not even me?!?!

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/sad2.gif

and punitive measures for those that fail to vote

If it were done with direct democracy, full banking privacy and flat rate consumption tax let's see who becomes the third world. I'll be there in a heartbeat. The South would join a club which includes the Isle of Man, Jersey, Andorra, Switzerland, Cayman, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Malta and others. When was the last time you heard of anybody from any of those countries coming over here with only the shirt on their backs for a job to feed their families? So no. If the South did the three items I prescribed, they would end up doing extremely well for themselves. I can just see it now. The new banking center of North America. Money pouring in. People considered hillbillies becoming private banking gnomes and making plenty. What a beautiful thing. Nothing that the federal government would ever dream up in order to better things in the South would have the same effect. Besides, wherever the rich go, things are usually pretty good.

Wonder why the Basques want separation now? Besides, they are pretty close to Andorra to see the benefits of becoming a haven. They want to join the club. Even Catalonia has mentioned separation as of late. What one will never hear on the news is just why the Basques want out. If Catalonia and and Independent Basque republic would secede, most of the money in Spain would no longer be within Spain. Believe me when I say that the Spanish government worries much more about this than bombings.

Yessir, thems the most accurate guess I've seen.

One of the most egregious things the Confederacy did; in the yankee mind, was to prohibit protective tariffs in its' Constitution, which by the way incorporated the full Bill of Rights in the main body of the document. When the Confederate Constitution was published, yankee manufacturers went bonkers.

fastpat,

Why exactly do you crave seperation?

SvK

There are things and people from the south that made/make America great:

here are some:

Tom Wolfe
Bill Clinton
Martin Luther King
Truman Capote
All Southern Rock
Howard Hughes

to name a few........


SvK

My brother lives in Alabama.......and I visit him on Thanksgivings........people are so friendly, food is great.

But when I turn on talk-radio, I get truly spooked........

SvK

"The Biff And Bubba Radio Show"

that was just one of a slew of radio-gems.....which centered on basically two topics:

Guns, The Lord ,Guns, The Lord, Guns, .............mostly Guns, no, no mostly Lord.

What gives?

SvK\

I happen to think so..but, a temporary solution (within the scope of human evolution, governments are all "temporary solutions") is better than none...

I think this is why 40% (on a good day) of America doesn't even bother to go vote...

"What would Jesus pack?"

Sig

tupperware makes baby jezus cry

I think the day of the super nation-state is long passed, and mankind would be well advised to further devolve any that still exist.

For example, both Italy and Germany are in reality a number of smaller countries forced, more or less, into one large entity for the purposes of super nation-state strength and war. Neither country would have been involved with either World War One, of which World War Two was merely a continuation in many ways, if they had remained smaller states.

That's what needs to happen to the United States. We need to devolve into four, or maybe five, smaller countries that reflect regional differences, and that will promote more involvement with government by those that should be involved.

The late Thomas P. "TIP" O'Neill said it best, "All government is local", which should mean that most government should occur with the distance you can drive in about an hour or less.

We can then get a handle on reducing government to nearly nothing like it should be.

Really love this thread. All the Liberal chest thumpers will not even take the time to post. Course when a conservative posts something they jump on them right and left but now when asked to do something productive about their next President and they have no comment.

Agree with the others who say that this is not a choice. Gore is typical of the reason why we need term limits. He has never held a job, is a little rich kid who grew up with a golden spoon in his mouth from day one.

Kerry.. well, John is a "kept man" and has "married well" the last couple of times. Another good example of why term limits need to be enacted. With him in the WH, his extreme liberal wife would do everything in her power to let the United Nations set our national policies.

Hilary? Pleeeeeese give me a break. I wish I would be alive in 100 years to see what historians will say about this wonderful couple.

Lets get someone who cares about this country, its people and has a plan to improve it. These three choices care only about lining their pockets with money. I really do not like Prez. Carter but he was the last good Dem who was a common man. There has to be a few more out there who are better than these three choices.

Pat,

Can you give us a couple of examples of countries that have no government and who are successful?

Yes, the early days of America were largely government free. In fact, in the areas that had the most government, large cities, life was much less pleasant for many people and as the level of government increased, it got much worse.

I do see what you're trying to get at, but you'd have to point out a single country that's been bettered as the government got larger, as a result of government, not despite government. That's the current state of affairs in America, government is seen as so many speed bumps to be goten around, or as an entity to reduce or eliminate competition as in the auto industry, and steel, and railroads.

Some folks like to bring up Somalia as an example of a country that has little government and isn't doing well. That example is really a god one, but you must compare their lives under the previous dictatorship to their lives after it, and the fact that now the US government is again attempting to foment another military dictatorship through funding one or two warlord's to suppress the rest, and making the daily lives of Somali's worse for it.

Scotland, before the British subjugated them by buying out enough low land scots, is a case in point. Run mostly by clans, it had a true local government most of the time, unless being invaded by the British who continually tried to reduce them to servitude of the type they forced on the Irish.

So, Joe, I'll challenge you to show me a single country that is better solely through super nation-state government; and not the cultural dynamics of the people.

Pat,

I just do not know of any country who has done well without government. Not that I like them but there are too many things that are needed that they take care of.

Sure, Fiji or the Marshall Islands might have no govt but they are so small that its a moot point. I cannot think of even one third world country without a govt that is doing worth a damm.

Our country was doing quite well under the Articles of Confederation; are you familiar with the conspiracy to replace it with the Constitution, which led to the leviathan state we have now?

My point is that we had very little government at one point, and there's no method that I know of to show that the Constitution improved things, nor is there any method of which I'm aware to show that as government got larger it improved anything.

Further, since Americans have largely eliminated communications issues, government involvement, initially a large part of the justification for the Constitution, has gone away, the US Postal Service should have been either sold off, or closed. We just don't need them.

Think about this. If there was no FBI, the 9/11/2001 terrorists would have been reported, not to a federal government agency, but to either a local police agency or a county sheriff's office which would have acted much more swiftly and surely. Of course, it's easily assertable that without the internationally meddlesome federal government, al Quaida wouldn't exist at all, so no reporting need.

Republican's should not be deciding who the Democrats run, this happened when the party leaders chose Kerry and the people wanted Dean. Kerry was supposed to be the safe guy with the military record, we all know how that turned out.

Mark Warner looks good, anybody know if he is even interested?

Link:
http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

Kach, I see you more as a Dennis Kucinich man?

I'm a "Conservative Liberal" if the term used by Norman Mailer in a C-Span 2 interview with his son John Buffalo Mailer means what I think it means.

The Big Rant by Norman Mailer, looks like an interesing book.

Denny was/is too liberal for me. I'm more in the middle, labeling does not always fit.