PirateNews kicked prosecutor's ass in traffic court! by piratenews

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

PirateNews kicked prosecutor's ass in traffic court!

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Friday, June 2, 2006 23:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10650
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:35 PM

RUE
"You can see anything, if you use the right filters ..." Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 13:13

DallasFirefly,

Looking at those 'horrible socialist' blue states and the 'right thinking' red states, it turns out that the blue states pay more to the federal system than they get, while the red states get more than they pay. Perhaps that's why AnthonyT doesn't want secession - he knows which side his bread is buttered on.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

Excellent point. We must visit some of the same sites. I'm not saying this has anything to do with AnthonyT's post since he seems like a reasonable, independent thinker, but it is true that red states receive more money from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. Hilarious given that red states take great pride in being self reliant and moan about welfare states. The big bad blue states of New York and California pay far more to the government than they receive from it. I'd like to point out that I like plenty of Texans, after all I've been here my entire life. There are good Southerners, they just happen to be outnumbered badly by the book burners and Falwell followers.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DallasFirefly,

Nearly all of my US time is divided between the two largest blue states, NY and CA. And my non-US time is Ontario, Canada.

I too have known many fine Southerners, as well as many, ah - less than fine - 'blue staters'.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 10:35 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"The South is the least of the US and continues to drag it down politically, culturally, and economically. Do you seriously think the right wingers would have any power in this country if not for the South? And frankly the average southerner would be better represented by a Southern government than by the federal government in Washington DC. Free trade, open borders, easy immigration, and a mutual defense treaty between the two nations would make a split between the South and the US amiable and tolerable for it's citizens. After the split anyone wanting to live in the Southern Theocracy could stay, and those wanting to live in a free nation could emigrate to the US. Seems not only workable but fair to me. I sense that you realize that life in an independent South wouldn't be free, which is exactly why the South and the rest of the nation should split. The US has been held down by the knuckledraggers of the South for far too long."

Sillyness, really. I care about my rights, and it is only in a balance of North and South, Red and Blue, that they are preserved.

Reds want to protect my conservative rights and trample my liberal ones, and Blues want to protect my liberal rights and trample my conservative ones. The US is only free with both. Or, at least freer with both than with only one or the other.

Also, the contention that the South provides nothing useful economically to the North seems false to me, based more on an apparent personal indignation towards the South than anything material. Insulting terms such as 'knuckledraggers' are hardly constructive, but rather revealing of your lattitudinal prejudice.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 10:36 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Some people call him the space cadet, yeah
Some call him the gangster government Jew
Some people call him PirateNews
Cause he speaks of the pompous gangsta gov

People talk to him, baby
Say the government is doin’ him wrong, doin’ him wrong
Well don’t you worry baby
Don’t worry
Cause they're right there, right there, right there, right there in his head

Cause he’s a dribbler
He’s a grinner
He’s loonier
Than a spinner
He plays with himself in the sun

He’s a joker
He’s a loser
He’s a midnight rustler
Likes his cattle when their young
Wooo Wooooo

He’s the dumbest thing
That I ever did see
What a stupid Monkey
He shakes just like a loony
Blither-Blather, Blither-Blather, Blither-Blather all the time
Ooo-eee baby, he’ll sure ruin a good time

Cause he’s a dribbler
He’s a grinner
He’s loonier
Than a spinner
He plays with himself in the sun

He’s a joker
He’s a loser
He’s a midnight rustler
He sure wants to hurt those cows some
Wooo Wooooo

People keep talking to him baby
They say the Jews are doing him wrong
Well don’t you worry, don’t worry, no don’t worry mama
Cause they’re right there in his head

He’s the dumbest thing I ever did see
Really love his rants he shakes like a loony
Blither-Blather, Blither-Blather, Blither-Blather all the time
Come on baby and he’ll ruin your mind

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brilliant, and so funny. One thing I would change, to keep the song flowing better is instead of "Cause their right there in his head" I would make 'head' 'skull', it flows in terms of rhyme and still refers to his *mind*?

Otherwise

If I'm a bitch, then life just got interesting

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 29, 2006 1:53 AM

DALLASFIREFLY

ANTHONYT
Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 22:35

"The South is the least of the US and continues to drag it down politically, culturally, and economically. Do you seriously think the right wingers would have any power in this country if not for the South? And frankly the average southerner would be better represented by a Southern government than by the federal government in Washington DC. Free trade, open borders, easy immigration, and a mutual defense treaty between the two nations would make a split between the South and the US amiable and tolerable for it's citizens. After the split anyone wanting to live in the Southern Theocracy could stay, and those wanting to live in a free nation could emigrate to the US. Seems not only workable but fair to me. I sense that you realize that life in an independent South wouldn't be free, which is exactly why the South and the rest of the nation should split. The US has been held down by the knuckledraggers of the South for far too long."

Sillyness, really. I care about my rights, and it is only in a balance of North and South, Red and Blue, that they are preserved.

Reds want to protect my conservative rights and trample my liberal ones, and Blues want to protect my liberal rights and trample my conservative ones. The US is only free with both. Or, at least freer with both than with only one or the other.

Also, the contention that the South provides nothing useful economically to the North seems false to me, based more on an apparent personal indignation towards the South than anything material. Insulting terms such as 'knuckledraggers' are hardly constructive, but rather revealing of your lattitudinal prejudice.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

The only "conservative right" the right wingers preserve is the right to own firearms. you're kidding yourself if you think they protect any other right. That's why there is only one single issue conservative group of any size, the NRA. It's hardly silly to believe that a US without the southern states would be more free and open. With the exception of the 2nd Amendment liberals fight for freedom, not against it. If you haven't noticed, the constant assault on the other amendments comes from the right, not from the left. One tiring tactic of people who argue on forums about politics is to take a statement and twist it to an extreme. First, if you doubt that their are large numbers of knuckledraggers in the south, then take a trip to little podunk towns in East Texas, or Mississippi, or Alabama, or anywhere else in the south. Perhaps I should refer to you as "Saint Anthony of the Rose Colored Glasses" because no one who has lived in and traveled through the southern states would argue with me about the vast number of knuckledraggers (or troglodytes if you prefer) unless they look at people in a highly unrealistic way. I do love the way you hide behind your faux populism though, it's charming, it really is. I look at people and see what they are, not what I would like them to be. If they are backward, ignorant morons, then that's what I see. Am I prejudiced against the South, you bet I am, but that doesn't make me wrong about it, it just means that I accpet the reality of what the South is. You grossly exaggerate when you claim I say that the south makes no useful contribution to the US economically. Clearly the south does contribute to the US economy, it simply doesn't put in as much as it takes out. The south takes more then it gives, in terms of federal money. That point isn't debatable, it's fact. The South is more conservative politically than most of the rest of the nation, also fact. The southern states always have the lowest graduation rates and aptitude scores, while at the same time having the highest illiteracy rates, poverty rates, and teen pregnancy rates. The south has always been the poorest, most ignorant region of the nation. All facts, based on poverty and education stats.

Selfish people want to continue this gridlock of blue and red states, in which neither liberals nor conservatives are happy and so called centrists are caught in the crossfire. Our government barely functions, and half of our citizens routinely have a highly negative opinion of their President. This constant conflict, which you seem to both enjoy and appreciate, is causing tremendous damage to the very fabric of our country. I've come to a realization, people are simply different and drastically different people will never agree with each other and will always fight each other. It's unfair imo to continue putting the US and it's people through this war of political attrition. My opinion is that the people of this nation would be better off separating. Let conservatives flock to the south, where they would be free to live as they choose. Let them break down the separation of church and state, ban abortion, eliminate any speech they find offensive, burn books, bring back public executions, and whatever the hell else right wing nut jobs would do without liberals, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and the federal courts around to stop them. Anyone not wanting to live in such a country would be free to move to the north, mid west, or west. In those areas people would still have all the constitutional protections they have now, without the constant assault on those safeguards that we witness today. To put it in an easy to understand way, the South and the US are in a very bad, very old relationship. They fight constantly, have little in common, generally are suspicious of each other, have different values and interests, and can't say why they should be together, aside from having been together for so long. There comes a time in every bad, destructive relationship when it's simply time to say goodbye, break up, and move on. I believe that time has come. Now of course this is pure fantasy. I doubt that the US will separate in my lifetime , even though both the US and the Confederate states (for lack of a better name) would be better off if it did.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 29, 2006 6:45 AM

HAYWARD79

Dallas, the more you talk the less convincing you become.

I've actually spent a lot of time in both the North and the South. I currently live in PA near Philadelphia, and I can't even count the number of low-life scum I come across every day. The presence of "knuckle-draggers" is certainly not limited to the South, and I dare say you need to spend a little more time outside of your confined little zones in CA and NY, because it's rapidly becoming clear that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Yeah, the "blue state," liberal economic mentality has worked wonders here in Philadelphia, creating a vast underclass of dependent citizens continually exploited by liberal politicians. The worst thing about liberal economics, aside from the fact that in operation it's a complete failure, is that it effectively operates as soft racism. It's ironic that while you bash Southerners in one breath (whom I personally don't think you've even really met), you support crippling economic programs that result in failing cities like Philadelphia and New Orleans (which are both the result of decade of liberal "leadership"). As much as I abhor prejudice and racism, I think people like you are ultimately worse because of your hypocrisy. On a related note, I am continually astonished at how self-proclaimed "tolerant" and "open-minded" individuals suddenly throw all of that out the window the second they deem in their own minds that someone else is close-minded or intolerant. That is the epitome of hypocrisy Dallas, and you appear to exemplify it to a tee.

As to what rights are "under attack," you really need to do some reading on the subject if you really believe that the right only supports the 2nd Amendment. If you had even a cursory working knowledge of constitutional law history, you'd know better. Obviously, you don't.

"I've come to a realization, people are simply different and drastically different people will never agree with each other and will always fight each other. It's unfair imo to continue putting the US and it's people through this war of political attrition."

Wow. You REALLY need to go back and read what the Founders thought about this topic. They purposely wanted some measure of political gridlock so that the federal government would not become overly powerful. People like you always fail to grasp this simple point. Your "realization" is anti-thetical to one of the prime tenants of our enture system of government as envisioned by those who actually wrote the Constitution you are now attempting to use (and failing quite miserably) to support your argument.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 29, 2006 9:35 AM

SASSALICIOUS

Quote:
I dare say you need to spend a little more time outside of your confined little zones in CA and NY

Pretty sure Dallasfirefly is from Texas. Not CA or NY.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 29, 2006 10:31 AM

CITIZEN

The more you speak Hayward the more you show yourself to be a fool, with a poor grasp of the real world.

Yes Hayward Liberals are evil racists who exploit the poor and the blue states have the worst economies.

Maybe you and PirateNews can get together, you'll have a whale of a time.

Then everyone else can get back to reality yeah.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 29, 2006 4:19 PM

DALLASFIREFLY

Apparently Hayward is too ignorant of US geography to realize that Dallas is in Texas, not California or NY. He's also too ignorant to actually read posts in their entirety before responding to them, if he had he would have noticed that I am from Texas, and have lived here my entire life. I only mentioned that three or four times in previous posts in this thread. That sort of selective ignorance is typical of Republicans though, they see what they want and ignore everything else. That's how the majority of Repubs can still think Bush is doing a good job in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

As to your childish argument that our political system was designed to be in perpetual gridlock, you are simply wrong. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in government class. Our federal system was designed to provide checks and balances to each branch of government so that no one branch would become dominant and tyrannical. That does not mean that the founders meant for the government to be bitterly divided and inefficient. No one designs a system to not work. The problem is that over the years political parties have become more and more partisan and the nation has become more divided politically along regional lines. This is not what the founding fathers intended, they didn't create political parties and many of them specifically did not want political parties in our country, though they couldn't forbid them. Political parties as we know them today didn't develop until well after the writing of the Constitution.

As far as your claim that "tolerant" people shouldn't become intolerant when confronted with intolerant people, well that's just silly. Should the civil rights activists have simply tolerated the Ku Klux Klan? Should the female suffrage movement (activists who pushed to give women the vote) have simply turned the other cheek when they were spat on and attacked by the scum who believed that women weren't good enough to vote? Sorry but your argument is absurd, it isn't hypocritical to despise intolerant people. By your argument good, tolerant people should simply ignore the racists, sexists, and religious extremists in our society. I'm sure that's a Republican wet dream but it won't happen, not any longer at least. Liberals in this country are fed up with seeing their rights trampled on and witnessing their nation being turned into a police/corporate state. No more turning the other cheek for us, we're hitting back. Liberals were punching bags for conservatives for so long (since the late 60's) that conservatives are now shocked when liberals actually fight back. Conservatives seem to think it's rude for liberals to stand up for themselves and what they believe in. That is hypocritical given how relentlessly aggressive conservatives have been for the last five decades.

As to my original point that the US would better off separating along the Mason-Dixon Line, thanks for making my argument for me Hayward. If we could put all of the intractable fools like you in the South, the rest of us could go on with our lives with much less stress and we would waste much less time fighting with people who frankly would have been better off having lived 200 years ago, or at least living in Cuba or China today. And yes, blue state economies are better off overall than red state economies, their poverty rates are lower, their graduation rates and test scores are higher, their high school dropout rates and teen pregnancy rates are lower. The middle class (defined by income tax returns) is also larger in blue states, destroying your ridiculous argument that blue states survive by creating a vast underclass to oppress. Of course there are poor people in blue states, but the percentage is always higher in red states. In case anyone wonders, the gap between rich and poor in this country increases during each Republican administration, and decreases during each Democratic administration. Their are many reasons why this is the case, here are some of the highlights. Republicans cut taxes for upper income people, while at the same time they cut federal benefits for lower and middle income people, thus increasing the real financial burden on the poor and middle class. Republicans oppose any increase in the minimum wage, Democrats support a leveled increase over a five year period up to $8 from the current $5.25. Democrats support a national health care system, Republicans oppose it, so poor working people, the unemployed, and middle class people without company health insurance go uncovered and have to pay medical expenses partly or completely out of their own pocket. Federal programs to help with medical expenses are cut by Republicans. Democrats support increasing federal aid to education, while Republicans want to cut it, and in fact have under Bush. This shifts a greater percentage of the cost of higher education to families, leaving less money for luxury items such as food and rent. Federal aid to day care (so working mothers can actually work) school lunch programs for kids whose parents can't afford to give them lunch money, federal aid to head start and dropout prevention programs, are all cut by Republicans and supported by Democrats. Federal aid to first time homebuyers of limited means is supported by Democrats and cut by Republicans. Funding of the Small Business Administration is increased during Democratic administrations (it was a priority for Clinton) and has been cut by Bush. The SBA backs people (nearly all middle class) who want to start their own business, so much for Republicans supporting the middle class. I could go on for several more pages but anyone with a triple digit IQ should get the point by now. The Democratic Party exists to serve and look after the poor and middle class in the US, the Republican Party exists to serve and look after the wealthy.

Of course Hayward is right about there being plenty of scum and knuckledraggers in blue states. that's because there are still plenty of Republicans living in blue states. Oh, and the Republican party, whose followers constitute the right wing in this nation, attack the Bill of Rights regularly and intensely. I belong to the ACLU so I do follow fights over civil liberties closely. With the exception of the 2nd Amendment (which is never attacked by the right wing) all attacks on the Bill Of Rights are launched by the right wing. Of course there are the occasional centrists from both parties who join in the attacks for political gain, but the attacks are always funded and carried out by right wingers. Sorry to give you a taste of reality, but the Republicans and their crazy ass supporters are always the bad guys on Constitutional matters, excepting the 2nd Amendment. If you're going to attempt to argue with grown ups, you might want to occasionally read a newspaper (and perhaps even a book) so you can avoid sounding completely ignorant in the future.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:25 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

As I was prepared to crossexamine the cop in my jury trial, before it was dismissed, illegal aliens in Tennessee are never deported. In fact, TN Highway Patrol sold 250,000 driver licenses to illegal aliens, without attempting to arrest them.

So now Jr Bush compares all speeders to illegal aliens. Now traffic cops summarly execute 500 speeders a year (including 1/3rd innocent bystanders), but ignore the illegal aliens.

Quote:

White House compares illegal immigration to speeding

Bill Sammon
The Examiner
May 26, 2006

WASHINGTON - The White House on Friday said a Senate bill that would grant legal status to illegal immigrants is analogous to a traffic law that allows a speeder to pay a fine and continue driving.

"If you had a traffic ticket and you paid it, you're not forever a speeder, are you?" White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said in response to questions from The Examiner.

"So the fact is, you have paid your debt to society," he added. "And we have come up with a way to make sure that the debt to society gets paid. Then you move forward."

The "traffic ticket" analogy raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill, where many House Republicans regard illegal immigration as a grave crime.

"I don't know if Tony meant to trivialize it or not," said Will Adams, spokesman for Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. "But it's certainly misleading."

"The penalty for a speeding ticket is a fine," he added. "The penalty for being here illegally is being removed from this country. But the president doesn't want illegal aliens to go home."

www.examiner.com/a-120123~White_House_compares_illegal_immigration_to_
speeding.html

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: Jumping The Fence

Bush speaks on illegal immigration

While doing an interview with a smirking Bush about border patrol, if you look closely in the background, you can see people going over the wall to invade USA.
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13190.htm

What Bush is implying is that speeding tickets are CIVIL breach of driver license contract, not crimes subject to arrest.

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:33 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

But PN, your descended from an illegal criminal Alien:

www.murderresearch.com

You know, glass houses...stones...etc.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 6:54 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"Of course Hayward is right about there being plenty of scum and knuckledraggers in blue states. that's because there are still plenty of Republicans living in blue states. Oh, and the Republican party, whose followers constitute the right wing in this nation, attack the Bill of Rights regularly and intensely. I belong to the ACLU so I do follow fights over civil liberties closely. With the exception of the 2nd Amendment (which is never attacked by the right wing) all attacks on the Bill Of Rights are launched by the right wing. Of course there are the occasional centrists from both parties who join in the attacks for political gain, but the attacks are always funded and carried out by right wingers. Sorry to give you a taste of reality, but the Republicans and their crazy ass supporters are always the bad guys on Constitutional matters, excepting the 2nd Amendment. If you're going to attempt to argue with grown ups, you might want to occasionally read a newspaper (and perhaps even a book) so you can avoid sounding completely ignorant in the future."

It's true, the Republicans are always the badguys (except sometimes) and they attack all our rights (except for protecting that one.)

It also never rains in the desert (except when it does) and it never snows in Arizona (except in certain parts.)

DallasFirefly, your argument is the kind of argument we hear from racists all the time. We need to get 'those people' segregated 'over there' and that way they won't cause us any more problems.

I wonder, though, what you will do once you've gotten all 'those people' out? Perhaps the shiny 'Blue' states of the North aren't all as shiny as you'd like.

'Northern' states may include: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Missouri.

This is using a map of the Civil War, including all those states which held divided loyalty to the North. California isn't on there. Hmph.

Anywhoo, as you toss out any states on the wrong side of the line, maybe you find you've not thrown out enough of them. Maybe you don't like the way in Wisconsin think and feel.

So you'll draw up a new line, perhaps, to lose those knuckle draggers in Wisconsin. And maybe Iowa is next? Who knows?

The point is, Dallas, you can't paint an entire state with one brush. All human beings, despite geography and even political standing, cannot be painted with a single color. You can never seperate yourself entirely from the people you want to escape.

You can travel across an ocean to avoid religious persecution, only to burn witches in the New World.

Your discrimination is wrong, and that sort of thinking is dangerous. Not all Southerners are bad, not all Republicans are evil, and not all Democrats think like you do, thank God.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 6:16 PM

SASSALICIOUS

As a Wisconsinite, I can tell you that it's the FIBs you really need to look out for. And the damn coasties.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 6:39 PM

MAMASAID

Missouri and Virginia definitely were NOT part of the union in the civil war. The reason General Lee decided not to fight for the North was because VA decided to suceed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 10:15 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hey Mammasaid,

Virginia was actually listed as a state of 'divided loyalty.' Here's the exact quote:

"Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, Missouri, are border states (colored pink on the map) which have divided loyalties between North and South. Occasionally the loyalties vary greatly within the state, for example, people from northern Missouri consider themselves Northern, people from southern Missouri consider themselves Southern. Self-identification may be based on life style as well. Those living in urban areas of Maryland usually think of themselves as part of the BosWash, an amalgam of Northeast cities and suburbs."

On the same site, they have this to say regarding Virginia and other border states:

"The border states of the Civil War constitute a major definitional problem for the South. Missouri and Kentucky both formed rump secessionist governments that applied for admission to the Confederacy, and both remain partly or mostly Southern in culture to this day; across the Ohio and Mississippi, even portions of Illinois and Indiana south of Interstate 70 and especially Interstate 64 exhibit strong Southern cultural characteristics. West Virginia is a unique case, as it itself seceded from Virginia out of reluctance to join the Confederacy and retains an almost prickly sense of independence; whether it is culturally part of the South depends both on what area of the state is under discussion (northern areas being more closely aligned with Pennsylvania and the Rust Belt) and on what distinction the viewer cares to draw between Appalachian and Southern culture. Maryland and Delaware, south of the main length of the Mason-Dixon Line, were slave states at the time of the Civil War, but did not secede; in ensuing decades, Southern influence waned considerably in Delaware and the urbanized portions of Maryland, but remains present in parts of rural Maryland, especially the state's Eastern Shore."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 10:45 PM

DALLASFIREFLY

From AnthonyT:

It's true, the Republicans are always the badguys (except sometimes) and they attack all our rights (except for protecting that one.)

It also never rains in the desert (except when it does) and it never snows in Arizona (except in certain parts.)

DallasFirefly, your argument is the kind of argument we hear from racists all the time. We need to get 'those people' segregated 'over there' and that way they won't cause us any more problems.

I wonder, though, what you will do once you've gotten all 'those people' out? Perhaps the shiny 'Blue' states of the North aren't all as shiny as you'd like.

'Northern' states may include: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Missouri.

This is using a map of the Civil War, including all those states which held divided loyalty to the North. California isn't on there. Hmph.

Anywhoo, as you toss out any states on the wrong side of the line, maybe you find you've not thrown out enough of them. Maybe you don't like the way in Wisconsin think and feel.

So you'll draw up a new line, perhaps, to lose those knuckle draggers in Wisconsin. And maybe Iowa is next? Who knows?

The point is, Dallas, you can't paint an entire state with one brush. All human beings, despite geography and even political standing, cannot be painted with a single color. You can never seperate yourself entirely from the people you want to escape.

You can travel across an ocean to avoid religious persecution, only to burn witches in the New World.

Your discrimination is wrong, and that sort of thinking is dangerous. Not all Southerners are bad, not all Republicans are evil, and not all Democrats think like you do, thank God.

--Anthony

AnthonyT, frankly I'm sick of you twisting my words and playing semantics. I'm also sick of outright lies about what I've written coming from your posts. I have made the point several times that there are good southerners, some good republicans (though that number shrinks yearly) so I'll go through your inaccurate, dishonest points one by one for the last time.

You post:
It's true, the Republicans are always the badguys (except sometimes) and they attack all our rights (except for protecting that one.)
My response:
I pointed out in my last post that Republicans defend the Second Amendment, so this post of your post is useless, and is a tactic used by people on political blogs to make it seem as if the person the blogger is attacking has said something he hasn't. I conceded that right wingers defend the Second Amendment, so what was your point in writing that? Trying to make it seem like I deny Republicans defend any of the Amendments, even though I clearly admit they defend the 2nd? Nice and scummy of you to do that. You might think about a career in politics given your talent for dishonesty.

You post:
It also never rains in the desert (except when it does) and it never snows in Arizona (except in certain parts.)
My response:
Too silly to say much about.

You post:
DallasFirefly, your argument is the kind of argument we hear from racists all the time. We need to get 'those people' segregated 'over there' and that way they won't cause us any more problems.
My response:
If you bothered to read my posts in full, or actually responded to what I write rather than what you insinuate I write, it would be clear that I made this suggestion that people VOLUNTARILY move to whichever part of a new US/Confederacy (for lack of a better term) they please, or stay where they already are. I also suggested open borders, free trade, and a mutual defense agreement between the new nations. Is that segregation? If you think so then I suggest you invest in a dictionary. The whole point of this suggestion is that people would finally be free to live in a country truly to their political liking. Right wingers would have their country, where they could do all of the things they dream about, and lefties like myself would have a country where we wouldn't have to constantly fight to protect our constitutional rights. Everyone would be free to live where they please, so obviously there would still be lefties in the South and right wingers in the North and West, and moderates would be everywhere. It's about personal choice, should right wingers have to live in a nation that will never be anywhere nearly as conservative as they want? Should liberals have to put up constant attacks on the ideals they hold dear? Should centrists be caught in the crossfire? I don't think so, and the solution is fairly easy, though of course it will never happen.

You post:
I wonder, though, what you will do once you've gotten all 'those people' out? Perhaps the shiny 'Blue' states of the North aren't all as shiny as you'd like.
So you'll draw up a new line, perhaps, to lose those knuckle draggers in Wisconsin. And maybe Iowa is next? Who knows?
My Response:
I just said, and have said before, that people would be free to move about as they please, so this point of yours makes no sense.

You post:
Anywhoo, as you toss out any states on the wrong side of the line, maybe you find you've not thrown out enough of them. Maybe you don't like the way in Wisconsin think and feel.
My response:
Again with the word twisting. PEOPLE WOULD BE FREE TO EMIGRATE, STAY WHERE THEY ARE, WHATEVER THEY WANT. I put those words in caps this time since I've written them before and you apparently didn't notice them. It's about giving people a real choice of which type of government to live under, not about forcing people to move or stay. There would be a choice of a conservative government in the South (most likely a sort of theocracy) and a liberal-moderate government in the North and West (the Midwest included) It's also a little silly of you to assume that I haven't travelled all over the US, and that I don't know much or anything about blue states. That assumption makes you seem foolish.

You post:
This is using a map of the Civil War, including all those states which held divided loyalty to the North. California isn't on there. Hmph.
My response:
California is a blue state. I wasn't suggesting that Civil War maps be hauled out for border drawing.

You post:
The point is, Dallas, you can't paint an entire state with one brush. All human beings, despite geography and even political standing, cannot be painted with a single color. You can never separate yourself entirely from the people you want to escape.
My response:
This isn't some suggestion for a Utopian nation, it's only a suggestion that we give people the freedom to live under a government of their liking, without the constant battle between right and left, battles which never resolve anything and leave neither side satisfied and people in the middle disgusted. You once again attempt to make it seem like I'm advocating forced emigration when I'm advocating letting people make their own choice as to where to live. Of course no system or government will be perfect, but we could do a hell of a lot better than we are doing now. As far as my wanting to escape, is it wrong to not want to live around people one mostly disagrees with? Is it wrong to want to live around people one mostly agrees with? I think not. Of course there will always be people around who will disagree with you, but I'm talking percentages here.

You post:
You can travel across an ocean to avoid religious persecution, only to burn witches in the New World.
My response:
So you think that nothing will ever be perfect and that we should make the best with what we have? I agree entirely with that, making the best of what we have would mean having two countries, instead of one.

You post:
Your discrimination is wrong, and that sort of thinking is dangerous. Not all Southerners are bad, not all Republicans are evil, and not all Democrats think like you do, thank God.
My response:
More playing the poor, wronged victim. This is a tactic right wingers love to use when they feel attacked by liberals, or anyone else who disagrees with them and dares to make a point. ONE MORE TIME, FOR THE RECORD, I'M A SOUNTHERNER, I HAVE HAD LOTS OF FRIENDS IN MY LIFETIME IN TEXAS, SO OBVIOUSLY I DON'T THINK ALL SOUTERNERS ARE BAD. THERE ARE ROUGHLY 60 MILLION REPUBLICANS IN THE US, MANY ARE FINE PEOPLE, MANY AREN'T. IF YOU CALL DISCRIMINATION GIVING PEOPLE A REAL CHOICE OF HOW THEY WANT TO LIVE AND HOW THEY WANT TO BE GOVERNED THAN BUY A FREAKIN DICTIONARY, FOR GOD'S SAKE! I know, again with all caps, but I'm getting tired of having to write the same things over and over. Maybe you will actually read what I wrote this time, though I'm willing to bet that you'll do some more word twisting in your next post. As to that last sentence in your post, you would be surprised how many Democrats and Republicans like the idea of two separate nations. I didn't get this idea from thin air, I've read many posts on blogs from both liberals and conservatives wishing for just such a thing. The replies to those posts are mostly positive.

My final point, I would like to wake up one day and actually be proud of my government and happy with the way the nation is run. I believe most liberals, conservatives, and those without any strong ideology would like to feel the same way. That will never happen for most people at the same time as things are now. With a Democrat in office conservatives will be unhappy, with a Republican in office liberals will be unhappy, and centrists will usually be unhappy regardless of who is in the White House because they have to put up with the constant partisan fighting. My suggestion that we separate as a nation is the best way to achieve satisfaction for most citizens in my opinion. All voluntary of course, no one would be forced to do anything, but at least then the partisan wars would die down considerably, though they would never disappear completely. In the future, if you're going to respond to my posts, at least be good enough to read them, and then to not twist my words or make inaccurate insinuations about me or what I say. You also might want to respond specifically to points I actually make, rather than philosophizing randomly about points I've never made. But I fully expect you to continue twisting my words and making inaccurate insinuations in the future. After all, it's so much easier to argue when you make up what the other person has said, then respond to what you've made up. Beats the hell out of coming up with an intelligent, honest, counterargument. In fact, post what you like, I simply won't respond. I will debate with people of any ideological viewpoint, so long as they debate honestly and fairly, rather than resorting to the cheap, dishonest tricks of a politician as you have more than once.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 10:39 AM

MAMASAID

Whether the culture of a state is southern is entirely up for debate, but the state assemblies of both Missouri and Virginia (Richmond was to be the Capital of the Confederacy) voted to join the Confederacy over the Union. West Va. and Kentucky, while still slave holding states, to be sure, were bonafide border states, but not the two former states.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 10:52 AM

RIVER6213

I'm glad the south got OWNED during the civil war. All southerners should be sodomized.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 11:20 AM

FREMDFIRMA

So...
You enjoy a bloated, federal monstrosity of a government which devours 30%+ of your income at the check, another chunk with every purchase, another chunk on your phone bill and get this, to finance the Spanish-American War started in 1898... gee i thought we won that one, so much for it being a 'temporary' tax - and another at the gas pump, and again when you buy a sixpack, and again when you buy some smokes...

And then uses that money to spy on you and pay perverto goons to feel up your girlfriend at the airport, gee, warm fuzzies.

Do me, and especially yourself, a favor - go READ something about history.. the civil war was primarily about economics, and whether the states and their people were sovereign, *as intended by the US Constitution* or whether the FedGov was.

Lincoln didn't free the slaves, he made us all slaves... tell me kiddo, tally it up, please.

How much of YOUR money do you actually get to keep?
How much goes to feed the beast ?

And what do you think would *happen* to you, if you refused to pay up, 'voluntary' or not ?

What lost the civil war was mostly industry and population, the north not only had industry, but was also willing to conscript every person standing and bury the confederacy (ironically, mostly volunteers originally) in bodies, uncaring of which side because they'd just conscript some more (Lincoln had New York City *shelled by artillery* in response to riots related to this) cause the rich old bastards on Capitol Hill, setting the precedent they embody now, weren't going to risk *their* necks or sons on the front line.

By the time it was over there was almost no one left ALIVE in the south able to continue the fight, so you had a buncha folks fighting at first for their beliefs, and at the end, for their very lives (cause it got ugly at the end, believe it) and failing in the face of a more industrial, more populated opponent willing to pay any cost that did not significantly impact them.

Would things have been better if it went the other way ? who knows, maybe a little, but over time prolly not any better, given human nature and the apathy of bearing evils that can be borne, rather than striking out against them...

Next time you go pulling the trigger on that mouth, how bout making sure your brains are loaded.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 11:30 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Why are you still fighting the Civil War? Isn't it about time you got over it?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 11:56 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by DallasFirefly:
The Democratic Party exists to serve and look after the poor and middle class in the US...

Unless you live in the south and then you should just go away. That's not a very liberal attitude now is it.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 12:47 PM

RIVER6213

So? The south still got OWNED during the Civil War...that's enuff for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 6:24 PM

OOKAMIKAWAHARA

Citizen, just scrolling through the feed and caught the comment about children.
Thanks we try !!!! Yup, we Americans just have to be the Rebel type one huh lol

Well carry on with the mayham. Just got back from North Carolina, so missed out on some of the fun.
mata, Ookami yori

toasten away w/ a kirin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 11:14 PM

DALLASFIREFLY

I'm going to partially agree with Fremdfirma. I'm not re-fighting the Civil War, but I do think that it was a mistake for Lincoln to invade the South. The South/Confederacy wanted their own country, and Lincoln should have let it happen. Many lives were lost, and more ruined as a result of that war, and frankly a diplomatic solution might have been achieved had the North, as well as the South, not been so inflexible in negotiations. To whoever quoted me as saying the Democrats represent the middle class and poor, and then said "but not if they live in the South, then you should move away" you have to keep in mind that the talk about separation of the US is only talk. In reality I'm sure we'll all be together as one big, dysfunctional nation for the rest of our lives. So of course I want a strong Democratic Party throughout the South to represent and protect the interests of Southerners.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE