Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Whoa. Hit rewind. The point was that we hard-working folks in the blue states are responsible for all the meaningful economic activity -- we pay taxes, and the folks in the red states loaf and accept the equivalent of welfare.

That wasn't the end of the point. The end of the point was " . . . . so really only our votes should count."

If the Dems want to pick up the class warfare battle, feel free. It will certainly solve any problems of close elections.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Santorum
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.

2. Gay bashing won an election for President of the United States, and I'm physically sick about it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That wasn't the end of the point. The end of the point was " . . . . so really only our votes should count."

If the Dems want to pick up the class warfare battle, feel free. It will certainly solve any problems of close elections.

I'm just looking to shed some red states, don't care how or why.

After all, I'm white trash myself. We can't let all the good barbeque go away. (Sorry about parking the trailer in front of your McMansion again. I'll have l'il bubba pick up my beer cans later on).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by dtb
And cdf/club's response was???

Oh yeah, silence.

Troll

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Say it. It feels good. Say it loud. Scream it from the hilltops.

"W got elected by manipulating a whole lotta White Trash!!!"

"The sorta folks who'll tell you you're going to hell... Well, they're White Trash!!!"

"The sorta folks who think Saddam and bin Laden were acting in concert... again, yep... White Trash!!!"*

"Folks who are scared silly about gays kissing... yep, White Trash!!!"

"Folks who think the estate tax will cost their kids the mobile home... you guessed it, White Trash!!!"

"People who believe that they're going to see a fat pile of money from Bush tax cuts in their check from the rendering plant... really dumb White Trash!!!"

I am personally using the term in conversations today. Its gotten some dirty looks, but I persist. I plan to do my part to interject it into the discourse as much as possible. And it just feels good.

Its the hot new word for 2004!

* Except Safire, who's just nuts.

If it helps you to fantasize that only toothless, evangelical hicks frightened of AQ bombing their farms re-elected our President.....then, okay....whatever gets you through the night, SD. You certainly sound like you could use some solace (Jesus, man, I'm starting to picture you as looking like this:
)
9 out of 10 people I spoke with at dinner in NYC last night, all growing up on the East Coast and about 1/2 Jewish and none fundamentalist, all well educated and non-reactionist were voting for Bush. And I really do not think their panties were in a bunch worried about AQ. They drank, smoked, laughed and seemed to enjoy life, something it does NOT seem like you are doing!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That wasn't the end of the point. The end of the point was " . . . . so really only our votes should count."

If the Dems want to pick up the class warfare battle, feel free. It will certainly solve any problems of close elections.

Who's talking about class-welfare? I'm talking red-state welfare.

And I missed the "really only our votes should count" point. I thought the point was, you guys will be poorer when we secede to join Canada. But not to worry -- Hank points out that we'll be using our Visa cards when we visit Orlando and Vegas.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Please don't leave me out of this. If you guys ditch me, Sarte will have to re-write "No Exit" with me as its central hell citizen.

Sincerely,

Illinois

I've fucking been here for 11 generations (give or take a few frolicks in California). I'm gonna fight for the land that my people stole.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Counterpoint:

• If you're a Democrat, here's my advice. Do what the Republicans did in 1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation, stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff the executive branch of the federal government. You don't need one of them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don't have.
  
  The good news is, that person is already available. His name is John Edwards. If you have any doubt about his electability, just read the exit polls from the 2004 Democratic primaries. If you don't think he's ready to be president—if you don't think he has the right credentials, the right gravitas, the right subtlety of thought—ask yourself whether these are the same things you find wanting in George W. Bush. Because evidently a majority of the voting population of the United States doesn't share your concern. They seem to be attracted to a candidate with a simple message, a clear focus, and a human touch. You might want to consider their views, since they're the ones who will decide whether you're sitting here again four years from now, wondering what went wrong.
  
  In 1998 and 1999, Republicans cleared the field for George W. Bush. Members of Congress and other major officeholders threw their weight behind him to make sure he got the nomination. They united because their previous presidential nominee, a clumsy veteran senator, had gone down to defeat. They were facing eight years out of power, and they were hungry.
  
  Do what they did. Give Edwards a job that will position him to run for president again in a couple of years. Clear the field of Hillary Clinton and any other well-meaning liberal who can't connect with people outside those islands of blue on your electoral map. Because you're going to get a simple president again next time, whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that president will be from your party or the other one.

Counterpoint: Bush was the governor of TX at the time. Edwards will have no platform for the next 4 years. He would not have even held his own state if he ran again. He is Dan Quayle, not GW.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Counterpoint: Bush was the governor of TX at the time. Edwards will have no platform for the next 4 years. He would not have even held his own state if he ran again. He is Dan Quayle, not GW.

Bush was Dan Quayle until about a week after 9/11. Don't kid yourself. We all saw it again at the debates. On policy, the man is in way over his head, but the number of voters who are turned off by that fact is far exceeded by the number of voters who respond to his simple, clear messages.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
9 out of 10 people I spoke with at dinner in NYC last night, all growing up on the East Coast and about 1/2 Jewish and none fundamentalist, all well educated and non-reactionist were voting for Bush. And I really do not think their panties were in a bunch worried about AQ. They drank, smoked, laughed and seemed to enjoy life, something it does NOT seem like you are doing!!

All of the wealthy, well-educated east coasters amount to about 2% of the population. You guys don't have the numbers to elect a president. They could have done it w/out you (and did, since your states are blue).

Sebby was saying that it was necessary to get the majority of the Jesus freak rednecks to win. And he's right.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Are there targets in the middle of nowhere? Sure. Maybe they'll strike at a Michigan game. Have they? No. Are they more likely to attack a Michigan game than the heart of the financial engine in this country? Nope. The political heart? Don't think so. You know it. People in Buttfuck-nowhere know it. And the people in New York and DC know it.

TM

Last post on this from me......

Access factors into what they do, not just impact. Why do you think bombs go off on Israeli buses instead off at the parliment. Does NYC have a much higher chance of being hit than, say Ann Arbor? Of course- at least for the reason there are lots of Ann Arbors and one NYC. You have more to fear than me, I agree. But when you consul a client about the chance of losing a lawsuit, and say "30% chance you'll lose" you should remind them that a lose is a 100% lose. If they do hit Ann Arbor and I'm there- I die- so I'm afraid. Protection against terrorism was an issue for most Americans. In the end so few states switched from last time, terrorism probably had less to do with it than social issues.

Hell the Pentagon is in a red state.

Actually the better point would be to say all likely targets are in blue counties. Most big cities went for Kerry, I'm sure.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Troll

Seriously, club, dtb is hardly a troll, and that was far from being chevy's first post.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
All of the wealthy, well-educated east coasters amount to about 2% of the population. You guys don't have the numbers to elect a president. They could have done it w/out you (and did, since your states are blue).

Sebby was saying that it was necessary to get the majority of the Jesus freak rednecks to win. And he's right.

Well, yes, except that Sebby's post was a rail against "you white trash people" "you who are scared of AQ" etc. Unless he really thinks the board has been hacked by a group of halfwits from West Virginia socking as lawyers, then he's barkin up the wrong treehugga.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Seriously, club, dtb is hardly a troll, and that was far from being chevy's first post.

2. I heart DTB.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That said, Norfolk and Newport News, VA I would think would be heavily military (or military-industrial complex) and Newport News went 53/47 for Kerry, Norfolk 62/38 Kerry. ...
It would be funny if it were military spouses. anyway, for all I know, there are highly liberal colleges in both NN and Norfolk that skew the votes . . .

Based on my family in that area, "military-industrial complex" in Norfolk involves a huge contingent of civilian unionized workers at the navy yards. I would also imagine that a lot of the servicemen/women at the naval bases actually vote by absentee ballot in their home states, not the state in which they are based. NWST, Norfolk is actually the south, unlike the Yankee northern half of the state, so I am mildly surprised by the Norfolk outcome.

BR(the Mr., upon discovering an uncle builds nuclear subs, said "oh, cool!" to which said uncle responded "no, not really")C