Quantcast

Did you know that 47 states now have petitions to secede from the US? Does it Bother you that the United States is so divided?

Mr Chin 2012/11/14 23:17:56
It doesn't bother me that we are divided (details)
It bothers me that we are so divided (details)
Other (explain)
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Other states are in the process of petitioning for secession as well. Here is a link to more on that story...

http://times247.com/articles/obama-s-election-prompts-20-stat...
states
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Meako 2012/11/14 23:59:24 (edited)
    Other (explain)
    Meako
    +21
    States are not petitioning... A BUNCH OF WHINNY BABIES ARE.. I say let them....SORE FREAKING LOOSERS....!!!!

    conservatives whinny baby big girl panties

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • C. C. Rider 2012/12/02 17:05:43
    Other (explain)
    C. C. Rider
    +1
    The cons have fought hard to make sure this stays a divided nation in creating fear of a Black Man. Racism is their cup of tainted tea. By the way dear, I see you are doing your part in the lies. No FULL state has requested to receed, just a few hard core racist who will never accept a Black family in the White House. By the way, leave your American citizenship at the door. You are no American.


    kkk republicans kkk republicans david duke republican racist
  • Jrogers 2012/11/22 02:07:38
    Other (explain)
    Jrogers
    +1
    Well then, the signers should not be able to participate in any federally funded programs and that includes medicare and medicaid...let them play their stupid games - but it would cost them if I ran the show
  • littleb... Jrogers 2012/12/02 23:27:14 (edited)
    littlebuffalo55TBA
    Ah so that would mean they would not have to send their taxes to the Feds?

    You can cash me out of SS right now! Give me what I have paid in with 5% compounded interest and I'm good! Oh and I'll take the very same in what I have paid in to Medicare!
  • tom Savage 2012/11/21 16:40:27
    Other (explain)
    tom Savage
    Disgruntled voters now have petitions from 50 States. You can find them on the White House web site and sign if you are inclined to do so. If you are in favor of secession you will be sorely disappointed at the lack of numbers agreeing with you.

    Nevertheless, it does not take an American history expert to recognize this is not unprecedented. Only on very rare occasion have we Americans not been polarized. WWI and WWII are two of those rare occasions when unity prevailed. Otherwise, going all the way back to the signing of the Declaration of Independence (and before) we were at one another's throats. Although the Colonies had been at war with England for over a year when the Declaration was signed (actually on August 2nd not July 4th) there was much passionate disagreement that acts of violence we not uncommon. While a majority of the Colonies eventually ratified it don't think for a minute the people were unified. And, that was just our beginning. The next 12 years leading up to ratification of the Constitution (which passed by the slimmest of margins) were some of the most turbulent years in our history. Or shortly thereafter in 1794 when Washington road at the head of a 15,000 man army into Pennsylvania to quell the "Whisky Rebellion".

    Take time to review the 50 y...

    Disgruntled voters now have petitions from 50 States. You can find them on the White House web site and sign if you are inclined to do so. If you are in favor of secession you will be sorely disappointed at the lack of numbers agreeing with you.

    Nevertheless, it does not take an American history expert to recognize this is not unprecedented. Only on very rare occasion have we Americans not been polarized. WWI and WWII are two of those rare occasions when unity prevailed. Otherwise, going all the way back to the signing of the Declaration of Independence (and before) we were at one another's throats. Although the Colonies had been at war with England for over a year when the Declaration was signed (actually on August 2nd not July 4th) there was much passionate disagreement that acts of violence we not uncommon. While a majority of the Colonies eventually ratified it don't think for a minute the people were unified. And, that was just our beginning. The next 12 years leading up to ratification of the Constitution (which passed by the slimmest of margins) were some of the most turbulent years in our history. Or shortly thereafter in 1794 when Washington road at the head of a 15,000 man army into Pennsylvania to quell the "Whisky Rebellion".

    Take time to review the 50 year period leading up to the Civil War and you will liken today as sunny walk on the beach.

    So, your question"does it bother....."? I suppose so. I defended their right to petition Government, even for secession, while a member of our armed forces. I will defend that right, and all others than come with citizenship, with all my might. That's just who we are and how we act. I remember the 60s and 70s like they were yesterday and they weren't all that pretty like Kent State in 1970 (there are so many more). What would really bother me is if they actually attracted enough signatures. I trust that will not happen. If it does then ask the question again and I give a different response.
    (more)
  • Carl 2012/11/21 02:23:57
    Other (explain)
    Carl
    It is a reflection of our loss pertaining to the "rule of law" plus the recognition of voter fraud incidents in the past election where candidates are getting more votes than the actual number of registered voters.
  • tom Savage Carl 2012/11/21 17:10:00
    tom Savage
    +1
    Please send me a credible source for that claim "more votes than the actual number of registered voters."

    Every source I can find discredits any claim of voter fraud from either side.
  • Carl tom Savage 2012/11/22 01:19:26
    Carl
    Allen West in Florida and reports from Ohio.
  • tom Savage Carl 2012/11/23 15:17:54
    tom Savage
    +1
    LOL!!! Those are unfounded claims that have been disproved by all fact checkers. Roomers and false claims aside, do you have any credible actual evidence?
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/11/23 22:31:37 (edited)
    jeane
    Do you actually expect any journalist to (gulp)"investigate"? LOL!!!!!!!
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/11/26 14:47:08
    tom Savage
    Yes I do expect that. It is always best to cross check the fact checkers with each other. the credible ones list their research data and conclusions.

    Source:

    http://www.politifact.com/flo...

    Please take time to read and independently research the facts in the Allen West campaign's claim of voter fraud in precinct 93
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/11/26 21:22:53
    jeane
    LOL - yes of course - not who will fact check the fact checkers. No journalists do NOT investigate the Owebama administration.
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/11/26 21:28:02
    tom Savage
    Oh how in denial you are. You think that everything Obama says is OKed by the fact checkers? You really should get off of the RWNJ web sites and venture out into the wider world. Try this on for size.

    http://www.factcheck.org/tag/...
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/11/27 13:58:17 (edited)
    jeane
    +1
    No or he wouldn't have stated that it was not Al Qaeda in Benghazi. He knew almost immediately the truth. His lackeys are NOT asking the questions. The American people are.
  • Carl tom Savage 2012/11/24 20:41:07
    Carl
    I have to disagree with you. Which fact checker did you use?
  • tom Savage Carl 2012/11/26 14:47:42
    tom Savage
    +1
    Here is the story and the research:
    http://www.politifact.com/flo...
  • Carl tom Savage 2012/11/27 00:11:14
    Carl
    Thank you
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/11/23 22:32:49
    jeane
    Credible sources - ones that presumaby you accept. We all know the "credbible sources" are told what to print. Case closed.
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/11/26 14:49:11
    tom Savage
    No, we don't all know that.
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/11/26 21:23:34
    jeane
    You are free to believe whatever Obie and Co. puts out Tom.
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/11/26 21:35:00 (edited)
    tom Savage
    Yes I am free to do that. However, I choose not to. Distortion of events and facts is a political reality for either side. I choose to read both distortions and research the facts. In doing so I also look and the agenda of the distorter.

    I don't defend Obama. As you will see in the link I sent you above, neither does FactCheck.org, or for that matter Politicafact.com. When he lies he is called out.

    Your assertion that the media is told what to print is ridiculous. Nothing could be further from the truth. The media likes nothing better than to uncover scandal and coverup.
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/11/27 14:00:14
    jeane
    The lamestream media speaks what they are told. True journalism among our MSM died decades ago. Volumes from their own ranks has been written on the subject.
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/11/27 16:23:56
    tom Savage
    Please share some of those volumes with me.
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/11/28 14:14:08
    jeane
    Not hard to find books obama hates fox news
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/11/28 14:15:59 (edited)
    jeane
    Google them - there are many volumes. is journalism in america dead
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/11/27 16:53:08
    tom Savage
    On the web site conservapedia.com discribing mainstream media bias they list one example:

    "Examples include:
    Without any evidence of church attendance or Bible-reading by the defendant accused of murdering 92 people in Norway, the headline of the leading Australian newspaper declared, "Norway suspect 'fundamentalist Christian.'"[2] The headline appears to be based in part on a Facebook page that was likely not even authentic."

    The lone cited example by the conservative media watchers is an unnamed "leading newspaper" from Australia. REALLY!!! Surely, with all of your ranting about media bias you can provide better than that.
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/11/28 14:19:22
    jeane
    I haven't provided anything - the American people have AND not just recently. This as far back as 2009.

    Poll: Big Majorities Say Objective Journalism Is Dead and that Media Back Obama
    Two-thirds (67.9 percent) of Americans surveyed think that "objective and fair journalism is dead," while an overwhelming 89.3 percent believe the news media played a role in the election of President Barack Obama.
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/12/01 17:09:57
    tom Savage
    I accept this is how you FEEL. You cite POLL..... But you omit the pollster, questions asked, and who was polled. Pollsters manipulate results to serve their own agenda. Please provide the poll(s) so I might independently review the accuracy of this claim. Some polls can be worthy if conducted properly. We as readers have a duty to assure our opinions are not swayed by unscrupulous agenda driven pollsters, or journalists in disguise.

    I seek to find if you can articulate the basis of your opinions. The fact that you have an opinion is evidence that you have formulated that it based on some experience or knowledge I may not have. Please share with me basis and the source of your knowledge.
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/12/01 18:30:03
    jeane
    Then I guess all polls are suspect. Everyone cites polls as you well know. Please - conduct your own poll. This has been going on for years. The polls DO seem to be consistently bearing our the facts. You however are free to believe as you wish.
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/12/01 19:55:40
    tom Savage
    Again I must ask. What facts and from what polls? Sure, most of us like to watch polls. We each have those we trust and those we do not. Are you avoiding the question? What is the source of your knowledge? What polls are you relying on? What supports your opinion?
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/12/02 23:20:12
    jeane
    +1
    I don't need to avoid any question. I am certain that even you can google this information. It is notorious!

    Pew: 75% of Americans say journalists can’t get their facts straight


    by Julie Moos
    Published Sep. 23, 2011 11:45 am
    Updated Sep. 23, 2011 12:03 pm
    Pew
    Americans trust local news organizations more than any other source — including national news orgs, government and business. But that’s not saying much.

    Only one-quarter of those surveyed say news orgs get the facts right, a new low since 1985 when the question was first asked. Two-thirds (66 percent) say stories are often inaccurate, a new high. And nearly three-quarters of Americans believe that journalists try to cover up their mistakes, rather than admit them.



    While Republicans have long held negative views of the media, Democrats and independents are increasingly critical of it.

    The survey finds that the growth in negative attitudes toward the news media in recent years in several key areas has come among Democrats and independents. … In 2007, 43% of Democrats and 56% of independents said stories were often inaccurate. Since then, the percentage of Democrats expressing skepticism about the accuracy of news reports has increased by 21 points to 64%, and the percentage of independents saying this has grown by 10 points. Repub...






    I don't need to avoid any question. I am certain that even you can google this information. It is notorious!

    Pew: 75% of Americans say journalists can’t get their facts straight


    by Julie Moos
    Published Sep. 23, 2011 11:45 am
    Updated Sep. 23, 2011 12:03 pm
    Pew
    Americans trust local news organizations more than any other source — including national news orgs, government and business. But that’s not saying much.

    Only one-quarter of those surveyed say news orgs get the facts right, a new low since 1985 when the question was first asked. Two-thirds (66 percent) say stories are often inaccurate, a new high. And nearly three-quarters of Americans believe that journalists try to cover up their mistakes, rather than admit them.



    While Republicans have long held negative views of the media, Democrats and independents are increasingly critical of it.

    The survey finds that the growth in negative attitudes toward the news media in recent years in several key areas has come among Democrats and independents. … In 2007, 43% of Democrats and 56% of independents said stories were often inaccurate. Since then, the percentage of Democrats expressing skepticism about the accuracy of news reports has increased by 21 points to 64%, and the percentage of independents saying this has grown by 10 points. Republican views have held fairly steady: 69% see stories as often inaccurate, little changed from four years ago (63%). …

    Even on issues where there continue to be substantial partisan differences, such as in views of political bias and whether the media is too critical of America, the gaps have narrowed. … Three-quarters of Republicans (76%) say news organizations are politically biased, a view shared by 54% of Democrats. …
    Four years ago, Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to view the news media as too critical of America (63% vs. 23%). But in the current survey, far fewer Republicans (49%) say this, while the proportion of Democrats that see the press as too critical of America has grown eight points to 31%. …
    For the first time in a Pew Research Center survey, as many say that news organizations hurt democracy (42%) as protect democracy (42%).
    Americans rate more highly the particular news sources they use. And they continue to get their news first from television, then the Internet, newspapers and radio. About a quarter get news through social networks. Most interesting, almost three-quarters (73 percent) of those who do say they “mostly just get the same news and information they would get elsewhere. Just 27% say the news they get over social networking sites is different than the news they get elsewhere.”

    Taken together, the findings indicate negative opinions about media are higher than ever, Pew shows.
    (more)
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/12/02 23:21:46
    jeane
    +1
    MANY MORE where this came from - keep looking Tom....

    Gallup is out this morning with a new poll that contains a damning indictment of the mainstream media. 60% of Americans, an all-time high, do not trust the mass media to accurately or fairly report the news. Mind you, that isn't 60% of Republicans or conservatives, but Americans of all political persuasions.
    From Gallup:
    The record distrust in the media, based on a survey conducted Sept. 6-9, 2012, also means that negativity toward the media is at an all-time high for a presidential election year. This reflects the continuation of a pattern in which negativity increases every election year compared with the year prior. The current gap between negative and positive views -- 20 percentage points -- is by far the highest Gallup has recorded since it began regularly asking the question in the 1990s. Trust in the media was much higher, and more positive than negative, in the years prior to 2004 -- as high as 72% when Gallup asked this question three times in the 1970s.
    Last year, Gallup found that almost half of Americans (47%) believed the mainstream media had a liberal bias. Unsurprisingly, Republicans are the most distrustful of the media. Only 26% felt they could trust the media to accurately report the news. This is actually s...





    MANY MORE where this came from - keep looking Tom....

    Gallup is out this morning with a new poll that contains a damning indictment of the mainstream media. 60% of Americans, an all-time high, do not trust the mass media to accurately or fairly report the news. Mind you, that isn't 60% of Republicans or conservatives, but Americans of all political persuasions.
    From Gallup:
    The record distrust in the media, based on a survey conducted Sept. 6-9, 2012, also means that negativity toward the media is at an all-time high for a presidential election year. This reflects the continuation of a pattern in which negativity increases every election year compared with the year prior. The current gap between negative and positive views -- 20 percentage points -- is by far the highest Gallup has recorded since it began regularly asking the question in the 1990s. Trust in the media was much higher, and more positive than negative, in the years prior to 2004 -- as high as 72% when Gallup asked this question three times in the 1970s.
    Last year, Gallup found that almost half of Americans (47%) believed the mainstream media had a liberal bias. Unsurprisingly, Republicans are the most distrustful of the media. Only 26% felt they could trust the media to accurately report the news. This is actually similar to levels registered in 2008.
    The biggest shift is with Independents. Less than a third of Independents, 31%, felt they could trust the mass media. This represents a big drop from 2008.
    As a result, only 39% of Americans say they very closely follow the mainstream media for news about national politics this election year. This, too, is a sharp drop from 2008.
    The media has long had at least a slight liberal bias, but changes in technology and the market have pushed it much further left. In decades past, the media could act as a gatekeeper and decide what was and wasn't news. They could push coverage favorable to liberals, but few people realized they were doing this. They were able to give an unnoticed and subtle nudge to politics.
    They can't do that anymore. They may ignore the news that the events in Libya were a terrorist attack rather than a riot, for example, but the information will still get out. They may try to ignore the economic slowdown, but people still feel the results. The media can no longer control information. As a result, rather than gatekeepers, they have become active participants in the political battles. Their liberal partisan bias is now obvious to everyone.
    The good news is that fewer people are paying attention.
    Note: Gallup's question only focused on mass market mainstream media, i.e. newspapers, TV and radio. It did not survey internet news operations, where biases are often openly admitted. For example, everyone knows Politico and Huff Post are left-wing, while sites like this one and Daily Caller lean right. It would be interesting to compare trust levels between mainstream and on-line media
    (more)
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/12/03 16:40:46
    tom Savage
    Thanks for the detailed and concise response. You clearly state what polls show people think. We can probably agree that why they think so is due to erosion of journalistic ethic and rise of profiteering from journalism. News as entertainment is big business.

    It should not go without notice that PBS has been found the most trusted news source:

    http://www.publicpolicypollin...

    It shouldn't be Ironic that the non-profit is the most trusted.

    Nevertheless, these just tell us what we think or believe. While I like to know this I prefer to go deeper and check the accuracy of claims/statements. For this I choose several sources for comparison:

    PolitiFact.com
    Factcheck.org
    Snopes.com
    Washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...

    When I find three of four agree I have some confidence the truth is revealed.

    I suppose its our nature to gather with those with whom we agree. Self-affirming discourse tends to give us confidence that we are right and provide some feeling of security.

    In an effort to break away from that security blanket I choose to explore, or dig deeper. I do this by using several sources for basic information and then cross checking with the fact checkers listed above. That doesn't make me right but I think I get closer to right than I would otherwise.

    I also like to discourse with folks ...



    Thanks for the detailed and concise response. You clearly state what polls show people think. We can probably agree that why they think so is due to erosion of journalistic ethic and rise of profiteering from journalism. News as entertainment is big business.

    It should not go without notice that PBS has been found the most trusted news source:

    http://www.publicpolicypollin...

    It shouldn't be Ironic that the non-profit is the most trusted.

    Nevertheless, these just tell us what we think or believe. While I like to know this I prefer to go deeper and check the accuracy of claims/statements. For this I choose several sources for comparison:

    PolitiFact.com
    Factcheck.org
    Snopes.com
    Washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...

    When I find three of four agree I have some confidence the truth is revealed.

    I suppose its our nature to gather with those with whom we agree. Self-affirming discourse tends to give us confidence that we are right and provide some feeling of security.

    In an effort to break away from that security blanket I choose to explore, or dig deeper. I do this by using several sources for basic information and then cross checking with the fact checkers listed above. That doesn't make me right but I think I get closer to right than I would otherwise.

    I also like to discourse with folks like you who I may disagree with etiologically but who I can learn from.

    One thing I'm confident of is that when Senator X makes a statement at a news conference he/she is pursuing an agenda and is more than likely spinning. Next, I'm confident that when reporter Y tells me what Senator X said and why he/she said it I am hearing more spin. I have not found a better way to uncover truth than to spend time doing the research myself.

    Thanks for your time.
    (more)
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/12/03 18:00:45 (edited)
    jeane
    If three of four agree then you agree? - not surprised.
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/12/03 20:54:22
    tom Savage
    There's no guarantee but it does make the odds better.

    Do you have a specific issue you would like to fact check together?
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/12/04 14:40:04 (edited)
    jeane
    Fact checkers are indicators - not gospel to me.

    You are free to stick with your odds. What are the odds we will ever pay off our national debt? How high do you think it will go? When does our world fall off the fiscal cliff and food riots begin?
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/12/04 20:08:36
    tom Savage
    +1
    It would not be good to pay off the full debt. A debt to GDP ration around 75% is healthy. The current rate of 95% is about 20 points too high. It is imperative we start bringing it down. So, the odds of paying it off are 0%. Over the next ten years the debt will probably rise by 10% while the GDP increases 30%. With good behavior by our leaders we should have a deal to begin reducing the deficit by Christmas. Doom and gloom like food riots? That is happening elsewhere around the globe but don't expect it here.

    The crisis was averted. A slide into financial ruin is still possible but seems unlikely now that both sides are willing to make a move. Expect a deal with much of the Simpson Bowles Commission report recommendations being adopted.
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/12/04 22:50:18
    jeane
    No debt is healthy. Borrower is servant to the lender. The debt will continue to rise and we will continue to be enslaved to it. Financial ruin will come sooner or later - but it will come.
  • tom Savage jeane 2012/12/04 23:02:54
    tom Savage
    LOL!! YOu are are a real buzz kill. Cheer up its not that bad.
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/12/05 14:19:17
    jeane
    MMM - I think it is this time Tom.
  • jeane tom Savage 2012/12/04 21:00:47 (edited)
    jeane
    Wish that were true. A father in grief would be able to rest easier. benghazi victim s father woods
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/01 07:57:34

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals