15% of Canadians for Bush

[opebo]

Red is liberal nation, blue is conservative nation, and grey is moderate nation:


Liberal nation actually leads in EV's, with 215 compared to conservative nation's 146 and moderate nation's 177.  

President of liberal nation: Al Gore
President of Conservative nation: George W. Bush
President of moderate nation: Colin Powell

Pretty cool map.. but I'd prefer two geographically contiguous nations.  How would you split up the moderates between the other two?  Id sure  like to see MO on the conservatieve side..

[Dave from Michigan]

Michigan should not be on the liberal side but in the moderate group

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Hooray for President Powell!

Note that President Bush got an overwhelming number of "moderate nation's" votes

Red is liberal nation, blue is conservative nation, and grey is moderate nation:

Liberal nation actually leads in EV's, with 215 compared to conservative nation's 146 and moderate nation's 177.  

President of liberal nation: Al Gore
President of Conservative nation: George W. Bush
President of moderate nation: Colin Powell

[© tweed]

Everyone can post their own map of liberal/conservative/moderate nation so we can compare.

[opebo]

I would post a map of a divided nation, but alas don't know how.

[Gustaf]

Red is liberal nation, blue is conservative nation, and grey is moderate nation:


Liberal nation actually leads in EV's, with 215 compared to conservative nation's 146 and moderate nation's 177.  

President of liberal nation: Al Gore
President of Conservative nation: George W. Bush
President of moderate nation: Colin Powell

Border controls would be tough...

[Gustaf]

I would rather say that an agreement on facts have to be in place in order for a debate to be meaningful at all. People can draw different conclusions from facts, and it is often not objectively possible to distiguish who's right.

Yes and no.  Sometimes it is extremely obvious which party is contradicting themselves.  For example:  a Christian that believes they know more than Christ.

Let's not start this all over again...

If someone contradicts themself, then that is obviously different, but it is not always obvious if someone does.

[© tweed]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

[opebo]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

[Gustaf]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

[opebo]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

[Gustaf]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

Ah, but the clever way avoided a war, huh? Perhaps allowing people to create the kind of nations they actually want is a way of avoiding conflicts, instead of letting power hungry chauvinism rule the world?

[opebo]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

Ah, but the clever way avoided a war, huh? Perhaps allowing people to create the kind of nations they actually want is a way of avoiding conflicts, instead of letting power hungry chauvinism rule the world?

The point is there was going to be war no matter what - unless of course the British had stayed.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If someone contradicts themself, then that is obviously different, but it is not always obvious if someone does.

Professing to believe that Christ is God in the flesh while at the same time believing to know more than Christ is NOT reasonable.

If you believe it is reasonable then try explaining how a man would attain greater knowledge than God, assuming that God would be lacking in knowledge in the first place.

Makes no sense.  Which is why the idea has been floated as a clever excuse many times on this forum, yet a logical explanation has escaped all those adhering to its illogical conclusion.

Wisdom is proved right by her actions….or for a more secular equivalent – you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

What a can of worms this has become!  LOL

[Gustaf]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

Ah, but the clever way avoided a war, huh? Perhaps allowing people to create the kind of nations they actually want is a way of avoiding conflicts, instead of letting power hungry chauvinism rule the world?

The point is there was going to be war no matter what - unless of course the British had stayed.

You don't think there would've been a colonial war if the British had tried to keep India?? *VIETNAM, ALGERIA, KENYA, EVERY OTHER COLONY IN THE WORLD WITH SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION*

[Gustaf]

If someone contradicts themself, then that is obviously different, but it is not always obvious if someone does.

Professing to believe that Christ is God in the flesh while at the same time believing to know more than Christ is NOT reasonable.

If you believe it is reasonable then try explaining how a man would attain greater knowledge than God, assuming that God would be lacking in knowledge in the first place.

Makes no sense.  Which is why the idea has been floated as a clever excuse many times on this forum, yet a logical explanation has escaped all those adhering to its illogical conclusion.

Wisdom is proved right by her actions….or for a more secular equivalent – you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip.

I don't really want to have this debate on this thread, you should start a separate one for it: "Drudge reveals inconsistency in Atlas Forum posters religious stands" or something.

But I will admit that I don't have the kind of faith to accept anything that runs contrary to my own beliefs. I am not that kind of person, to do something blindly, which I suppose would be lack of faith to a true believer. But it's the way I am.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't really want to have this debate on this thread, you should start a separate one for it: "Drudge reveals inconsistency in Atlas Forum posters religious stands" or something.

Don't steal my thunder!  

---

But I will admit that I don't have the kind of faith to accept anything that runs contrary to my own beliefs. I am not that kind of person, to do something blindly, which I suppose would be lack of faith to a true believer. But it's the way I am.

Without a standard, you are blindly accepting whatever you feel is right, despite your claims.  

And you fully understand and comprehend that Christ viewed the word of God as the Light that shines in the darkness.  The problem is that you simply don’t like the Light’s opinion because you find its teachings harsh.  

But I got news for you:  I don’t like it either!  I don’t like the fact that Hell exists and in it multitudes will suffer continually for eternity.  I don’t like the fact that little girls are kidnapped and raped, while wondering where mommy and daddy are.  I don’t like the fact that I was born with a sinful nature that threatens my eternal existence.

But you know what?  God never asked us to like it, he simply asked us to accept his message as the Truth.

In fact, Jesus’ disciples didn’t like it either and many of his followers left him because they simply couldn’t accept the harshness of what Jesus was preaching.  And the scene is recorded for us:

John 6:60-69 Upon hearing [Jesus’ teaching], many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"…From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

Notice that Peter didn’t profess to like the message; rather he simply understood that ignoring the message wouldn't alter its truth.

[Gustaf]

I don't really want to have this debate on this thread, you should start a separate one for it: "Drudge reveals inconsistency in Atlas Forum posters religious stands" or something.

Don't steal my thunder!  

---

Sorry...

But I will admit that I don't have the kind of faith to accept anything that runs contrary to my own beliefs. I am not that kind of person, to do something blindly, which I suppose would be lack of faith to a true believer. But it's the way I am.

Without a standard, you are blindly accepting whatever you feel is right, despite your claims.  

And you fully understand and comprehend that Christ viewed the word of God as the Light that shines in the darkness.  The problem is that you simply don’t like the Light’s opinion because you find its teachings harsh.  

But I got news for you:  I don’t like it either!  I don’t like the fact that Hell exists and in it multitudes will suffer continually for eternity.  I don’t like the fact that little girls are kidnapped and raped, while wondering where mommy and daddy are.  I don’t like the fact that I was born with a sinful nature that threatens my eternal existence.

But you know what?  God never asked us to like it, he simply asked us to accept his message as the Truth.

In fact, Jesus’ disciples didn’t like it either and many of his followers left him because they simply couldn’t accept the harshness of what Jesus was preaching.  And the scene is recorded for us:

John 6:60-69 Upon hearing [Jesus’ teaching], many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"…From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

Notice that Peter didn’t profess to like the message; rather he simply understood that ignoring the message wouldn't alter its truth.

As I said before, I hope you're wrong but it doesn't really matter to me, at least not on a comprehensive level. I cannot go against my conscience, even if it would mean going against the law of the bible. I suppose it would look stupid to say that I rather go to hell, but that's the way it feels. I guess I haven't seen the light. I also think that God would see through me if I tried to pretend faith. I don't think making an anti-gay post to get into heaven would save me.

[Platypus]

his thread sucks all of a sudden. Well, not all of a sudden. It sucks from about page 5.

[© tweed]

Note that President Bush got an overwhelming number of "moderate nation's" votes

Also note that President Clinton got an overwhelming number of "moderate nation's" votes in 1996.

[Platypus]

BTW, whats Minnesota doing in the liberal nation? it should be gray...

[Gustaf]

his thread sucks all of a sudden. Well, not all of a sudden. It sucks from about page 5.

You talking about this thread? Why does it suck?

[Platypus]

B/C a great discussion on the integration of Canada became a discussion on individual members, and then you spent a couple of pages analysing the debate, and now its on an entirely different route.

Shouldn't we be trying to stick together? Don't let Rove win

[Gustaf]

B/C a great discussion on the integration of Canada became a discussion on individual members, and then you spent a couple of pages analysing the debate, and now its on an entirely different route.

Shouldn't we be trying to stick together? Don't let Rove win

Well, I'm sorry! *trying to create an offended air around myself*

I can see what you mean, though I do think that a decent debate on the debate is always nice...

But I don't really get the last part. I haven't fought with any Democrats anywhere?