Can this country get a divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when that Texas official declared there would be another civil war when Obama is reelected, my first thought was, "good."

Actually, not so much. I don't want a war. I just want a separation.

Back in 2004 after Kerry-Bush, people started posting maps dividing our country into The United States of Canada and Jesusland. It looks something like this (although there are varying approaches to drawing the borders): http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Jesusland_Canada.png

I think I favor this now. This "united we stand/divided we fall" stuff is so 19th Century. So, let's just get it over with.

The "Jesusland" designation suggests a biased disdain for an entire region and renders your opinions no better or wiser (IMHO) than those of any other prejudiced person.

You are correct. I have disdain for an entire region. I'm not hiding it. And I am better than you. Start your own country with your backwards ideas. That's all I am saying. Go ahead, secede. We'll let you this time.

Oh, okay. Also, just because someone calls your hand on your own prejudice does not mean they have backward ideas, wish to secede from the USA, or desire to start another country.

No one called my hand. I am very open about my hostility. I don't know what country you think you live in, but the ideas expressed in "Jesusland" are inconsistent with the principles of the Framers.

You're still not referring to yourself as a prejudiced person, but you are. There are large numbers of ignorant, prejudiced folks in the world who like to view themselves as you do--expressing hostility towards entire groups of people and entire regions with self-appointed justification. It's often the basis for unnecessary wars and emotional pain.

You're using the word "prejudice" wrong. One can only be "prejudice" if one forms an unfavorable opinion without any knowledge, thought, or reason about said group. I have plenty of knowledge about this group, having lived in that group for 20-odd years. I've given this a fair amount of thought, and my objections to their views are perfectly reasonable.

I realize you're trying to align yourself with people who've actually been the subject of prejudice. But, your effort is weak and we can see right through it.

Try brushing up on your vocabulary and getting back to us.

You are incorrect. There is more than one definition of the word, and one CAN be prejudiced towards another group after living with them for years. Do you think the individuals living in the southern part of Texas who formed their prejudiced views towards Mexican immigrants don't have any knowledge (even if incorrect) and experiences re the latter? The term includes unreasonable and/or hostile feelings, opinions, or attitudes towards racial, religious, and national groups.

No, I am absolutely correct. In order for prejudice to exist, there has to exist a victim. Now, I realize the residents of Jesusland may have a martyr complex, but Christians are not persecuted in this country and are victims of nothing. So, your continued use of the word "prejudice" is incorrect, uninformed, and offensive. Not to mention that the "victims" you identify (racial, religious, and national groups) don't exist in this example. As a pp said, "JesusLand" is a satire. My quibble isn't with Christians (I am one). It's with conservative dogma that permeates these places and their general jingoistic worldview.

[Anonymous]

Well...40% of the country self identifies as conservative and only 20% identifies as liberal... So we get twice as much land area. And the vast majority of military. Don't worry, we will protect you in times of peril... and your European milquetoast friends as well.

[Anonymous]

did anyone see the bit on daily show where they decided to run the country like a business and kick out states that were in the red on fed money taken vs. tax revenue? It was AWESOME!

Most of the South got fired. I think CT and CA (yes, CA) remained.

[Anonymous]

Not arsed about the rest of the country, but if the Cascadia region (slightly expanded from BC down to San Francisco) became its own country, I'd love it and want to move back even more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when that Texas official declared there would be another civil war when Obama is reelected, my first thought was, "good."

Actually, not so much. I don't want a war. I just want a separation.

Back in 2004 after Kerry-Bush, people started posting maps dividing our country into The United States of Canada and Jesusland. It looks something like this (although there are varying approaches to drawing the borders): http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Jesusland_Canada.png

I think I favor this now. This "united we stand/divided we fall" stuff is so 19th Century. So, let's just get it over with.

The "Jesusland" designation suggests a biased disdain for an entire region and renders your opinions no better or wiser (IMHO) than those of any other prejudiced person.

You are correct. I have disdain for an entire region. I'm not hiding it. And I am better than you. Start your own country with your backwards ideas. That's all I am saying. Go ahead, secede. We'll let you this time.

Oh, okay. Also, just because someone calls your hand on your own prejudice does not mean they have backward ideas, wish to secede from the USA, or desire to start another country.

No one called my hand. I am very open about my hostility. I don't know what country you think you live in, but the ideas expressed in "Jesusland" are inconsistent with the principles of the Framers.

You're still not referring to yourself as a prejudiced person, but you are. There are large numbers of ignorant, prejudiced folks in the world who like to view themselves as you do--expressing hostility towards entire groups of people and entire regions with self-appointed justification. It's often the basis for unnecessary wars and emotional pain.

You're using the word "prejudice" wrong. One can only be "prejudice" if one forms an unfavorable opinion without any knowledge, thought, or reason about said group. I have plenty of knowledge about this group, having lived in that group for 20-odd years. I've given this a fair amount of thought, and my objections to their views are perfectly reasonable.

I realize you're trying to align yourself with people who've actually been the subject of prejudice. But, your effort is weak and we can see right through it.

Try brushing up on your vocabulary and getting back to us.

You are incorrect. There is more than one definition of the word, and one CAN be prejudiced towards another group after living with them for years. Do you think the individuals living in the southern part of Texas who formed their prejudiced views towards Mexican immigrants don't have any knowledge (even if incorrect) and experiences re the latter? The term includes unreasonable and/or hostile feelings, opinions, or attitudes towards racial, religious, and national groups.

No, I am absolutely correct. In order for prejudice to exist, there has to exist a victim. Now, I realize the residents of Jesusland may have a martyr complex, but Christians are not persecuted in this country and are victims of nothing. So, your continued use of the word "prejudice" is incorrect, uninformed, and offensive. Not to mention that the "victims" you identify (racial, religious, and national groups) don't exist in this example. As a pp said, "JesusLand" is a satire. My quibble isn't with Christians (I am one). It's with conservative dogma that permeates these places and their general jingoistic worldview.

No, you aren't absolutely correct. One can be prejudiced towards/about a group, whether or not the group is persecuted; and no one said in this thread that Christians were persecuted. We'll give you an A+, however, for your efforts to deny and justify your prejudices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in jesusland...it's in my heart. No better place to be.

Good for you! And, please, keep it there, where it belongs, without forcing it on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in jesusland...it's in my heart. No better place to be.

Good for you! And, please, keep it there, where it belongs, without forcing it on others.

And that goes for the gays too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, I"m not for it. But I can learn to say aboot. I doubt the south could pay its bills, starting with the military which it would not cut and ending with the health care which it would not fix.

WHO WOULD FINANCE THE JESUS STATES?? ay??
Nearly every Jesus state receives more federal revenue than they pay.  W/O Canada they'd have to tax themselves to pay for whatever meager healthcare, school fund, infrastructure, to say nothing of defence. Their citizens, uneducated and low wage earners would enlist in the Candana Army to emigrate and become citizens so that their children would have a future .

All too soon they'd be screaming that Jesus Federal gov. was too large.  Canada would be thriving, free of the responsibilities of the loser states  Texas, of course, would withdraw from the union rather than support the likes of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tenn, Az., etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in jesusland...it's in my heart. No better place to be.

Good for you! And, please, keep it there, where it belongs, without forcing it on others.

And that goes for the gays too!

Yeah, let them stick to their own kind. I sure don't want some gay guy marrying my sister!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in jesusland...it's in my heart. No better place to be.

Good for you! And, please, keep it there, where it belongs, without forcing it on others.

You want to see Jesus land, visit Arlington National Cemetery and tell us all again how you want a divorce.