Time for the country to split?

Since Obama seems to have awoken the masses, and divided the country more than it's been since the 1860s, I got to thinking that maybe it's time we just split the country. The Liberal States of America, and the Conservative States of America.

The libs, with all their academic scholars, can finally make society as they want it; free healthcare and welfare for all, multiculturalism, abortions on demand, etc, etc. The cons will get their wish too, guns and religon, capitalism, tough crime laws, etc.

At first I thought this sounded completely ridiculous, but after thinking about it and reading some suggestions online, I think it may be a good solution. Of course, since all the businesses, doctors, and military will be in the conservative states, I don't know how long the libs will last. Here are a few (somewhat) entertaining things I found:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016158.html

http://pamelalaird.hubpages.com/hub/THE-LIBERAL-VS-CONSERVATIVE-EXPERIMENT--YOU-GAME

 

The hard part would be relocation for all. how do you suggest? I think I may take liberal side, but not sure. I prefer just to kill off the parasites on both sides who do not adhere to constitution. seems to me I have a very clear vision of things...

 

Sounds like a great idea to me. Although I would want to live in the new country that is run by third party candidates with fresh and exciting ideas. But given the choice between the two I would rather live on the European style academic side than the tough on crime, armed to the teeth side. Funny you framed your own political beliefs in such a negative sounding context.

 

Where would the moderates and libertarians go? To be fair, we'd need a three-way split.

 

It doesn't suprise me that you hate the 2nd amendment and are pro-crime.

 

The would have to choose.

 

The "split" would be between those who wish to follow the Constitution and the rule of law, and those who don't; between Constitutionalist and Anti-Constitutionalists.

This in the "middle” or “centrists” who only believe in following the rule of law sometimes must decide on which side they belong.

 

So, YOU think you have THE proper interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in your own mind? If that is true, then why do we need courts at all?

 

I think you're nitpicking a bit too much. In the simplest of terms, one would have to decide whether they want to live in a capitalist or socialist society.

 

The divide is for profit not ideology. That's why it continues to work on the extremist sheeples in both parties, who think it is all about being right, above all else.
　
The first thing the rich/elites would do is try and divide the new countries so they could continue to do as they wish in the background.

 

Either would be a pleasant change rather than the plutocracy we live under today.

 

I'm a Constitutionalist (although it has room for improvement) but couldn't choose either side as described in the OP. I am pro-choice and oppose attempts to force religious concepts on everyone via the legislative process. I also a oppose laws such as those against drugs and gambling that criminalize behavior that some people want to engage in that harms no one else. There is no way I could choose between a liberal welfare state and a puritanical conservative one. I guess I'd be a woman without a country in the extremely simplistic plan presented in the OP.

 

Do you really, honestly expect me to beleive, that rich people literally sit in a board room somewhere and plot in this manner? Doesn't that seem just a tad bit tin-foil loony to you?

Rational self interest is not a conspiracy and cost/benefit analyses are about cold hard facts and numbers. CEO's don't layoff people to be mean, or because they want to destroy people's lives. They are doing their job the same way you do yours.

You are trying to characterize rational business decisions as personal attacks.

If a cost/benefit analysis says the company could keep production levels the same and lay off 100 workers, then those 100 workers must go. It's business, the CEO isn't trying to destroy lives because he's some tyrannical monster who enjoys it.

 

How are you gonna convince 310 million Americans to go along with this?

 

SM;

　
　
No, I'm sure they do most of their business on the golf courses. Bug free zones doncha know. I'm sure Obummer and the Boner were just playing golf that day.

　
　
If it was simply business, friendly competition, a buyers market, and an equal distribution of the law/necessary regulations or oversight, it would be a much different story.
　
Unfortunately it is the best government corporate money can buy, manipulating markets and running interference for the selective few. Corruption, back room deals, bribes, payoffs, exemptions/loopholes, cronyism and using the power/financial credit of the government to build and maintain maximum profits for a handful of selective corporate giants that dominate each and every industry, not only at the national level but world wide.
　
　
If their "job" is total financial domination of the world and the continued destruction of the once great US of A, they (rich/elites) have just about screwed the pooch for all it is worth.

 

I LEARNED "THE proper interpretation of the U.S. Constitution" from those who wrote and debated the Constitution. They all wrote extensively of the meaning. MOST of the meaning IS NOT up for any serious debate, like the fact the federal government is to be limited to enumerated POWERS found in Article 1, Section, 8 and the Amendments. That FACT is not debatable historically.

Sure we need courts to "interpret" the Constitution.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: interpret Pronunciation: in-'t&r-pr&t
Function: transitive verb
: to explain or tell the meaning of (as a document) esp. in order to determine intent interpret the provisions of the Constitution —L. H. Tribe>
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpret​

Justices must "explain or tell the meaning of" the Constitution, not make up new meanings. What did YOU think it meant to "interpret" the Constitution?

 

Depends how you define "conservative" or what you are trying to "conserve." I too am a "Constitutional Conservative," and we would be in the same country.

 

Sorry but the articles of confederation were a failure.

 

Well I think a lot of conservatives would be happy to rid themselves of the liberal filth that infests their lives (and wallets). Unfortunately, since liberals are too dumb and/or lazy to take care of themselves, they can't survive without government assistance. And without a working class to tax into oblivion, the socialist government couldn't provide all their wants and needs for very long. So the liberal states would probably become like Mexico, with people trying to illegally enter the conservative states.

 

I think I'm safe. Won't have to move. I don't see the South going looney liberal. LOL

 

Yep, that's why they wrote the Constitution.

 

Want a neighbor...?

 

Time for the country to split?

....absolutely not. Its time to finish what we started two years ago.....and what the Founders intended two hundred years ago.



The blue cancer has almost been eradicated....
.
.
.

 

I agree. But liberals are like herpes, they just keep coming back and coming back

 

So who's paying for this wall in the countrywide split?