Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yikes. Well okay, since that is clearly a priority for red states, good luck with that. If red states want to exclude everyone that is less than 90% European via DNA test, please proceed, I have no further comment on that other than to mention that Steve Job's father was a political immigrant from Syria named Abdul Fattah Jandali and Google's co-founder Sergey Brin was born in Russia. Clearly, that would not fly in blue states. Thank you for a perfect example of why we should split.
Hey, I’m not the one advocating for breaking up the greatest nation the world has ever seen, and you are the one who identifies with the race hustling Democrats, not me.
A lot has changed since then. Perhaps the North should have just let them secede and save us the trouble. Now, both sides are so hopelessly divided that the divorce would/should be very amicable. This is a good thing. Red states can have judges so conservative they become the theocracy of their dreams with Bible classes replacing schools and tariffs on everything.
Letting them secede would not have been good for the likes of me. Last I checked, the desire to keep slavery was a major reason the South wanted secession. As a Black man, it wouldn't have ended well for me in those days had the South won.
Letting them secede would not have been good for the likes of me. Last I checked, the desire to keep slavery was a major reason the South wanted secession. As a Black man, it wouldn't have ended well for me in those days had the South won.
Was every Black person a slave in the South? From the history I've read, many were free and some even owned slaves. In fact, the first legally recognized (court-decreed) slave owner in the US was a Black man: Anthony Johnson.
Letting them secede would not have been good for the likes of me. Last I checked, the desire to keep slavery was a major reason the South wanted secession. As a Black man, it wouldn't have ended well for me in those days had the South won.
There isn't a Western State today that has slavery. You know it would have ended peacefully.
Are you glad you got your pound of flesh (700,000 dead Americans)?
There isn't a Western State today that has slavery. You know it would have ended peacefully.
Are you glad you got your pound of flesh (700,000 dead Americans)?
Alot of former slaves were among those that died. LIVE FREE OR DIE is my motto. Freedom is worth dying for.
And of course there are no U.S. states practicing slavery today. That wasn't the point. I was talking about back in those days. I wonder if its reading comprehension or just arrogance.
Alot of former slaves were among those that died. LIVE FREE OR DIE is my motto. Freedom is worth dying for.
And of course there are no U.S. states practicing slavery today. That wasn't the point. I was talking about back in those days. I wonder if its reading comprehension or just arrogance.
Going to be an ordeal for those Republicans living in Blue states and Democrats living in Red states as they will have to give up their jobs,sell the house and move to their new homes in a supposedly politicaly friendly state. Really?
Yes, but no different than we have across the country as each side is forced to live with a side that directly opposes them. The small number in those states could either relocate or choose to live in the environment they already chose to live. They will just get more of it. Splitting means each side could focus on expanding the vision they already support. Blue states could focus on health care, the environment, trade, supporting our allies, etc. while the red states could focus on religion, ending abortion, coal, ending socialistic programs like public education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Both sides would win.
Yes, but no different than we have across the country as each side is forced to live with a side that directly opposes them. The small number in those states could either relocate or choose to live in the environment they already chose to live. They will just get more of it. Splitting means each side could focus on expanding the vision they already support. Blue states could focus on health care, the environment, trade, supporting our allies, etc. while the red states could focus on religion, ending abortion, coal, ending socialistic programs like public education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Both sides would win.
Indeed. Each group could achieve their goals without all the constant fighting and fussing.
Blue states could focus on health care, the environment, trade, supporting our allies, etc. while the red states could focus on religion, ending abortion, coal, ending socialistic programs like public education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Both sides would win.
I don't know of any conservative or liberal of significance who wants to end public education, medicare, medicaid or social security. Or abortion before the third trimester.
Where did you hear this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
