Declaration of the Separation of the States of America

jgarden · Apr 30, 2009

clirus said:
Declaration of the Separation of the States of America ..... We the people that love Democracy, Christianity and Capitalism do hereby remove the states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York from the United States of America because they are the main supporters of Democracy, Atheism and Socialism. Other states can succeed as determined by a vote of the people .....

***************************************************************************************************
Perhaps someone should inform "clirus" the Olympia Snowe (Maine) is a Republican senator and to "beware of what you wish for."

Ironically, its conservatives like "clirus" who are currently leading an "INQUISITION" to drive moderate Republicans (Arlen Specter) out of the GOP that will give those "atheist," "socialist" Democrats what they haven't had since the early 1930's - a 60+ seat majority in the Senate to override any "filibusters."

clirus · Apr 30, 2009

jgarden quote

Ironically, its conservatives like "clirus" who are currently leading an "INQUISITION" to drive moderate Republicans (Arlen Specter) out of the GOP that will give those "atheist," "socialist" Democrats what they haven't had since the early 1930's - a 60+ seat majority in the Senate to override any "filibusters."

Response

You might consider Arlen Specter a moderate, but I would consider him very liberal.

The democrats are in total control of the American government, so they have no bases to blame anyone else for what occurs. If it goes good, it will be a great victory for Socialism/Atheism. If it goes bad, it will be a great defeat for Socialism/Atheism. You certainly know what I expect will occur, but nothing but the test of time will tell.

If the Republican party does move in the direction of Atheism and Socialism, then Christians need to form a political party that represents Christian Principles.

Do you really think God will accept a nation or a person that accepts the Atheistic Lifestyle of evolution, extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, adultery and homosexuality?

I don't think the Obama Administration has a "snow balls chance in hell" of success, but only time will tell. I believe a lot of people are going to suffer before there is a return to Christian Principles. In most cases a person and a nation has to hit rock bottom before they will admit they are wrong and God was right.

I guess we will have to agree to wait and see.

Archaeopteryx · Apr 30, 2009

You might consider Arlen Specter a moderate, but I would consider him very liberal.

In my opinion you would see anyone who disagrees with you as liberal.

The democrats are in total control of the American government, so they have no bases to blame anyone else for what occurs. If it goes good, it will be a great victory for Socialism/Atheism. If it goes bad, it will be a great defeat for Socialism/Atheism. You certainly know what I expect will occur, but nothing but the test of time will tell.

They aren't in 'total control' of the Congress - there is still a Republican representation.

If the Republican party does move in the direction of Atheism and Socialism, then Christians need to form a political party that represents Christian Principles.

You are deliberately attempting to categorize Socialism as an unChristian ideology.

Do you really think God will accept a nation or a person that accepts the Atheistic Lifestyle of evolution, extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, adultery and homosexuality?

Nothing wrong with evolution. Next.
Socialism? What's wrong with a tiny bit of socialism? Do you really think Jesus would oppose it so rigorously that it is unChristian?

I don't think the Obama Administration has a "snow balls chance in hell" of success, but only time will tell. I believe a lot of people are going to suffer before there is a return to Christian Principles. In most cases a person and a nation has to hit rock bottom before they will admit they are wrong and God was right.

So long as they aren't the principles you claim to be Christian.

Kharak · Apr 30, 2009

clirus said:
I believe a lot of people are going to suffer before there is a return to Christian Principles. In most cases a person and a nation has to hit rock bottom before they will admit they are wrong and God was right

And when has this ever happened? That is, in the real world?

praying · Apr 30, 2009

The Nihilist said:
too long, didn't read

FedererFan said:
You did the right thing, my friend.

^^These!

flicka · Apr 30, 2009

Do you really think God will accept a nation or a person that accepts the Atheistic Lifestyle of evolution, extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, adultery and homosexuality?

Yes.
YOU won't accept them but that's why God is better than you.

jgarden · May 1, 2009

clirus said:
..... If the Republican party does move in the direction of Atheism and Socialism, then Christians need to form a political party that represents Christian Principles.

Do you really think God will accept a nation or a person that accepts the Atheistic Lifestyle of evolution, extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, adultery and homosexuality? .....

**********************************************************
With all due respect, the "Gospel According to Clirus" is nothing more than one individual's attempt to impose their ultraconcervative personal biases on others, under the guise of Christian Principles.

According to "Kingdom Ethics" by G. H. Stassen and D. P. Gushee, the largest single source of Christian ethical teaching in the Bible is the Sermon on the Mount (Beatitudes: Matthew 5:1-7, Luke 6:17-49) - many of which directly contradict "clirus' " stated positions.

SallyNow · May 2, 2009

What about the Democratic Socialistic Christians living in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York? There are millions of them, and they won't be happy getting treated like non-Americans especially considering that New York. I mean... HELLO. It's been the entry point to the USA for so long, it's kinda owed the title of New York, USA.

platzapS said:
My proposal: a bloc of the more conservative states secede:

Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. This is a contiguous piece of land that has access to trade with Canada. You've got lots of mineral wealth, natural beauty, and agricultural potential in the plains states. Good luck!

No. Forget it. We won't recognise them as a real country unless America gives us Canadians Vermont, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. And maybe give us Point Roberts and Northewest Angle, too, and all those other little crazy cool little places. And Alaska, but first relocate the Sarah Palin followers to, like, Utah or something.

clirus · May 11, 2009

SallyNow quote

Solid education and health care are both RIGHTS, not LUXURIES

Response

Is a Solid education and health care a RIGHT for a person that will not study or will not avoid unhealthy practices?

Maybe a statement of responsibilities is needed.

Nathan Poe · May 11, 2009

clirus said:
SallyNow quote

Solid education and health care are both RIGHTS, not LUXURIES

Response

Is a Solid education and health care a RIGHT for a person that will not study or will not avoid unhealthy practices?

Maybe a statement of responsibilities is needed.

One needs an education to learn what those unhealthy practices are.

For example -- you blame homosexuality for AIDS -- clearly more education is in order.

jgarden · May 11, 2009

clirus said:
SallyNow quote

Solid education and health care are both RIGHTS, not LUXURIES

Response

Is a Solid education and health care a RIGHT for a person that will not study or will not avoid unhealthy practices?

Maybe a statement of responsibilities is needed.

**********************************************************
Why is "clirus" so OBSESSED with those who might not act in a RESPONSIBLE MANNER or attempt to SCAM the system?

No system, including the current one, is immune from these abuses, but that does constitute a legitimate reason for sitting on our collective hands and not trying to create a better world.

clirus · May 12, 2009

jgarden quote

Why is "clirus" so OBSESSED with those who might not act in a RESPONSIBLE MANNER or attempt to SCAM the system?

No system, including the current one, is immune from these abuses, but that does constitute a legitimate reason for sitting on our collective hands and not trying to create a better world.

Response

The assumption is that a better world is being created by the acceptance of irresponsible behavior.

I believe health care/welfare/socialism is causing the percentage of dependent people to increase relative to the number of independent people. I believe this will ultimately lead to the collapse of society. Health care costs are rising at a much faster rate than the economy.

I believe the acceptance of irresponsible behavior is unacceptable.

I believe health care/welfare should be eliminated and Christian Principles of the Christian Family and Christian Charity to fellow Christians be used to replace government run health care/welfare.

There is no Biblical justification of government run health care/welfare and government run health care/welfare has been a failure.

Archaeopteryx · May 12, 2009

jgarden quote

Why is "clirus" so OBSESSED with those who might not act in a RESPONSIBLE MANNER or attempt to SCAM the system?

No system, including the current one, is immune from these abuses, but that does constitute a legitimate reason for sitting on our collective hands and not trying to create a better world.

Response

The assumption is that a better world is being created by the acceptance of irresponsible behavior.

I believe health care/welfare/socialism is causing the percentage of dependent people to increase relative to the number of independent people. I believe this will ultimately lead to the collapse of society. Health care costs are rising at a much faster rate than the economy.

I believe the acceptance of irresponsible behavior is unacceptable.

I believe health care/welfare should be eliminated and Christian Principles of the Christian Family and Christian Charity to fellow Christians be used to replace government run health care/welfare.

It seems fair enough to protest the provision of welfare in response to irresponsible lifestyle behaviour - at least in most cases it seems; but it does not logically follow that all welfare should be terminated as a result, since not all welfare is a subsidization of sinful behaviour. Indeed, subsidization of positive externalities is a great way of increasing the social benefits of particular economic activities, whilst Pigovian taxation can be imposed to offset the social costs imposed by negative externalities, thereby reducing such economic activities to a socially optimal level. Perhaps, Clirus, if you wanted to reduce the incidence or relevance of particular activities, economic or otherwise, because of the externalities that they impose on other members of society, it would be more apt and effective to propose taxation rather than the cutting of all subsidization (to even positive externalities that benefit society as a whole). The 'invisible hand' of the free market, identified by Adam Smith, simply does not operate successfully enough to ensure socially optimal levels of production or consumption; and it is interesting how a little bit of socialistic intervention can strike at this social optimum that an ordinary equilibrium between supply and demand fails to achieve.

There is no Biblical justification of government run health care/welfare and government run health care/welfare has been a failure.

I would suggest that there is no Biblical discourse on such ideas merely because the said ideas are post-Biblical. That's the trouble with trying to refer every idea you encounter to a literalist interpretation of Scripture: you will find that you must 'creatively' interpret verses to say more than they are actually saying in order to extrapolate comparative meaning onto new ideas that Biblical authors never even considered while penning their inspired thoughts.

clirus · May 13, 2009

bjspurple quote

It seems fair enough to protest the provision of welfare in response to irresponsible lifestyle behaviour - at least in most cases it seems; but it does not logically follow that all welfare should be terminated as a result, since not all welfare is a subsidization of sinful behaviour. Indeed, subsidization of positive externalities is a great way of increasing the social benefits of particular economic activities, whilst Pigovian taxation can be imposed to offset the social costs imposed by negative externalities, thereby reducing such economic activities to a socially optimal level. Perhaps, Clirus, if you wanted to reduce the incidence or relevance of particular activities, economic or otherwise, because of the externalities that they impose on other members of society, it would be more apt and effective to propose taxation rather than the cutting of all subsidization (to even positive externalities that benefit society as a whole). The 'invisible hand' of the free market, identified by Adam Smith, simply does not operate successfully enough to ensure socially optimal levels of production or consumption; and it is interesting how a little bit of socialistic intervention can strike at this social optimum that an ordinary equilibrium between supply and demand fails to achieve.

Response

What you are stating is that there should be a separation of good and evil and that good should be natured and evil should be rebuked.

I cannot even convince Christians to do this, let alone a secular world.

The problem is that after sin has been committed you are left with a situation that has no correct solution. The illegitimate baby is the product of the sin of the parents, but what do you do?

God does not say what to do with the illegitimate baby, but rather states, Thou shall not commit adultery (fornication). This is prevention and is the only real way to stop the need for health care/welfare.

Some would say that it would be wrong to enforce laws about adultery/fornication, but then there is a health care/welfare mess that cannot be resolved.

Either there needs to be laws or government funded health care/welfare needs to be terminated.

I favor terminating government funded health care/welfare because that is not the Purpose of Government.

Nathan Poe · May 13, 2009

clirus said:
What you are stating is that there should be a separation of good and evil and that good should be natured and evil should be rebuked.

I cannot even convince Christians to do this, let alone a secular world.

because Christians find your notions of good and evil to be warped and disturbing.

The problem is that after sin has been committed you are left with a situation that has no correct solution. The illegitimate baby is the product of the sin of the parents, but what do you do?

God does not say what to do with the illegitimate baby, but rather states, Thou shall not commit adultery (fornication). This is prevention and is the only real way to stop the need for health care/welfare.

There's always public stoning -- that'll clean up the problem biblically.

Some would say that it would be wrong to enforce laws about adultery/fornication, but then there is a health care/welfare mess that cannot be resolved.

Such laws would be completely unenforcable -- unless you've got a few ideas...

Either there needs to be laws or government funded health care/welfare needs to be terminated.

So people who make mistakes need to be left to die.

I favor terminating government funded health care/welfare because that is not the Purpose of Government.

I thought you favored it because you hate sin?

jgarden · May 16, 2009

clirus said:
jgarden quote

Why is "clirus" so OBSESSED with those who might not act in a RESPONSIBLE MANNER or attempt to SCAM the system?

No system, including the current one, is immune from these abuses, but that does constitute a legitimate reason for sitting on our collective hands and not trying to create a better world.

Response

The assumption is that a better world is being created by the acceptance of irresponsible behavior.

I believe health care/welfare/socialism is causing the percentage of dependent people to increase relative to the number of independent people. I believe this will ultimately lead to the collapse of society. Health care costs are rising at a much faster rate than the economy.

I believe the acceptance of irresponsible behavior is unacceptable.

I believe health care/welfare should be eliminated and Christian Principles of the Christian Family and Christian Charity to fellow Christians be used to replace government run health care/welfare.

There is no Biblical justification of government run health care/welfare and government run health care/welfare has been a failure.

**********************************************************

US CONSTITUTION - Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

**********************************************************
Their is no Biblical justification for governments based on democracy, a republican form of government, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, .........

clirus · May 16, 2009

jgarden quote

Their is no Biblical justification for governments based on democracy, a republican form of government, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, .........

Response

This may be true, but everything has to be something and the something usually represents a choice.

The choice for a government is to be Biblically Based/Christian or Humanistically Based/Atheistic.

No form of government or any human endeavor will be perfect, so the best we can do is to make chooses that best follows Biblical Christian Principles.

I believe Democracy, Christianity and Capitalism more closely follow Christian Principles than Democracy, Atheism and Socialism.

I believe you would prefer Democracy, Christianity and Socialism, but I have serious concerns that Christianity and Socialism can coexist because Socialism is soft on sin.

The states that I have identified for rejection from the United States are the ones that have chosen to advocate or accept Homosexual Marriage that represents a rejection of Christian Principles.

II Corinthians 6:14 states, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

Archaeopteryx · May 16, 2009

Their is no Biblical justification for governments based on democracy, a republican form of government, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, .........

Response

This may be true, but everything has to be something and the something usually represents a choice.

The choice for a government is to be Biblically Based/Christian or Humanistically Based/Atheistic.

No form of government or any human endeavor will be perfect, so the best we can do is to make chooses that best follows Biblical Christian Principles.

I believe Democracy, Christianity and Capitalism more closely follow Christian Principles than Democracy, Atheism and Socialism.

Then we should abandon Democracy and freedom of speech and gun rights and so on - the entire Constitution even - because none of those are explicitly Biblical principles, as jgarden has demonstrated. Neither is Capitalism explicitly a Biblical principle advocated by the Bible.

I believe you would prefer Democracy, Christianity and Socialism, but I have serious concerns that Christianity and Socialism can coexist because Socialism is soft on sin.

And how is unrestrained Capitalism - which can prove to be exploitative and transfigure human beings into commodities - any harder on sin than Socialism?

The states that I have identified for rejection from the United States are the ones that have chosen to advocate or accept Homosexual Marriage that represents a rejection of Christian Principles.

Your version of Christian principles.

II Corinthians 6:14 states, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

You have still to address the problem of what will occur when the remaining States on your side embrace - through the democratic process - socialistic policies. Will you ostracize them too until all you have is one totally Capitalist state? What happens when even that one State embraces a little bit of socialism? Is the United States finally reunited?

bigbadwilf · May 16, 2009

I'm surprised Clirus isn't trying to kick out all of the "blue" states. After all by electing someone whose policies are only slightly to the right of what europeans would consider the centre, they're clearly socialists in his book.

It does beg the question, after the United States of Clirus-stahn have seceded, would Canada like the entire eastern seaboard and most of the western seaboard? And how would the USC navy fare with only South Carolina, Georgia and Alaska to launch from?

jgarden · May 16, 2009

Atheistic/Socialist States to be removed from the Union - by "clirus"
************************************
Maine #13 ($1.41)
Vermont #26 ($1.08)
*********************
Rhode Island #33 (+ $1.00)
Massachusetts #40 (+ $0.82)
New York #42 (+ $0.79)
New Hampshire #47 (+ $0.71)
Connecticut #48 ($0.69)

Given that 5 of the 7 atheistic/socialist states on the "clirus'" hit-list contribute more to the federal government than they receive, they would be farther ahead financially if they separated from the United States - and left all those so-called morally correct capitalist/democratic states that follow Christian Principles to drown in a proverbial "sea of red ink."

Declaration of the Separation of the States of America

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Kharak

Guest

Snazzy Title Goes Here

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Blame it on the SOCK GNOMES!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Drinking from the glass half-empty

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency