LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Politics As Usual (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=580)

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 05-19-2004 04:37 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
As long as we're both saying it's not an inherent handicap, I think we agree that the decline was gradual in relation to the rise of the West. The West was probably passing the Islamic world by about 1540 or so. But I still don't see how the military and administrative failures that led to the losses of Spain, etc. were related to any dogmatic shift, which is how I would see the religion "causing" the economic stagnation. I don't think the converse has had all that profound effect in the same regions. For example, the rise of a secular Turkish republic has probably been a good thing, but I wouldn't say Turkey is leaps-and-bounds better off under the republic than under the Ottoman Empire, economically speaking.
Something you all may want to think about is the relative value of trade versus manufacture in economies of the different religious worlds. In the middle east and in southern Europe, the Catholic heartland, capital was drawn to and tied up in trade. Why weave cloth or silk when you can trade them both? The reason is that weaving leads to innovation and that the world economy that emerged from the middle ages was one that, except for the discovery of untapped natural resources in North America, was fed heavily by innovation. As innovation led to, for example, better sailing ships and sails, trade was also altered for the benefit of the manufacturing economies.

And if you look in the late middle ages, you find that the manufacturing centers tend to be England, Flanders, North Italy, and Anatolia -- but that those most exposed to competition from trade quickly fell from the running, with additional centers, like parts of Germany, just a bit off the beaten track, overtaking them.

--G3, economic determinist

Tyrone Slothrop 05-19-2004 04:39 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually what I was saying is that the burghers wanted the people to work hard and be pious (read: don't get all drunk and break things or be too sick to work six days a week), so to get them to act accordingly, they couched it in religious terms.

The culture was manipulated to bring about an economic advantage without having to provide real-world incentives, like a living wage, etc.
So it's a sixteenth-century conspiracy theory? There are all sorts of religious ideas floating around at any one time, and it's something of a mystery to say when Christianity took off instead of, e.g., Mithraic cults.* As I say, surely part of it is that the ideas resonate in light of the particular economic circumstances of the time, but it doesn't undermine the proposition that once the people believed that they should act like Elect, and not Damned, this had economic consequences. Which was kinda Weber's point.

* Like my periodic references to Capricorn One (which was on AMC last Sunday -- and what a good flick, too, with some solid acting by Orenthal James Simpson, who pretends to be an astronaut), I like to work in Mithraic cults now and then, if only to keep Atticus happy.

Not Me 05-19-2004 04:53 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Good thing your science and math regimen didn't addle your pretty little head with any US history.
Head on back to the FB with the other idiots, hun. You missed my point entirely.

You sure got that right about me being pretty, though.

Atticus Grinch 05-19-2004 04:55 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
it's something of a mystery to say when Christianity took off instead of, e.g., Mithraic cults.
Your sources suck. All hail Mithras, the Capped One, Sacred God of Morning and Slayer of the Bull of Ahura Mazda!

Replaced_Texan 05-19-2004 04:55 PM

No Release of Oil Reserves
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Any release would be outrageous. What part of "strategic" don't the dems understand? There is nothing to suggest that prices reflect a temporary shock. Demand for oil is high; production of oil is flat. Release from teh SPR will, at best, temporarily reduce those prices, only to see them bounce up again when the SPR is depleted (or we stop discharging from it). At that point, we'll be in a worse position to respond to a genuine shock, such as a blown up suez canal or something.

I love the Democratic position on gas prices:

"What are you doing Mr. president to keep gas prices low for working americans?"

Uh, trying to bring more domestic production into play, but being stymied by Democratic objections? Thanks, JFK. I know it's not your fault--you don't own any SUVs after all.
This Democrat is hoping that the shortage means they're going to start exploring for oil in Texas again.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 05-19-2004 05:00 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So it's a sixteenth-century conspiracy theory? There are all sorts of religious ideas floating around at any one time, and it's something of a mystery to say when Christianity took off instead of, e.g., Mithraic cults.* As I say, surely part of it is that the ideas resonate in light of the particular economic circumstances of the time, but it doesn't undermine the proposition that once the people believed that they should act like Elect, and not Damned, this had economic consequences. Which was kinda Weber's point.

* Like my periodic references to Capricorn One (which was on AMC last Sunday -- and what a good flick, too, with some solid acting by Orenthal James Simpson, who pretends to be an astronaut), I like to work in Mithraic cults now and then, if only to keep Atticus happy.
Aren't you about a millenium off in timing on figuring out why Christianity took off? I mean, that's an ancient world rather than middle ages type question, and was kind of sorted out sometime before Muhammed.

Not Me 05-19-2004 05:00 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
I'm saying that it was not the Catholics who drove the mass expansion of Europe and North America's economies in the 17th and 18th centuries.
If you are limiting it to that time frame, then I agree.

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
Which isn't to say they didn't participate, but only that their participation was in reaction to an ethic that arose form protestant dogmas. Protestants started working hard because Luther and Calvin told them that was how to get into heaven. Catholics started working harder because a) a little bit of Calvin rubbed off and b) their protestant neighbors were getting rich, and the Catholics are no fools.
I don't agree with that analysis.

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
ETA: See, Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
I do agree that the protestant version of Christianity is more accepting of capitalism than catholism.

taxwonk 05-19-2004 05:02 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So it's a sixteenth-century conspiracy theory? There are all sorts of religious ideas floating around at any one time, and it's something of a mystery to say when Christianity took off instead of, e.g., Mithraic cults.* As I say, surely part of it is that the ideas resonate in light of the particular economic circumstances of the time, but it doesn't undermine the proposition that once the people believed that they should act like Elect, and not Damned, this had economic consequences. Which was kinda Weber's point.

* Like my periodic references to Capricorn One (which was on AMC last Sunday -- and what a good flick, too, with some solid acting by Orenthal James Simpson, who pretends to be an astronaut), I like to work in Mithraic cults now and then, if only to keep Atticus happy.
I'm not disagreeing. I'm merely arguing Weber reversed cause and effect. This isn't an original thought. See another German philosopher, who did his best work in the reading room of the British Museum and had a tendency to fascinate the Russians and Chinese in the first half of the 20th Century.

Tyrone Slothrop 05-19-2004 05:03 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Aren't you about a millenium off in timing on figuring out why Christianity took off? I mean, that's an ancient world rather than middle ages type question, and was kind of sorted out sometime before Muhammed.
I'm not arguing about why Xty took off. Taxwonk is arguing that Protestant denominations took off because German and Scottish burgers were manipulating the masses, and I'm suggesting that this (1) is a little far-fetched, and (2) does not really undercut Max Weber's theories about the Protestant work ethic.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wonk
I'm not disagreeing. I'm merely arguing Weber reversed cause and effect. This isn't an original thought. See another German philosopher, who did his best work in the reading room of the British Museum and had a tendency to fascinate the Russians and Chinese in the first half of the 20th Century.
Why don't we split the difference and call it a dialectic? We'd make Hegel happy, and he tends to be forgotten these days. Maybe if the Russians and Chinese had been more comfortable with internal dissent.

But I'm not getting how Weber reversed cause and effect on your account. You have to go further and say it's all false consciousness, right? If so, why didn't Catholics fall for the same con?

taxwonk 05-19-2004 05:06 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not arguing about why Xty took off. Taxwonk is arguing that Protestant denominations took off because German and Scottish burgers were manipulating the masses, and I'm suggesting that this (1) is a little far-fetched, and (2) does not really undercut Max Weber's theories about the Protestant work ethic.
Actually, I was arguing that the "Protestant" work ethic wasn't really Protestant. It was merely an ecoomic phenomenon that happened to take root first in the Protestant nations.

bilmore 05-19-2004 05:10 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm rapidly getting the impression that, to you, everything good is definitionally the product of a culture, while everything bad is definitionally the product of a dogma.
I'm getting the impression that you think that I think that "culture" can coexist independent of an all-pervasive "dogma". I don't.

Quote:

In that context, your idiosyncratic use of "Islamics," which to date has managed to produce an easy "out" for you when you're called on your repeated failures to distinguish between Muslims and Islamicists, is starting to look more and more like a slur.
Slur? Ah, first you make the empty assertion above for a base, and then make your Hitler argument. I'm not quite clear as to how this is even remotely pertinent to what I said, but maybe the important point is, it doesn't have to be. The Hitler Option stands by itself, doesn't it?

Not Me 05-19-2004 05:10 PM

Kristol/Hume/Etc.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
To continue the prior topic . . .

I've been trying to educate you people on this for a while now. There are many conservatives that have been anti-war and/or critical of Bush's handling of Iraq. Kristol is one of them. I find him to be a rational, principled guy, though his predictions are often wrong.
They refuse to open their minds.

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think those of you who don't watch Fox News would like it. Yes there are conservative pundits on there, but it is clear who the pundits are. There are also liberal pundits as well - Juan Williams (NPR), Mara Liason (NPR), CC Collins (Time), Mort Kondrake (Roll Call) to name a few. Name another major news outlet with this kind of balance.
And the conservative pundits aren't all cut out of the same mold, either. They disagree with each other on some topics, too.

Fox News Watch is a good show, too. The panel is balanced with liberals like Neal Gabler and Jane Hall.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119535,00.html

bilmore 05-19-2004 05:14 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I liked your necromancer sig line better.

Tyrone Slothrop 05-19-2004 05:16 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm getting the impression that you think that I think that "culture" can coexist independent of an all-pervasive "dogma". I don't.
I'm confused by what you mean by "culture" and "dogma." Can you explain?

Tyrone Slothrop 05-19-2004 05:18 PM

Kristol/Hume/Etc.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
They refuse to open their minds.
Which is exactly why Gattigap turned the station to KPFA in disgust when he heard that Terri Gross was going to interview Kristol, and why I wouldn't be caught dead linking to a Kristol article, let alone reading one.

Not Me 05-19-2004 05:19 PM

No Release of Oil Reserves
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...1507&printer=1

Not sure on whether I agree with this, but I think I do.
I agree with it. The purpose of the reserve is not to artifically lower oil prices.

From what I have read, the price increase is a demand issue. The reved up economy of China, which is fueled by US demand for Chinese produced goods, is increasing the demand. China is a new factor in the oil suppy-demand balance and the market needs to adjust on its own without attempts to manipulate price.

It is admirable of Bush to be constrained on this. He could help himself in the election if he released them.

Did you just call me Coltrane? 05-19-2004 05:21 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Don't know if this has been posted:

According to the Economist, of the top ten US states in terms of average IQ, all but one voted for Gore in the last election. On the other hand, all of the bottom ten voted for Bush.


1. Connecticut (avg IQ: 113): Gore
2. Mass (111): Gore
New Jersey (111): Gore
4. New York (109): Gore
5. R.I. (107): Gore
6. Hawaii (106): Gore
7. Maryland (105): Gore
New Hampshire (105): Bush
9. Illinois (104): Gore
10. Delaware (103): Gore

40. Alabama (90): Bush
Louisiana (90): Bush
Montana (90): Bush
Oklahoma (90): Bush
S. Dakota (90): Bush
46. S. Carolina (89): Bush
Wyoming (89): Bush
48. Idaho (87): Bush
Utah (87): Bush
50. Mississippi (85): Bush

Tyrone Slothrop 05-19-2004 05:21 PM

No Release of Oil Reserves
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
It is admirable of Bush to be constrained on this. He could help himself in the election if he released them.
Not really. I can't believe that releasing oil would have any effect on prices, and he would simply be attacked on some other equally silly ground. But I did get a chuckle out of your attempt to paint Bush's leadership on this issue as a profile in courage.

Not Me 05-19-2004 05:24 PM

Kristol/Hume/Etc.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which is exactly why Gattigap turned the station to KPFA in disgust when he heard that Terri Gross was going to interview Kristol, and why I wouldn't be caught dead linking to a Kristol article, let alone reading one.
Therein lies the (or at least one) difference between me and you. I do read and listen to what liberals have to say. On occasion, I have even been persuaded by what they had to say when it made sense.

I don't pick my positions based on the Rep platform. I pick them by informing myself about the issues, which means listening to both sides. This is why I advocate positions on both sides of the political spectrum. Because I am not a blind partisan, but rather, a thinking person.

Tyrone Slothrop 05-19-2004 05:26 PM

Kristol/Hume/Etc.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Therein lies the (or at least one) difference between me and you. I do read and listen to what liberals have to say. On occasion, I have even been persuaded by what they had to say when it made sense.

I don't pick my positions based on the Rep platform. I pick them by informing myself about the issues, which means listening to both sides. This is why I advocate positions on both sides of the political spectrum. Because I am not a blind partisan, but rather, a thinking person.
You are, once again, the Queen of the Literal.

Hank Chinaski 05-19-2004 05:26 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Don't know if this has been posted:

According to the Economist, of the top ten US states in terms of average IQ, all but one voted for Gore in the last election. On the other hand, all of the bottom ten voted for Bush.


1. Connecticut (avg IQ: 113): Gore
2. Mass (111): Gore
New Jersey (111): Gore
4. New York (109): Gore
5. R.I. (107): Gore
6. Hawaii (106): Gore
7. Maryland (105): Gore
New Hampshire (105): Bush
9. Illinois (104): Gore
10. Delaware (103): Gore

40. Alabama (90): Bush
Louisiana (90): Bush
Montana (90): Bush
Oklahoma (90): Bush
S. Dakota (90): Bush
46. S. Carolina (89): Bush
Wyoming (89): Bush
48. Idaho (87): Bush
Utah (87): Bush
50. Mississippi (85): Bush
I'm willing to bet within any of the Gore states, those voting for bush had a higher average IQ than those voting for Gore.

Shape Shifter 05-19-2004 05:27 PM

a new thread!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
In that context, your idiosyncratic use of "Islamics," which to date has managed to produce an easy "out" for you when you're called on your repeated failures to distinguish between Muslims and Islamicists, is starting to look more and more like a slur.
I agree. I recommend that the slur be shortened to "Slamis" to sound more slurlike. It's also easier to spell than "camel schtuppers."

Did you just call me Coltrane? 05-19-2004 05:30 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm willing to bet within any of the Gore states, those voting for bush had a higher average IQ than those voting for Gore.
Hold on...I must climb down a few steps of the IQ ladder to understand this.

Fuck that. Too far.

The Larry Davis Experience 05-19-2004 05:33 PM

No Release of Oil Reserves
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Any release would be outrageous. What part of "strategic" don't the dems understand? There is nothing to suggest that prices reflect a temporary shock. Demand for oil is high; production of oil is flat. Release from teh SPR will, at best, temporarily reduce those prices, only to see them bounce up again when the SPR is depleted (or we stop discharging from it). At that point, we'll be in a worse position to respond to a genuine shock, such as a blown up suez canal or something.
Haven't been following this one too closely, but that article seems to indicate two different SPR policies are being proposed. The first is release of reserve oil into the market, which i agree would be shortsighted. The second (and the one that the article attributes to Kerry) is suspending further purchases until prices subside. That to me seems highly logical, both by avoiding paying the premium prices dictated by the current seller's market when the oil is not required to meet current needs and by reducing demand for the oil that is on the market. Am I missing something? Or are you decrying the former and not the latter?

Not Me 05-19-2004 05:33 PM

No Release of Oil Reserves
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Thanks, JFK. I know it's not your fault--you don't own any SUVs after all.
He doesn't own any private jets, either. His family owns them.

Tyrone Slothrop 05-19-2004 05:35 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm willing to bet within any of the Gore states, those voting for bush had a higher average IQ than those voting for Gore.
The same is not true of the voters who decided the election, although your guys' average was dragged down by Thomas.

Hank Chinaski 05-19-2004 05:36 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Hold on...I must climb down a few steps of the IQ ladder to understand this.

Fuck that. Too far.
Exactly. Most of what gore won was the inner cities, where IQ is on average low, either because of cultural bias in the test, or because you guys have fucked up on social policy. the blue/red imbalance is bad at a state level- look at it on county level and you'll see just how isolated you really are.

bilmore 05-19-2004 05:39 PM

No Release of Oil Reserves
 
Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Haven't been following this one too closely, but that article seems to indicate two different SPR policies are being proposed. The first is release of reserve oil into the market, which i agree would be shortsighted. The second (and the one that the article attributes to Kerry) is suspending further purchases until prices subside. That to me seems highly logical, both by avoiding paying the premium prices dictated by the current seller's market when the oil is not required to meet current needs and by reducing demand for the oil that is on the market. Am I missing something? Or are you decrying the former and not the latter?
I have no cite, but I am remembering Kerry calling for release of reserves into market, along with the halt to replenishment. Am I incorrect on this?

(Besides, as we get closer to the war with SA, we're going to need those reserves topped up.)

Did you just call me Coltrane? 05-19-2004 05:40 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly. Most of what gore won was the inner cities, where IQ is on average low, either because of cultural bias in the test, or because you guys have fucked up on social policy. the blue/red imbalance is bad at a state level- look at it on county level and you'll see just how isolated you really are.
Yes, all 5.5 million Cook County residents feel terribly isolated. Where is everyone?

The rest of Illinois is Indiana sans Mellencamp.

Tyrone Slothrop 05-19-2004 05:41 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly. Most of what gore won was the inner cities, where IQ is on average low, either because of cultural bias in the test, or because you guys have fucked up on social policy. the blue/red imbalance is bad at a state level- look at it on county level and you'll see just how isolated you really are.
Not to pick on a conservative for having a low IQ or anything, but the fact that Dems live in cities and Republicans live in the boondocks does not make the Dems "isolated."

The Larry Davis Experience 05-19-2004 05:41 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the blue/red imbalance is bad at a state level- look at it on county level and you'll see just how isolated you really are.
I haven't run the county numbers, so I'll have to trust you on that, but I was under the impression that imbalance between the blue and red states wasn't so "bad" for the last pres election.

Not Me 05-19-2004 05:44 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Don't know if this has been posted:

According to the Economist, of the top ten US states in terms of average IQ, all but one voted for Gore in the last election. On the other hand, all of the bottom ten voted for Bush.


1. Connecticut (avg IQ: 113): Gore
2. Mass (111): Gore
New Jersey (111): Gore
4. New York (109): Gore
5. R.I. (107): Gore
6. Hawaii (106): Gore
7. Maryland (105): Gore
New Hampshire (105): Bush
9. Illinois (104): Gore
10. Delaware (103): Gore

40. Alabama (90): Bush
Louisiana (90): Bush
Montana (90): Bush
Oklahoma (90): Bush
S. Dakota (90): Bush
46. S. Carolina (89): Bush
Wyoming (89): Bush
48. Idaho (87): Bush
Utah (87): Bush
50. Mississippi (85): Bush
What they should measure is the average IQ of the average Bush voter vs. the average Gore voter.

To do it by state and not by those who actually voted is not kosher. The states with the lower IQs, also have larger black populations percentage wise. Blacks don't do as well on IQ tests as whites.* Yet blacks voted overwhelmingly for Gore.

South Carolina and Mississippi's lower average IQ may very well be explained by their high percentage of black residents, who voted overwhelmingly for Gore. So you see, unless you look at the average IQ of the actual voters, your study is horribly confounded.

*look it up if you don't believe me. Of course, it is questionable whether an IQ test is a good method of testing intelligence.

Tyrone Slothrop 05-19-2004 05:45 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
The states with the lower IQs, also have larger black populations percentage wise. Blacks don't do as well on IQ tests as whites.* Yet blacks voted overwhelmingly for Gore.
You're forgetting that black conservatives really drag those numbers down. Black Democrats have higher than average IQ.

Hank Chinaski 05-19-2004 05:45 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not to pick on a conservative for having a low IQ or anything, but the fact that Dems live in cities and Republicans live in the boondocks does not make the Dems "isolated."
I thought you live in something county- not San Fransisco.

Tyrone Slothrop 05-19-2004 05:46 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought you live in something county- not San Fransisco.
I never said I'm smart, but I'm certainly not isolated.

The Larry Davis Experience 05-19-2004 05:47 PM

No Release of Oil Reserves
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I have no cite, but I am remembering Kerry calling for release of reserves into market, along with the halt to replenishment. Am I incorrect on this?
I don't know. I've been in a news blackout for the last few days. The Yahoo article that club posted attrributed the sale proposal to the nebulous unnamed democrats that always cause such consternation in articles like these. But perhaps this is the press's save-Kerry-from-his-own-stupidity bias showing.

Quote:

(Besides, as we get closer to the war with SA, we're going to need those reserves topped up.)
War with SA? I guess I picked the wrong week for a news blackout.

Did you just call me Coltrane? 05-19-2004 05:49 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not to pick on a conservative for having a low IQ or anything, but the fact that Dems live in cities and Republicans live in the boondocks does not make the Dems "isolated."
And lets see here:

Boondocks = less exposure to minorities, which means fear of minorities, which = REPUBLICANS!

Boondocks = less enlightenment via human interaction, which means turning to the bible for answers, which means hatred and fear of all change = REPUBLICANS!

Boondocks = no public transportation, which means giant SUVs, which means pollution/dependancy on oil = REPUBLICANS!

You guys are brilliant.

Shit, we cityfolk should up and leave anti-Atlas Shrugged-style and let you boonies roll around in your own shit!

bilmore 05-19-2004 05:50 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
sig line again
Too long. Pick something by Eliede or Otto that's pithier.

Not Me 05-19-2004 05:52 PM

Kristol/Hume/Etc.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are, once again, the Queen of the Literal.
inter alia

Hank Chinaski 05-19-2004 05:53 PM

Intelligenter than you!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
And lets see here:

Boondocks = less exposure to minorities, which means fear of minorities, which = REPUBLICANS!

Boondocks = less enlightenment via human interaction, which means turning to the bible for answers, which means hatred and fear of all change = REPUBLICANS!

Boondocks = no public transportation, which means giant SUVs, which means pollution/dependancy on oil = REPUBLICANS!

You guys are brilliant.

Shit, we cityfolk should up and leave anti-Atlas Shrugged-style and let you boonies roll around in your own shit!
I live in the second wealthiest county in the country, and one of the best educated. It went for Bush pretty strong. my town was 70% for Gore though.
But your arrogence is typical, and one of the reasons why your party is doomed. Save your campaign buttons; they'll be worth lquite a bit in 20 years. "Daddy what's a Democrat?"


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com