PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Black Samurai on November 03, 2004, 05:01:58 PM
-
I was talking with a political science professor today and he was comparing the US with Czechoslovakia before the "Velvet Divorce" split the country into the Czech and Slovak Republics.
He thinks that there is a fundamental split in this country that is getting worse with time. He also thinks that we are divided into almost two separate countries with different values and ideas and that this is going to become an extreme lightning rod in the coming years.
I was just wondering what the rest of you felt about the concept of the US being two nations sharing one country and how a potential split would affect both sides.
I should also say that this professor is one of the only conservative professors in the PoliSci department at UMASS.
-
did you ask him how much LSD he did in the 60\'s?
-
*flips off bible belt
backward bastards, I swear that only the Northeast and the West know what the hell is going on.
-
A fundamental split in regards to the issues? I highly doubt something so radical can come out of things such as abortion, stem cell research, etc. I mean, I understand there is strong opposition from both sides, but nothing close to the levels that would lead to a division in the country.
Originally posted by theomen
backward bastards, I swear that only the Northeast and the West know what the hell is going on.
California only, is hardly the west. ;)
(screw Washington and Oregon)
-
I tend to agree. This country in the last four years has became more and more split. We not only have different political views, but now our moral views are coming into question more and more often.
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
A fundamental split in regards to the issues?
A fundamental split in general. We are divided urban v. rural, religious v. secular, liberal v. conservative, etc. We are extremely divided.
-
There can\'t be a split. It\'s not as clear as a CNN electoral map suggests. Different precincts within states vote different ways, different people in those precints vote different ways, etc.
For a split into two nations we\'d either end up with two separate, split nations, or we\'d all have to move to different ends of the country and get on with the civil war.
-Dan
-
Expanding on what Eik said, take a look at the CNN electoral map by county of any given state. No "red" state is completely "red" and no "blue" state is completely "blue".
It should also be noted that Czechoslovakia didn\'t exist before World War I - they were only a country for approximately 50 years and most of those were under either the occupation of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union. Also it was split for entirely different reasons as opposed to ones your professor is suggesting.
No split will happen - not in our lifetime our our childrens lifetime. Nor should it split. Seriously, to even suggest such a thing is idiotic - this guy teaches at UMASS?
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
We are divided urban v. rural, religious v. secular, liberal v. conservative, etc. We are extremely divided.
Hasn\'t that always been the issue in the U.S.\'s +200 years of existence?
-
fact is, the Southern states are too stupid to vote for themselves. As a solution, The North East and Cali should make their decisions for them.
-
I remember once I stumbled onto a site dedicated to some guy that posted on a forum about his time machine and told about the future, and he said the US would have a civil war.
ITS COMING TRUUUUUUUEEEEEE
-
Originally posted by theomen
fact is, the Southern states are too stupid to vote for themselves. As a solution, The North East and Cali should make their decisions for them.
Funny... they feel the same about you.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
this guy teaches at UMASS?
lol, You would be surprised.
-
Originally posted by Halberto
I remember once I stumbled onto a site dedicated to some guy that posted on a forum about his time machine and told about the future, and he said the US would have a civil war.
ITS COMING TRUUUUUUUEEEEEE
It\'s John Titor. According to his predictions, the US will be wrought with "waco-like" events in the latter part of 2004 and leading straight into 2005. If that stuff starts happening, as this election is supposed to be some kind of catalyst for it, then it\'s high time we all started high tailing it for Australia as Canada doesn\'t really want anything to do with us. :p
-
*grabs rifle and sits in rocking chair on porch*
-
I remember that dude
*goes to his website
-
hmmm, interesting info here. Kinda scary in a way, Titor said in an interview in Nov 2000 that CERN would start the technology to create a time machine. Well I checked out CERn and...\'
May 28, 2003
CERN Physicists Plan To Make Mini Black Holes
Scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) want to use their atom smasher to make mini-black holes to study Hawking Radiation.
I mean, how can anyone resist the urge to imagine future headlines like "Artificial Black Hole Escapes Laboratory, Eats Chicago" or some such thing? In reality, there is no risk posed by creating artificial black holes, at least not in the manner planned with the LHC. The black holes produced at CERN will be millions of times smaller than the nucleus of an atom; too small to swallow much of anything. And they\'ll only live for a tiny fraction of a second, too short a time to swallow anything around them even if they wanted to.
I really really really hope they are right about the lack of danger involved in doing this. In James P. Hogan\'s science fiction novel Thrice Upon A Time his hero just happened to be working on a machine to send messages back thru time. Therefore his hero was able to save the planet Earth by sending a message back to warn a European physics research group that it would make a black hole if it conducted its planned experiment. But in reality we would have no such miraculous means to save us from a black hole eating away at the core of planet Earth.
-
Originally posted by theomen
*flips off bible belt
backward bastards, I swear that only the Northeast and the West know what the hell is going on.
you got that right... in a short while your country will become like one of Ned flanders "wet dreams".
Christian fundamentalism is JUST as bad as all the others...if not worse.
Remember bud... if you want porn\'os then just give me a shout and i\'ll ship them to you illegally (the european ones) after the birth of Puritanism.. And after Hugh Hefner is burned at the stake
Originally posted by Titan
*grabs rifle and sits in rocking chair on porch*
thats the spirit kid....yuo get ready for the draft.
now get back to playing Socom 2... it will get you ready for the urban battles through the streets of Tehran.
But remember you could be suffering from the effects of radiation poisoning due to the fall out cause by the cockhanded attempt of an air strike on their nuclear reactor ( so get drunk before you play it to simulate this effect).
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Christian fundamentalism is JUST as bad as all the others...if not worse.
Just for the sake of logic I am going to question this statement ooseven. You say it is as bad as all of the others "if not worse"?
When was the last time a group of Christian fundamentalists kidnapped people and beheaded them? I also must have missed numerous headlines where a Christian packed with explosives has walked into a group of innocent Muslims or Jews and blown themselves and innocent civilians up.
Fundamentalism is bad in any religion, but to make a baseless and ignorant statement that Christian fundamentalists are worse than Islamic fundamentalists is laughable.
-
BS - here is a map of the US by county for the 04 election. So you see, it is not just split by states.
-
Like i said some Christian fundamentalists that are just as bad as the Mulsim fundamentalists of the world.
Fundamentalism is just a handy excuse for people to be very crapy to each other.
and although none have beheaded anyone in some random flat in Iraq, you only have to look at recent history (Bosnia conflic) and the Ethnic Cleansing that took place during THAT conflic.
Ethnic Cleansing i.e. crimes against humanity.
-
Speaking of ethnic cleansing, I think it\'s high time you Scots started using some soap and water. ;)
-
Originally posted by CHIZZY
Speaking of ethnic cleansing, I think it\'s high time you Scots started using some soap and water. ;)
Its our constitutional right to Smell to high haven and also to piss in the kitchen sink ;)
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Like i said some Christian fundamentalists that are just as bad as the Mulsim fundamentalists of the world.
Fundamentalism is just a handy excuse for people to be very crapy to each other.
and although none have beheaded anyone in some random flat in Iraq, you only have to look at recent history (Bosnia conflic) and the Ethnic Cleansing that took place during THAT conflic.
Ethnic Cleansing i.e. crimes against humanity.
I would hardly call the Serbs Christian fundamentalists. The problems between the people of that region have been going on for centuries. Example - during WW2 the Croats and Bosnians allied themselves with the Nazi\'s while the Serbs tried to resist - this further escalated tensions between those groups that already mistrusted each other.
-
Originally posted by theomen
fact is, the Southern states are too stupid to vote for themselves. As a solution, The North East and Cali should make their decisions for them.
So much for the democracy, eh? That\'s just as bad as white people deciding what\'s best for black folks. You need to move.
-
Originally posted by theomen
*flips off bible belt
I swear that only the Northeast and the West know what the hell is going on.
Um, yeah, that\'s what I think every time we elect Teddy in the great state of Massachusetts.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
BS - here is a map of the US by county for the 04 election. So you see, it is not just split by states.
I understand that but it seems like a greater concentration in certain areas. Really like the more urban an area the more likely it is to lean liberal and the opposite applies for more rural areas.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
I understand that but it seems like a greater concentration in certain areas. Really like the more urban an area the more likely it is to lean liberal and the opposite applies for more rural areas.
I know you do - but your professor doesn\'t it seems ;). His analysis on the situation is highly flawed in many respects - this one is the easiest to point out since it comes with a visual aid. :)
-
without looking at everyone\'s post..i feel the country is still greatly divided..specifically on the issue of iraq...but i feel that even tho there are people against the war (myself) these same people still feel that bush is the stronger leader(myself included)..i really haven\'t seen the charts or whatnot, but i know that bush pulled some key upsets in democratic states...
-
I cant belive it a black republican clips I\'m ashamed
-
Originally posted by Cyrus
I cant belive it a black republican clips I\'m ashamed
yea tru i consider myself a dem...and to be honest i was on the dean bandwagon,..because he vocally opposed the war....after he dropped out..there was really nobody else in the dem party that was strong enough to go against bush...
i\'m not a republican..i\'m more for the candidate that i feel can best get the job done...bush tell you to your face straight what he\'s gonna do..in the debate somebody asked him.."what about spending are you going to add to the deficit?" bush stated "yes in regards in spending for the security of america he even stated he would spend billions if needed!" ...gotta respect a man for his honesty and in the way he just lays it on the line without all that political bulls**t....
he wasn\'t my first choice..but liberman...that other candidate and as much as i hate to say it..sharpton?..seriously there was nobody strong enough to take on bush imo after dean dropped out..granted kerry won 2 out of the three debates...i didn\'t see the third one but heard it was a draw,...kerry just doesn\'t move me..and he just seemed indecisive..even before all this flip flopping came along....
just because i\'m black doesn\'t automatically suggest my vote goes to the dem party...if somebody from the repub. party views are similar to mine i will side with that candidate and vice-versa...of course this only happens after i\'ve looked over the democratic candidates...
-
I don\'t remember when Bush went on TV and said
"Hey guys, we are gonna start ignoring the bill of rights so we can protect your.... rights... from terrorists who want to take them away!"
I missed that part :(
-
Originally posted by ooseven
thats the spirit kid....yuo get ready for the draft.
now get back to playing Socom 2... it will get you ready for the urban battles through the streets of Tehran.
Since I\'m going in the Army anyway, I get sent before a draft in a war is instated. And I don\'t have Socom 2 :(
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
I don\'t remember when Bush went on TV and said
"Hey guys, we are gonna start ignoring the bill of rights so we can protect your.... rights... from terrorists who want to take them away!"
I missed that part :(
What rights has he taken away from you?
-
Different parts of 4th and 5th amendment I believe, and probley the 6th too....
-
Yea, since we\'ve been seeing that happen a lot lately.
-
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
http://www.epic.org
Indeed, such targets would never even have notice of the fact that their communications were subject to warrantless interception. However, the USA PATRIOT Act does include an exception prohibiting surveillance of someone who is known by the owner of the protected computer "to have an existing contractual relationship with the owner or operator of the protected computer for access to all or part of the protected computer." The ATA, which did not contain such an exception, was so vague that the provision could have been applied to users downloading copyrighted materials off the Web. However, even with this fix, the amendment has little, if anything, to do with legitimate investigations of terrorism.
-
Been accused of commiting any murders lately DH? I predict for the next 4 years you will still be here complaining how your rights were stolen, typing from your heated house eating a ham sandwich.
-
If you\'re not doing anything terribly bad then what are you in worry of? And if you are, maybe you shouldn\'t be doing it.
-
Do yourself a favor and watch the documentary titled "Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties" by Nonny de la Pena. It was recently running on the Sundance Channel, but you could probably find it on DVD.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000621NRQ/qid%3D1099610304/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-3815014-2882550
It\'s a serious mistake to reduce these issues to simply "If you\'re not doing anything bad, what do you have to worry about." This film lays it out very clearly how the Patriot act affects ALL of us. These are complicated issues, and they can\'t be easily reduced to simple good/bad truisms. http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/
Just one tiny example: Under the patriot act, the Federal Government has delegated all sorts of data collection and distribution responsibilities to the private sector, such as the banking industry. There are no regulatory limitations on those financial institutions using the information for any purpose they see fit, including denying loans, offering unfavorable lending rates, and of course selling it to outside marketers for a profit. This is just one example of how the law was crafted to enrich corporate america in ways that have nothing to do with national security.
-
It\'s not that as much as it is privacy and now it can be taken away from us if someone felt the desire.
Will it? Probably not.
The changes are for terrorists, but the fact is that the goverment could eavesdrop on you if it wanted.
-Dan
-
THX and Bozco, im not worried about them spying on me.
There is this system of checks and ballances, which is the foundation for our government. If the FBI does not require all the Judicial steps to get a warrant, then it is damaging the foundation of our country.
-
Heh heh
-
It is crap like that that will ensure Democrat defeat in 2008.
All you religion hating liberals might want to do yourselves a favor and read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06kristof.html
-
OHHH...So NOW we need to care about what foreigners do.
I love how foreign actions/opinions are irrelevant to America except when you agree with those actions/opinions.
The only thing that "ensures" defeat/victory is Diebold.
-
^^
Seriously
Religion hating liberals? Its not these people who are running for offices. Most Democratic officials or at least those running for positions do not oppose religion. Its the bible thumping right that dont hear enough god talk to persuade them. Perhaps thats a bit too strong and to generalized and i do not hate religion. As a matter of fact i usually tend to not like those that rip it up as complete trash (though i cant say im the most religious person on this planet).
Anyway, its not the liberals in general that people need to worry about in terms of elected officials.
On the religious tip and voting for officials that might stand for something "ungodly":
If people can be born to two god fearing people, with hormonal imbalances that cause them to be feminine then i dont think taking a semi positive stand on gays should effect a running official as much as it might (if any of that makes sense). People may not like it but it happens and its been happening for centuries. People can fight that battle but to want harm to come to another person for the simple fact that they are gay seems a little too extreme and thats were religion can hurt this country (depending on your position on things i suppose).
sorry if this is off topic and doesnt make any sense: Its kinda late... or early.
-
It is not about hating religion....
It is about hating those who use religion in politics to destroy equality.
-
Originally posted by theomen
fact is, the Southern states are too stupid to vote for themselves. As a solution, The North East and Cali should make their decisions for them.
It\'s so sad just how great the people of Cali think they are.
That is such a whacked state with all of their tree hugger enviro dweebs.
-
Originally posted by THX
I predict for the next 4 years you will still be here complaining how your rights were stolen, typing from your heated house eating a ham sandwich.
:laughing:
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
OHHH...So NOW we need to care about what foreigners do.
I love how foreign actions/opinions are irrelevant to America except when you agree with those actions/opinions.
The only thing that "ensures" defeat/victory is Diebold.
The article pointed out how the Labor party in the UK overcame their far left and out of touch image - I don\'t see how this is listening to foreigners or caring what they say - it is an example of how one political party ditched the nut jobs and became more attractive the the mainstream.
If you and other Dems don\'t want to listen to your fellow Americans... there is always Canada. ;)
-
The reason the Democrats lost is because they tried too hard to steal votes from the republicans instead of playing to their own base. The Red states are NOT the mainstream. The majority of the US\'s population/money is in the blues states.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
The reason the Democrats lost is because they tried too hard to steal votes from the republicans instead of playing to their own base. The Red states are NOT the mainstream. The majority of the US\'s population/money is in the blues states.
A good portion of the population in so called "blue" states voted for Bush and if you are talking money - wealth tends to favor the GOP as opposed to the Democrats. You are starting to sound like that nut Michael Moore... actually you just paraphrased his post election webpage. Go ahead and keep believing rural America is irrelevant. :rolleyes: Do you realize most of America is repulsed by the far left and their agenda? I have said it numerous times - the DNC base has been hijacked by the far left and until it rids itself of those elements they are doomed for failure in 2008.
The Democrat base is out of touch with mainstream America.
-
Rid themselves of their base to compete?
You sure know your political strategy. ;)
-
Their far left base is not the majority - you really need to learn how to read. I said they will attract more moderates by doing so - moderate numbers > far left numbers.