like they need to apologize for their skin color.

I absolutely have no problems with Christians either; you will sometimes see me in my Sunday dress next to my sweetheart in church (an AME church!), just like sometimes he sits next to me at my synagogue.

The only thing I have an issue with is the presumption that the US is a "Christian nation." Most of the values that make America great are shared with Christianity, but we're far too diverse as a country to say we're a Christian nation.

Thanks for letting my rant.

I appreciate your rant. I am tired of Christians imagining themselves oppressed--and I say this as someone who was raised Christian.

What scares this raised-Episcopalian Christian (which used to be considered a mainline Christian Church) is the paranoia of some fundamentalist Christians sects who regard themselves as persecuted because the US is a diverse country that has no established religion. This means that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Wiccans, and even Satanists can practice their religion without government interference.

The notion that Christians are persecuted in the US is laughable. Frankly, it just seems to provide some practitioners of the Christian faith to imagine themselves victims, which provides a wonderful opportunity for self-righteous anger.

Spare me the self-righteous victims of any denomination. They leave a trail of dead bodies behind them.

I differentiate Evangelical from Fundamental Christians, BTW.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ask the Chinese about that. They do it every few hundred years or so.

The break-up/reunification cycle happens so often, it is baked into Chinese culture and mythology:

“The world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide. This has been so since antiquity. ”
― Luo Guanzhong

Yes, but we are not like the Chinese in any sense of the term. That's not to say that some future nation may not rise from the aggregated splinters that were once the USA, but it won't be the USA.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, but we are not like the Chinese in any sense of the term. That's not to say that some future nation may not rise from the aggregated splinters that were once the USA, but it won't be the USA.

Canada, Greater Appalachia, and Mexico.

Originally Posted by annla899

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I am about as white as they come -- I have vitaligo that is barely noticeable in the winter time -- and I'm in a relationship with a gentleman whose skin is a delicious chocolate brown. You are absolutely right, nobody should ever feel like they need to apologize for their skin color.

I absolutely have no problems with Christians either; you will sometimes see me in my Sunday dress next to my sweetheart in church (an AME church!), just like sometimes he sits next to me at my synagogue.

The only thing I have an issue with is the presumption that the US is a "Christian nation." Most of the values that make America great are shared with Christianity, but we're far too diverse as a country to say we're a Christian nation.

Thanks for letting my rant.

I appreciate your rant. I am tired of Christians imagining themselves oppressed--and I say this as someone who was raised Christian.

What scares this raised-Episcopalian Christian (which used to be considered a mainline Christian Church) is the paranoia of some fundamentalist Christians sects who regard themselves as persecuted because the US is a diverse country that has no established religion. This means that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Wiccans, and even Satanists can practice their religion without government interference.

The notion that Christians are persecuted in the US is laughable. Frankly, it just seems to provide some practitioners of the Christian faith to imagine themselves victims, which provides a wonderful opportunity for self-righteous anger.

Spare me the self-righteous victims of any denomination. They leave a trail of dead bodies behind them.

I differentiate Evangelical from Fundamental Christians, BTW.

Charles Blow wrote an interesting piece for the NY Times, focusing on the belief in evolution. Blow grabbed some very basic data to add a data-graphic to his piece, and the mind-boggling delta between white main-line Protestants (78% acceptance) and white evangelical Protestants (27% acceptance) can't be a random effect. Blow argues that this, among other issues, is the result of a political tactic run amok.

As long as it serves a purpose for the tacticians, I doubt this will change. Assume the RW Christians will only be kicked to the curb when they become baggage rather than baggage carriers.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, but we are not like the Chinese in any sense of the term. That's not to say that some future nation may not rise from the aggregated splinters that were once the USA, but it won't be the USA.

We aren't the USA in reality anymore either. And we haven't been for more than a decade.
Sure we wave flags on July 4th, remember or give lip-service to remembering our vets.

Currently the rest of the world views us as the threat to world peace. Imagine that.

We used to be a good country on most things, or maybe the mythos I grew up hearing and seeing as an Xer just makes me believe we used to be a good country. But I am old enough to remember when we were the country giving people like Edward Snowden safe haven from their oppressive governments.

We, as a country are splintering. Regions that used to have things, however small, in common have less and less in common every day.

Our current atmosphere of collective paranoia has gotten deeper with the Patriot Act, now we have the NDAA, journalists no longer really investigate reporting anymore like what you saw during Watergate. Now they all give some version of the official party (government propaganda) line.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Charles Blow wrote an interesting piece for the NY Times, focusing on the belief in evolution. Blow grabbed some very basic data to add a data-graphic to his piece, and the mind-boggling delta between white main-line Protestants (78% acceptance) and white evangelical Protestants (27% acceptance) can't be a random effect. Blow argues that this, among other issues, is the result of a political tactic run amok.

As long as it serves a purpose for the tacticians, I doubt this will change. Assume the RW Christians will only be kicked to the curb when they become baggage rather than baggage carriers.

The evolution gap (who accepts evolution):

60% all adults

43% Republican
65% Independent
67% Democratic

78% white mainline Protestant
76% unaffiliated
68% white Catholic
53% Hispanic Catholic
44% black Protestant
27% white evangelical Protestant

I suspect a strong negative correlation between formal education and acceptance of evolution. It is manifestly not between religion and evolution; those 68% of white Roman Catholics who accept evolution are not clearly less religious than white evangelical Protestants. Maybe the Roman Catholic Church better prepares its parishioners to accept science despite science. That is probably the difference between white and Hispanic Catholics, the latter more likely to be recent immigrants of limited education. The Roman Catholic Church is surely delighted to use science (even evolution) against the more aggressive proselytizing of evangelical Protestants.

There has been anti-science propagandizing running unchecked on the right for years, from anti-gay-equality misinformation to climate change denials.

When you look at white evangelical Protestants, the evolution denialism gets even worse. Only 27 percent of that group believes in evolution. According to a 2011 Pew report, while white evangelical Protestants make up only 18 percent of the population overall, they “make up 43 percent of Republicans who fall into the category of staunch conservatives.”

18% of the population overall and 43% of "staunch Republican conservatives" implies that 42% of Americans are "staunch Republican conservatives", which means that liberals have little wiggle room for achieving anything in public policy. Maybe the first two years of Barack Obama as President with the 111th Congress is as big a time of reform as we are going to get in the 4T, perhaps until things implode.

Is it any wonder that the Tea Party was so successful? People who can deny science can believe anything -- such as This World is rightly a nightmarish test for the worthiness of people to ascend to Heaven and escape the nastiness of life -- and others go to Hell. "Believe it or burn" in metaphysical terms implies far less of a threat than the Inquisition had at its worst -- but metaphysical threats are consummately effective in scaring people to suffer in This World lest they end up in eternity in Hell.

That said -- I would not now trust white evangelical Protestants with my civil liberties, including the freedom of inquiry.

It has occurred to me that Hawaii could end up with a status similar to Puerto Rico.

as a long time lurker this is one of my go-to threads when I come here occassionally.

from post #7 of this thread ...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There is no doubt a lot of people are genuinely angry, and that they ought to be. The spirals ought to be watched. I just don't see the violence and rhetoric levels approximating what the Sons of Liberty did in revolutionary Boston, Bleeding Kansas, or Mussolini's and Hitler's political thug organizations as they worked their way into power.

and from post #4543 ...

Originally Posted by B Butler

... Do we have a spiral growing, a spiral where increasingly stressed workers will turn to individual violence, and could this spiral turn into a revolution?

I'm not seeing it yet. Incidents remain isolated, and no one is willing to admit that the rebels might have a cause.

while the other 4500-ish posts in this thread vary, I tend to agree with Mr. Butler's ongoing assessment ...

This is old, but well worth the watching of the video in the article.

A little backstory from the perspective of someone who was there:

Westboro Baptist was going to protest the funeral of one of our boys who got killed in Afghanistan. Was is the operative term.

My hometown of Brandon (where I grew up), got wind of this before the young marine came home. A call went out in every church, every school, and around every bar in a 4 county area that volunteers of all kinds were needed to keep his funeral free of those people from Westboro.

We accomplished the goal.

Total count for lining 18 miles of highways was close to 10,000 people from the airport to the cemetery.
Total number of volunteers that also locked up the major highways if Kansas plates were seen and locked up access to rental car places was another few hundred.

He was laid to rest with over 2,000 people in the cemetery that day.

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/20...estboro-freaks

Originally Posted by tg63

while the other 4500-ish posts in this thread vary, I tend to agree with Mr. Butler's ongoing assessment ...

Appreciated.

This forum seems to attract people dissatisfied with the status quo, who might be more ready than most to embrace change or even force change. A spiral taking off is possible... but a strong part of the current culture is rejecting 'terrorists'. There may be more resistance to use of violence to promote political change than there was in earlier eras.

***

On another front, CNN reports a Judge rules Chicago gun ban is unconstitutional. A while back the Supreme Court declared the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right. The case that lead to that ban started in Washington DC, however. The new individual right had not been tested in a state jurisdiction. Thus, state and local gun laws that do not treat the keeping and bearing of arms as an individual right have remained in effect.

This Chicago case is apt to be one of many as gun rights advocates test laws on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. Note that neither the Supreme Court nor the Chicago judge would protect criminal or insane folk's gun rights, but the Chicago gun laws are rather extreme, making it nigh on impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a gun.

One basic if technical principle might be covered if this one is appealed. The recent supreme court declared the 2nd guaranteed an individual right that a branch of the federal government (the local government of Washington DC) could not infringe. A states rights argument might be made that a state can over ride rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I am highly dubious that such an argument would stand.

***

There is another principle that hasn't been addressed by modern courts yet. One of the old Supreme Court cases attempted to say Thomson sub machine guns were not protected by the 2nd Amendment as such weapons have no military use. The 2nd was interpreted as protecting the Militia, not Prohibition era gangsters. Gangsters started using assault weapons before the military did. Thus, during that brief era, there was no right to keep and bear assault weapons. During World War II, Thomsons and other large magazine fully automatic weapons came into common military use. The logic of the old Supreme Court is that weapons in common military use are protected by the 2nd.

To my knowledge, nobody is eager to bring that particular ruling into modern play. Or, at least, I am aware of nobody trying to force a test case yet.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

18% of the population overall and 43% of "staunch Republican conservatives" implies that 42% of Americans are "staunch Republican conservatives",

Not quite sure of your logic on that one! You might want to recalculate. Give yourself more hope.

People who can deny science can believe anything --

Probably, although science itself can be believed in as a dogma of faith too, if you view it that way (as for example vandal does).

That said -- I would not now trust white evangelical Protestants with my civil liberties, including the freedom of inquiry.

Now THAT would be a blind leap of "faith," to trust them with that.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

This is old, but well worth the watching of the video in the article.

A little backstory from the perspective of someone who was there:

Westboro Baptist was going to protest the funeral of one of our boys who got killed in Afghanistan. Was is the operative term.

My hometown of Brandon (where I grew up), got wind of this before the young marine came home. A call went out in every church, every school, and around every bar in a 4 county area that volunteers of all kinds were needed to keep his funeral free of those people from Westboro.

We accomplished the goal.

Total count for lining 18 miles of highways was close to 10,000 people from the airport to the cemetery.
Total number of volunteers that also locked up the major highways if Kansas plates were seen and locked up access to rental car places was another few hundred.

He was laid to rest with over 2,000 people in the cemetery that day.

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/20...estboro-freaks

As a liberal I find the Westboro cult abominable for its homophobia. I recognize the inappropriateness of using fallen soldiers as pawns in some political debate. People who put their lives on the line to enforce the foreign policy of the US are heroes. People who use their deaths as pretexts for their bigotry are cowards. Bigotry itself is cowardice.

My placard would read "GOD HATES BIGOTRY", and I would definitely fly the Flag. The US flag, of course.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... One basic if technical principle might be covered if this one is appealed. The recent supreme court declared the 2nd guaranteed an individual right that a branch of the federal government (the local government of Washington DC) could not infringe. A states rights argument might be made that a state can over ride rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I am highly dubious that such an argument would stand.

On this, we agree. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment mandates that all Federal rights and privileges may not be diminished by any of the states. That umbrella cannot avoid the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

This is old, but well worth the watching of the video in the article.

A little backstory from the perspective of someone who was there:

Westboro Baptist was going to protest the funeral of one of our boys who got killed in Afghanistan. Was is the operative term.

My hometown of Brandon (where I grew up), got wind of this before the young marine came home. A call went out in every church, every school, and around every bar in a 4 county area that volunteers of all kinds were needed to keep his funeral free of those people from Westboro.

We accomplished the goal.

Total count for lining 18 miles of highways was close to 10,000 people from the airport to the cemetery.
Total number of volunteers that also locked up the major highways if Kansas plates were seen and locked up access to rental car places was another few hundred.

He was laid to rest with over 2,000 people in the cemetery that day.

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/20...estboro-freaks

Lots of people are fighting back against those creeps in that way. I'm glad to see that.

No matter what your opinions about gays, harassing loved ones at funerals for those who died defending our country is just cruel. It may be their constitutional right, but that doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

This is old, but well worth the watching of the video in the article.

A little backstory from the perspective of someone who was there:

Westboro Baptist was going to protest the funeral of one of our boys who got killed in Afghanistan. Was is the operative term.

My hometown of Brandon (where I grew up), got wind of this before the young marine came home. A call went out in every church, every school, and around every bar in a 4 county area that volunteers of all kinds were needed to keep his funeral free of those people from Westboro.

We accomplished the goal.

Total count for lining 18 miles of highways was close to 10,000 people from the airport to the cemetery.
Total number of volunteers that also locked up the major highways if Kansas plates were seen and locked up access to rental car places was another few hundred.

He was laid to rest with over 2,000 people in the cemetery that day.

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/20...estboro-freaks

Good for you! When those fanatics meet their God face to face, they'll be very surprised to see who he is and where they are, just based on all the hurt they've dished out to our military families. One hint - they won't be singing with the heavenly choir!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

On this, we agree. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment mandates that all Federal rights and privileges maynot be diminished by any of the states. That unbrella cannot avoid the Bill of Rights.

I'm with you. The above, in my opinion, is the correct and intended reading.

Alas, the wording of the XIVth is "privileges and immunities." Some during the Jim Crow era claimed that this does not imply 'rights'. Also during the Jim Crow era, it was said that the Federal government has no police powers, and thus may not enforce the Bill of Rights in areas under State control.

Through the 20th Century the NAACP fought a long hard legal fight, one amendment of the Bill of Rights at a time, to quash the Jim Crow interpretations. The last amendment that hasn't been restored to near it's original meaning is the 2nd, though in the modern era, if one might plausibly be a terrorist, there is often an entirely different problem. To say that the Constitution is a living document is an understatement.

Given lots of civil rights precedents applying to the rest of the Bill of Rights, I am highly dubious that the states or local governments will be able to disregard the 2nd, but there are some old explicit rulings that might need to be overturned.