11/3    I'm seeing an argument around the net today that seems strangely
        compelling.  I think the most viable argument for blue states may
        be to start arguing strongly for federalism and states rights.
        The red states can have their theocracies, so long as they don't
        interfere with what the blue states want for themselves.  Less
        centralized federal government, less transfer of resources between
        states, and more equitable distribution of federal resources such
        as they would be constituted.  It would be a very uphill battle, but
        it strikes me as the only rational response.  What's really scary
        is that this is precisely the argument that led to the Civil War.
        \_ Do you even understand what you're saying?  It is only a strong
           Federal system that allowed the Civil Rights Movement to break  the
           evil (D)emocratic South/KKK.  It is only a strong Federal system
           that allows a poorly written legal opinion like Roe v. Wade to make
           abortion a nation wide right instead of each State being allowed to
           decide the issue for itself.  Same thing for a number of other
           issues I'm sure are close to your heart such as environmental laws,
           work place protection, health standards, OSHA, etc.  Calm down, stop
           reading the net for a week and *think* about what you're saying.
           Stop *feeling*.
        \_ good luck. Bush said he's gonna screw stem cell research,
           reduce abortion, and use YOUR tax money on programs like
           abstenence in public schools. And I pledge allegiance
           to the United States, under God...
           \_ The sheer horror of a reduced numbers of abortions, abstinence
              instead of random sex, and only 25 million in FED. FUNDED
              embryonic stem cells.  What is this country coming to?
        \_ Yay, decentralization, ho!  Maybe those crazy libertarians aren't
           as evil as they seem. -- ilyas
           \_ Most people don't think libertarians are evil or stupid.  They
              think they just oversimplify things.  Often, to simplify is
              to falsify.
           \_ I never thought they were evil, just a little naive.  Am I
              making a libertarian argument here?  I'm not arguing that the
              individual states should be libertarian - I'm sure the reds
              would want plenty of authoritarian power over people's personal
              lives, and I can imagine some blues wanting more socialized
              medicine etc. etc.  More power to them.  But it is clear that
              this nation is coming unglued, and we need to reach an
              equitable compromise.  The California stem cell law (which was
              flawed and which I opposed for various reasons) is one example
              of what could be possible.
              \_ Your argument is driven by practical considerations, but at
                 its core, and driven to its logical conclusion, it is
                 a libertarian argument.  If you have your way and the
                 federal gvt loses its former prominence, what's to stop
                 the recursion from proceeding further?  What if some
                 besieged county decides it wants more local power from
                 the state gvt, etc.  Libertarians are very happy to
                 see power localize in the communities. -- ilyas
              \_ I think your historical appreciation of US politics is
                 lacking.
                 \_ Prepare to be deported to Jesusland.
                 \_ Elaborate.
              \_ I think it's pretty obvious the Dems can't handle being
                 out of power.  Dems have controlled congress for, what,
                 50-100 years?  Now that power has shifted you're all
                 running around screaming about how the world is going to
                 end if we don't put you back in power.  Newsflash:
                 Democrat != Ruling Elite.  When Dem's were in power,
                 centalized goverment was good, now it's bad.  Go fig.
                 \_ Wow.  You're so partisan it's a little sickening.
                    NEITHER party wants to be out of power and both will
                    kick and scream like a stuck pig when deprived.
                    Attributing that to D as though it's unique to them and
                    sets them apart from R is just silly.  You've really
                    not been paying attention outside of the Rightwing echo
                    chambers/spin machine if you think it can be so easily
                    reduced to that.  I think mainly it's not about being
                    out of power as it's about a damaged, morally bankrupt
                    presidency that really has almost NOTHING in 4 years
                    that it can point to as a success.  This is what got
                    reelected.  Once the emotion dies down, and all the
                    recriminations and stupid gloating ease back, what's
                    going to be found is that D couldn't field a candidate
                    that had appeal to anyone other than other D's....which
                    led to a less ideal presidency being reelected since
                    the opposing view was unable to field anything better.
                    It's emarrassing for the D's, but really has little to
                    do with your infantile and absurdly facile 'analysis'.
                    Rise above your party's spin, kid -- that's what your
                    education is supposed help you with; critical reasoning
                    skills.
                   \_ "Kid" funny insult from a guy who can't even
                       remember back to 1995.
                       \_ Your contentless reply only goes to confirm my
                          opinion of you.  Here, have a lollipop.
                 \_ Did I say I was a Democrat?  I'm concerned about the
                    divide in the country and ways to solve it.
                    \_ I never said you were.
                       \_ Actually, your post rather strongly implied that.
                          \_ Your post strongly implied you were.  So
                             we're even.
                             \_ Uhm, seeing as you're replying to my first
                                post to this subthread, I'm forced to conclude
                                that you're an imbecile.
                                \_ Because you sign your post so everyone
                                   knows when YOU'RE posting huh?
                                   \_ Okay, fine.  We're BOTH imbeciles.
                                      \_ yeah.
                                         \_ Well, good!