Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Wasn't the GOP the party of the rich and Big Oil about a week ago?

Now they're the uneducated, rural poor.

Funny dat.

You won. Why do you still have to feign stupidity?

The GOP is the party of the big and rich. Its also the party of the poor/middle class uninformed. Sorry I forgot to put that in. I forgot I was writing to "simple" GOP folk.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Meanwhile, Today interviewed a woman from Kenyon College, who waited in line for 13 hours (or something--2 machines 1300 students). She was asked to explain why, as a Maryland resident, she was voting in Ohio. "Well, I thought my vote here was more important because it's a battleground state."

There are limitations for a reason--why shouldn't they be enforced?

This is a non sequitor to my comment.

It would seem that the characterization of the young woman as a Maryland resident is tautological, and incorrect. She may be from Maryland, and her family may live in Maryland, but she's an Ohio resident, since residency is largely self-defined (see, e.g. Bush I being a resident of (income tax free) Texas in the 1970s (despite having no house there), Bush II being a resident of (home of empires) Midland, and Cheney being a resident of (not Texas, no, definitely not Texas, that would violate the Constitution)Wyoming). I see this as only an issue if people attempt to place a vote in more than one place.

Choosing the location of one's residency is the priviledge of two main categories of people: those rich enough to afford two houses, and college students. Deal with it.

As an aside, I made exactly the same choice that this woman did when I was in college, although I didn't have to change states. The local elections in my college town were much more important to me, and much closer races, than where my parents lived.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I don't understand this at all. If the reps controlled 80% of the popular and the dems controlled 20% and the gap on political commonalities between the two parties was even greater than it is today, the reps would be emboldened to completely fuck the 20% who didn't share their views. That's significant. And that's what is happening now and will continue to happen because of this shift in power and gap of commonalities.

TM

Yes this is true. I meant it's meaningless as a reflection of the divide.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I was interested to see your response to what I posted because I knew you were a little bitch. Since it has been confirmed, back on ignore you go.

See ya, but that makes no sense becuase you started this exchange.

You do your cause more harm than good to scream racism everytime someone says anything bad about a black person. And in my opinion, Tiger woods does have internalized racism problems as do many black men who choose to marry white women over black women. Not all, but please, don't insult my intelligence by saying that this never happens. It happens quite frequently. Saying the problem doesn't exist does nothing to help to solve the problem.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is not why I voted for Bush. I voted for him because I believe in the long term view that democracy in the Middle East is the best way to secure our long term safety.

I believe it would be far more effective to bribe totalitarian regimes. Not that I'm advocating this, but if our long-term safety is the primary goal, powerful centralized governments friendly to us are absolutely the way to go.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by cheval de frise
I don't post here, but I saw this while checking out the post-election fallout and I'm compelled to respond. I grew up in a Southern "red" state. Down there, many people react to the term "cracker" the same way most good people react to terms like "kike," "spic," "wop," etc. It doesn't help your argument to use names like this. (It looks like most of the posters here are democratic-city, non-red-state types who don't appreciate what the word "cracker" actually means to people outside the cocktail-party circuit. I think Burger gently tried to make this point too.)



Hmmmmnn. Let me ask you a question. Historically, taking New York state as an example, are NYC (and Buffalo) net importers or exporters of tax dollars (putting aside 9/11 monies)? Isn't the rest of New York state essentially suburban/rural? I've lived here for 10 years, and this has repeatedly been a NY state-wide election issue - the rest of "upstate" NY, which tends to tilt more conservative, subsidizing New York City with their tax dollars. I don't know the precise stats but I'm curious. Does this actually hold true?

I'm wary of any broad-based argument that the coasts "produce" more than the middle of the country and are net exporters of tax revenue to red states. The anecdotal and partial economic data I've seen suggest that the real division is urban/ex-urban. Large, blue-leaning cities seem to be net IMPORTERS of state and national tax revenue (Detroit being one of the clearest examples, but there are many more).

Discuss.

Best first post ever

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is not why I voted for Bush. I voted for him because I believe in the long term view that democracy in the Middle East is the best way to secure our long term safety.

Thats a valid reason to have done so. Or, if you make a good buck and believe his econ policies are better for you, thats another good reason.

But if you're poor/middle class/unemployed and you voted for Bush for econ/tax reasons, you're a rube.

If you voted for Bush for social conservative reasons, you're everything wrong with this country.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I believe it would be far more effective to bribe totalitarian regimes. Not that I'm advocating this, but if our long-term safety is the primary goal, powerful centralized governments friendly to us are absolutely the way to go.

Huh? 19 of the 21 hijackers were saudis.

FYI - We have tried that approach and it doesn't work. You need to read a history book.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by cheval de frise
I'm wary of any broad-based argument that the coasts "produce" more than the middle of the country and are net exporters of tax revenue to red states. The anecdotal and partial economic data I've seen suggest that the real division is urban/ex-urban. Large, blue-leaning cities seem to be net IMPORTERS of state and national tax revenue (Detroit being one of the clearest examples, but there are many more).

I think this is wrong, at least on a blue-state/red-state basis. Blue states tend to send the federal government more revenue than they get back. Red states tend to get more federal expenditures than they send in revenue. I've posted this data here before, and if I can find it and post it again, I will.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Not Me
After all, all whites in the south are racists by definition aren't they? .

In my home red state, the majority of the white people I knew were racist. Actually, I would say that at least 70% of the people I have ever known in that state have been somewhat racist. I heard more racist jokes in two evenings in that state than I've ever heard in 6 years in the city.

Wink wink nod nod.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
What do the GOPers here think -- Thomas for Chief Justice?

Are you kidding me? And relive Anita Hill, now with more evidence?

It depends a bit on the order of retirements, but with Rehnquist's health what it appears to be, I would expect Bush to nominate a woman as Chief (not Sandy), and then either Gonzales or Estrada as associate.

Rehnquist will submit his resignation, effective upon the confirmation of a successor, by the middle of December. Although if the media-doctors have it right, it will be effective upon death instead (which is a sad way to go out, regardless of your views of his legal thinking).

I doubt Sandy will retire this year--probably one more for her, although one never knows.

Stevens I think will hold out as long as possible. If Bush has appointed a woman (Edith Jones? A better choice until her screed on the rehearing of Roe) and an hispanic (Gonzales or Estrada), then it's white-male time: Luttig or Alito.

[cheval de frise]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Calm, sensible, reasoned commentary and questions on what the GOP will do with their victory.

I don't know, but the thought of "Chief Justice Clarence Thomas" makes me sick. I think O'Connor should be C.J., but her vote to uphold Roe will disqualify her in the minds of Bush's people. Scalia is even more polarizing than Thomas. Kennedy or Souter? No way.

Even if you put politics and other issues aside, I can't believe that a Justice who refuses to ask questions at oral argument (apparently because of some ill-defined, incomprehensible "principle") could be fit to lead the Court. (God forbid that you might learn something from asking a question).

On the economic side of things, I have no problem with keeping taxes where they are instead of increasing them on high-wage earners. (A system in which the top 5% of wage earners pay 50% of the nation's income taxes, and the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes, is "progressive" enough from my point of view.) But the Bush administration and the Republican-controllled Congress have abandoned any semblance of fiscal discipline or restraint.

Maybe the Republicans should get a Capital One credit card and a DiTech federal-land equity loan. That way, they can make one nice, low, consoldated monthly payment and put us on the path to solvency!

CDF

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
In my home red state, the majority of the white people I knew were racist. Actually, I would say that at least 70% of the people I have ever known in that state have been somewhat racist. I heard more racist jokes in two evenings in that state than I've ever heard in 6 years in the city.

Sounds like you ran with a bad crowd.

[Santorum]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Is Bush out of touch on how the American people feel about morals values? I live in a blue state. Last night 59% of it voted to ban gay marriage. That shit confuses and scares me, but it's evidence that there isn't a huge divide. You and I, we're the minority.

On the other hand we may get through it okay socially. I think that given the senate Bush will have to appoint semi-moderates to the Supreme Court, and abortion will be safe. Gay rights? The Supreme Court said sex is ok. Gay marriage, the 2 sides were similar, other than the pandering re. an amendment. also, it is quite possible Bush, w/o anything to run for, will move away from the crazy on moral values.

I'm late to this party, but what the hell. . . .

First, let's be clear. Your blue state voted not just to ban gay marriage, but also to ban civil unions and possibly to strip public employees of gay rights protections. Let's also be clear that it was a totally unnecessary initiative, designed solely to bring out the vote and tar its opponents as "pro gay", since marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for 158 years.

Second, hang wringing by right-thinking conservatives is not enough. By Rove's success, and that of Thune, DeMint, Coburn, Bunning and other who won close elections by using anti-gay issues and rhetoric to rally the base, this election marks the start of what will be a very ugly period. Expect some form of anti-gay amendment on every ballot for the next 10 years at least, or until some other group replaces gays and lesbians as the social conservatives' demon, or there are no more rights to take away. While you sigh at the stupidity of these candidates and the initiatives, you and lots of other right thinking people still voted for the candidates who used gay rights as a wedge issue. Where does it stop? Civil rights? Gone for Michigan's public employees, and others. Adoption, foster parenting, and second-parent rights? Already illegal in Florida and Utah, and soon to be elsewhere? A ban on gay school teachers? Proposed by Senator Coburn and perhaps coming to a state near you.

Until people within the party tell them to knock it off, and work actively to vote against these proposals and the people who support them, it's going to be a very ugly time for gays and lesbians in America. I hope I'm being alarmist, but I doubt it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think this is wrong, at least on a blue-state/red-state basis. Blue states tend to send the federal government more revenue than they get back. Red states tend to get more federal expenditures than they send in revenue. I've posted this data here before, and if I can find it and post it again, I will.

State Ranking of Per Capita Spending, Per-Capita Tax Return on the Federal Tax Dollar: Fiscal 2002

1 New Mexico 2.34
2 North Dakota 2.04
3 Alaska 1.91
4 Mississippi 1.88
5 West Virginia 1.81
6 Montana 1.65
7 Alabama 1.64
8 South Dakota 1.58
9 Hawaii 1.56
10 Arkansas 1.55

11 Oklahoma 1.52
12 Virginia 1.51
13 Kentucky 1.50
14 Louisiana 1.49
15 South Carolina 1.34
16 Maine 1.34
17 Missouri 1.33
18 Idaho 1.31
19 Maryland 1.30
20 Tennessee 1.28

21 Iowa 1.22
22 Arizona 1.21
23 Nebraska 1.18
24 Utah 1.15
25 Kansas 1.13
26 Vermont 1.13
27 Pennsylvania 1.10
28 Rhode Island 1.10
29 North Carolina 1.08
30 Wyoming 1.05

31 Ohio 1.04
32 Georgia 1.04
33 Indiana 1.01
34 Florida 1.00
35 Oregon 0.98
36 Texas 0.96
37 Michigan 0.90
38 Washington 0.89
39 Wisconsin 0.89
40 New York 0.87

41 Delaware 0.86
42 Colorado 0.80
43 California 0.79
44 Massachusetts 0.78
45 Illinois 0.78
46 Minnesota 0.78
47 Nevada 0.76
48 Connecticut 0.69
49 New Hampshire 0.69
50 New Jersey 0.66