Should the United States be divided?
968509
I think you're exaggerating - the only people who feel that way about the servicemen are those wackjobs from the Westboro Baptist Church - nobody else is picketing funerals, etc.\n\nI believe, even though many of us are against the war in Iraq, we all respect and are thankful for the sacrifices that are made by the armed services personnel who are there.\n\nWe made a mistake in this country treating the vets of the Viet Nam war without respect - we have learned from that shameful attitude which is a low moment in our country's history. I don't believe we will ever again confuse the conflict with the warriors,the westboro baptist church, notwithstanding.\n\nedited to add: LOL does the poster above truly think that LIBERALS are the people who don't know how to do an honest day's work???? LOL LOL LOL I guess he hasn't seen the lifestyles of the conservative and greedy LOL
148079
That's quite possible.  I've actually been seeing this coming for almost 2 years now.  I never saw a different outcome.  I think that preventing the civil war from happening will actually cause more harm than good.  I saw split the country up now -- even without a war.  The country was manufactured after WW1 and has no business putting together groups of people that dont really like each other.
540377
The south should be free. We have suffered too long under the tyranical united states government.
74943
I think it's first important to recognize the fact that they who you refer to as leaders are anything but leaders, they're politicians.\nPoliticians are skilled in the art of divide and conquer. Their entire goal is to get everybody as aggravated and confused as possible that way the people don't know exactly who they're voting for, and then the favor is based off of pure conjecture.\n\nIn my opinion, I think if people are going to be staunchly loyal, regardless of the politicians being right or wrong, then there will automatically be a rift between them and those who see it differently. If everyone agreed and submitted to the same thought process and there weren't divisions, where would we be? We'd probably be in the middle of a first-degree dictatorship right now.\n\nSo being divided as far as having different views isn't inherently bad. It builds intelligence to debate issues...ONLY in the case that those issues are real and would have an impact. Problem is they don't. we keep squabbling over stuff that doesn't matter. Or at least if it has some merit, it's put to the forefront of debate while the issues of much higher importance that should get people moving and shaking get entirely ignored. That's what politicians strive to get us to do.\n\nNow another misconception people have is the fact that seceding from the Union is illegal/treason. It isn't. There is much debate if what Abraham Lincoln was doing was right. He was a good president, but he had no real right to force the union to stay in tact.  There's nothing wrong with doing whatever peaceful means possible to prevent it, but having a war because of it defeats the purpose. It is perfectly legal for any state to secede from the union if they feel that the country is going down the tubes.\nLet's hope and pray and do whatever possible to avoid this situation...but if people are going to be hopelessly brainwashed to their own inevitable demise, it isn't right to expect those who think differently to go down with them. That's the whole purpose of separating from the union.\n\nSo in short, the United States as an idea is a great thing. It means people are united and stick together. They should do whatever possible and make amends to stay united. But if that proves itself useless, then the last resort is to secede from the union. Only when there is no other option.\n\nThere are a few states with some organizations trying to build up the support in order to do this right now. \nI think it's a bit early for that, but I don't blame them in how they think the country is strangling itself.\n\nGod bless America? How about God bless everybody.
896969
Yes, let's create a branch of government for everyone.  Let's not fix the issue on our own, such as where we spend our money or who we vote for.  It's probably best if we just create more government to solve all of our problems.
1137393
we will have 2 nations if 2 presidents are elected to office at the same time. The political force will be separated and there will be another civil war if the animosity between the 2 parties goes too far.
1006263
No.  The whole Constitution was a compromise between the large states, like Virginia, and New York, and the small states like Rhode Island.  \nWe probably should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.
1169260
Believe it or not, that was actually considered during the framing of the U.S. Constitution. Following the demise of the Articles of Confederation for having too weak of a central federal government, there was alot of argument that took place on this subject. Most notably, The Federalist Papers argued for this setup. The decision was made, I think wisely, that it was in the best interest of the US to have a strong central figure. The president should be the representative of the people an speak for the people. If you have two presidents, that authority is necessarily diminished.
973772
Hell no. Remember that during the segregation era, southern states hindered the advancement of equality by declaring they were "sovereign states" and didn't had to obey federal law. I support states rights to some limit and I think when states conflict with federal government then we are in trouble.
644593
At some point in the future there should certainly be a referendum on the subject. I'm not altogether sure that independence would be a good thing. Small states tend to get picked on by bully boys. You know who I mean.
286883
This depends on how we define the U.S.'s ideals. If you asked five different people what the U.S.'s ideals are, I suspect you'd get some overlap and some disagreement in their responses. Added into the problem is the fact that, even with the overlap, common terms such as "democracy" or "liberty" or "freedom" or "equality" mean different things to different people.\n\nOne of the U.S.'s founding ideals was equality under the law. Another was freedom of religion. And another was economic exploitation of a politically and economically weak minority group. Yet another was limiting citizenship to white, property-owning males. Some of these have changed considerably; others haven't. \n\nFor the sake of argument, let's say that U.S. ideals currently encompass personal liberty, freedom of religion, and economic opportunity. I do believe all of these should play a role in our national security policy. Again, what I mean by these terms and what someone else means can be very different. Aaaagghhh! Can't...answer! I think we need a more limiting question.
511654
No, but the Republican party is sure touting that there is a war on Christianity to polarize certain groups because that will get them put into office.  There are also groups that think the US should be a theocracy but that is blatantly unconstitutional.  Sorry, it's a democracy where all of us have the same rights.
338650
Yes. The State has to agree to the split and then it gets approved by Congress.\n\n"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." - US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3
66898
The following is text of the letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut: "I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." It is true that the Constitution never states the phrase "seperation of church and state", but it is hard to play semanitics on such plain language and infer that this is not what the founders had in mind. So there is a legal obligation to seperate church and state. Congress can not choose a favorite nor limit any religion from practicing its beliefs.
810359
I agree but I doubt that many of out countries leaders would today. Indeed, there seems to be many who actively seek to disenfranchise those who disagree by stating that people who disagree with a politician aid the enemy by their dissent. It seems abhorrent to believe I have to follow the illogical statements of such leaders today or be considered anti-American and serves to drive a wedge in society if you are not the right religion, the right color, have the right beliefs, or have to support a cause you disagree with. I think Thomas Jefferson was right, and is perhaps still right, but you will be disenfranchised and risk being accused of being anti-American today if you do not choose blindly to follow.
240950
I think we should.  People would then move to where their ideas are held important and are tolerated.  The states that ended up most successful would become models for the others.  Also decentralization would help remove the imperialistic tendencies of the federal government and cause less world wide hatred.
330681
The world would be a much better place. The US would no longer have those selfcentred presidents, they would speak correctly and we may even get them to write correctly. In fact the US should probably be allowed to vote to rejoin the United Kingdom. They just love the royal family and they all want to come and see the UK.\nBut we need to sort out the taxes before we allowed them back.