Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Ty@50]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What are we blowing out of proportion? All we said is that politicians from these states make a lot of noise about big government, but that these states are subsidized by those of us in the blue states. This is true.

you do realize that the greatest strength we have is that we can ffed the world. Put free markets aside for a moment. The. Red. States. feed. The. World.

once i realized this (circa 2012) is when I stopped posting as Ty the blogster and started to resemble Penske w/o hillary photoshops.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The point is that it is a small part of the GDP of these states.

That may be your point, but mine was that a great deal of federal spending -- like agriculture subsidies -- is on things that do not promote the free-market competition that you keep waxing about.

Yes it is true (although I have not seen the numbers I am just trusting you guys on this) just because they recieve slighlty more in federal revenue does not mean they are more dependant on government. You are saying it does.

We've posted the numbers here in the past. And I didn't say that those states are more dependant on the federal government -- I said that they hypocritically preach about the notion of small government while expanding the size of the federal government and using it as a instrument to divert money from blue states to red states.

Cite. Really?

I don't have a cite, but I am fairly confident that you'll find more economic productivity in urban and coastal areas than in rural and land-locked areas. There are surely exceptions -- e.g., I suspect Phoenix is more productive than Buffalo. [/QUOTE]

Do you understand what the word proportional means? They spend a higher percentage of their GDP not just more money. And our governments don't do more things they just spend more money. We spend more money on education yet have larger class sizes. Go figure.

Do you understand that what you say here is not inconsistent with what I say? And read this again: I'm not saying anything about dependancy. I'm not sure where you got that notion.

The fact remains that these small states have smaller state governments. They have all this century.

Somalia has a smaller government, too, and its markets are freer of intrusive regulation. Perhaps you should consider moving to Mogadishu -- it's more American than America!

No they don't. They might like getting Federal dollars, who wouldn't, they spend less per person on government in South Dakota because they have a much small (proportionally smaller) state government than the big states.

See, actually Senator Thune is a Senator, which means that he is a federal legislator who goes to Washington D.C. where he makes the decisions about what money the federal government spends. He is not a state legislator, and I was not talking about state government.

Yes - it completely refutes your position that the Red States are being hypocritical when they talk about small government. Small states spend a smaller proportion of their GDP on government because their state governments are proportionally smaller. The extra federal revenue does significantly changes this proportion. They pay less money in taxes and less money is spent on government proportionally (even with the extra federal money) than the large states.

Horsepucky it does. They are happy to spend your dollars and mine, but are cheap with their money, which they don't have as much of because their economy is significantly less robust than ours, which is why lots of people move to Silicon Valley for jobs but no one moves to Rapid City unless they're crack-addled.

The small red states believe in smaller government and they practice what they preach. The tax themselves less and the proportional revenue from all government programs they receive is less than people in big states. That is the reality despite all the hot air you guys have been spewing.

Your little theories work wonderfully if you ignore the federal government, which is only what we are talking about.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That may be your point, but mine was that a great deal of federal spending -- like agriculture subsidies -- is on things that do not promote the free-market competition that you keep waxing about.

My point was that they mistrust government, and therefore have smaller state governments. You were questioning the validity of that statement.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We've posted the numbers here in the past. And I didn't say that those states are more dependant on the federal government -- I said that they hypocritically preach about the notion of small government while expanding the size of the federal government and using it as a instrument to divert money from blue states to red states.

Again - my point was that they mistrust government and this is shown by the fact that they have smaller state governments. To say that small states have increased federal government spending is not only a gross simplification of a complicated process, but simply wrong. These small states have done nothing of the kind.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't have a cite, but I am fairly confident that you'll find more economic productivity in urban and coastal areas than in rural and land-locked areas. There are surely exceptions -- e.g., I suspect Phoenix is more productive than Buffalo.

I don't know about this. It all depends on your definition of proudctivity. But what the department of labor considers productivity I think you are wrong.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Somalia has a smaller government, too, and its markets are freer of intrusive regulation. Perhaps you should consider moving to Mogadishu -- it's more American than America!

Now you are just acting like a five year old. On the flip side, North Korea has a large robust active central government that takes a strong interest in the means of production. So does Cuba and Burma - maybe you should move to one of those.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop See, actually Senator Thune is a Senator, which means that he is a federal legislator who goes to Washington D.C. where he makes the decisions about what money the federal government spends. He is not a state legislator, and I was not talking about state government.

See, actually we were talking about all government. Again, my point was that they mistrust government, and therefore have smaller state governments. South Dakotans may want to keep their military base but this does not reflect on their opinion of the size of government nor does it make their distrust of large government hypocritical. They distrust large government and this is reflected in the size of their state government.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Horsepucky it does. They are happy to spend your dollars and mine, but are cheap with their money, which they don't have as much of because their economy is significantly less robust than ours, which is why lots of people move to Silicon Valley for jobs but no one moves to Rapid City unless they're crack-addled.

Yes they are frugal with their money (you call it cheap). You say that like it is a bad thing and that is what makes you liberal. Most people want a state government that is cheap. I wish I could make the same claim about my state government. Again my state just doesn't spend more money, its spends a larger percentage of what I make. So the fact that we make more money is not enough, they have to spend even more money. And I just don't think the services provided by the state of California are all that much better than these rural states. Despite the lavish amount of money spent on them. And again, they just don't spend more money. They find it necessary, even though I make more money than my counterpart in small states, to take an even larger percentage of my pay check, and yet they don't provide better services.

California is lucky enough to have the most productive are in the world. The Silicon Valley. And with it they get a huge amount of tax dollars. So does that mean I pay less taxes in California, because California has this huge source of revenue. No - I pay more.

Nevada gets a lot of revenue from Gambling. As a result they don't have a state income tax, and no sales tax. Their property taxes are significantly lower. Yet they have better schools, higher paid law enforcement etc.

Alasksa, with all its extra revenue from Oil taxes, actually give each of its residents a rebate every year. But California, with the biggest tax generator in the world, the Silicon Valley, charges me more state income taxes, higher sales taxes, and higher property taxes than most other states. I don't think you should be using California as an example of a well run state government.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your little theories work wonderfully if you ignore the federal government, which is only what we are talking about.

NO - again - we were not talking about the federal government. We were talking about all government. And the fact that they may receive more money from the Federal Government, does not change the fact, that they distrust large government and it is reflected in the size of their state governments. You keep saying I am not on point when you are the one that is not on point.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Nevada gets a lot of revenue from Gambling. As a result they don't have a state income tax, and no sales tax. Their property taxes are significantly lower. Yet they have better schools, higher paid law enforcement etc.

Alasksa, with all its extra revenue from Oil taxes, actually give each of its residents a rebate every year. But California, with the biggest tax generator in the world, the Silicon Valley, charges me more state income taxes, higher sales taxes, and higher property taxes than most other states. I don't think you should be using California as an example of a well run state government.

I live in a red state, and our local congressman is very happy to boast about bringing home the pork from Washington. Highway money for roads and bridges, research money for the medical school at the state university, defense contracts for the B-17 bomber factory (well, it makes the guidance gyroscope for the targeting device for the trigger mechanism for the missile that is launched from the Flying Fortresses, but you get my drift), a new HHS/social security regional complex. You name it, he'll take it for us, and we keep electing him by overwhelming margins in appreciation for all of the bacon he brings home.

And yet he campaigns as a fiscally conservative, anti-spending watchdog. I think that that was Ty's point -- he (and representatives like him, and we voters who elect him) are hypocritical. (Though, in his defense, he doesn't push the fiscal conservative thing as hard as others do.)

As for your state government being smaller in red states, that may or may not be true. But (1) our educational system -- K-12 and post-secondary schools sucks in comparison (under any metric you care to use) to California, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc.; and (2) we ain't doing so hot on crime, either. (As an aside, I'd like to see how low-tax Nevada does when they try to educate kids with the kinds of problems that the kids have in California -- language, health, etc.)

Throwing money at problems isn't a cure, but it is hard to cure things without it. There's a reason why Mississippi and Alabama are at the bottom of education rankings, and it ain't because their kids are intrinsicly stupid. And this is a problem that private sector is starting to see -- according to an automobile industry trade group, Toyota built their latest US plant in Ohio instead of South Carolina or Alabama (home of the US plants for BMW and Mercedes, I think), despite higher labor costs and less governmental incentives -- the education of their prospective workers. It apparently costs too much to train the workers in SC and Ala to make up for their lack of learning.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
My point was that they mistrust government, and therefore have smaller state governments. You were questioning the validity of that statement.

And still do, since the people whom you say "mistrust" government have expanded it, and are using it to redistribute money from their neighbors in other states.

I don't know about this. It all depends on your definition of proudctivity. But what the department of labor considers productivity I think you are wrong.

Economic output per person. I think you will find that output is significantly greater for urban and coastal areas. Not surprisingly, this is where economic activity is most diverse.

Now you are just acting like a five year old. On the flip side, North Korea has a large robust active central government that takes a strong interest in the means of production. So does Cuba and Burma - maybe you should move to one of those.

See, the difference is that I'm not the one pretending that our economy is the measure of our greatness. You are.

Yes they are frugal with their money (you call it cheap). You say that like it is a bad thing and that is what makes you liberal. Most people want a state government that is cheap. I wish I could make the same claim about my state government.

Most Californians disagree with you, which is why the legislature is full of people you don't like, and why Arnold is growing less popular as people understand what he stands for.

Again my state just doesn't spend more money, its spends a larger percentage of what I make. So the fact that we make more money is not enough, they have to spend even more money. And I just don't think the services provided by the state of California are all that much better than these rural states. Despite the lavish amount of money spent on them. And again, they just don't spend more money. They find it necessary, even though I make more money than my counterpart in small states, to take an even larger percentage of my pay check, and yet they don't provide better services.

They are doing what the voters of the state want, and this should be no surprise, since Californians are like the voters of other affluent coastal states in this way.

NO - again - we were not talking about the federal government. We were talking about all government. And the fact that they may receive more money from the Federal Government, does not change the fact, that they distrust large government and it is reflected in the size of their state governments. You keep saying I am not on point when you are the one that is not on point.

You keep saying that they distrust big government, and ignoring that the clowns they elect are spending federal dollars like it's going out of style. They do not practice what they preach when they go to Washington. And perhaps the only reason they don't do this at home is that their state economies are not rich enough to let them blow money on a similar scale.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I live in a red state, and our local congressman is very happy to boast about bringing home the pork from Washington. Highway money for roads and bridges, research money for the medical school at the state university, defense contracts for the B-17 bomber factory (well, it makes the guidance gyroscope for the targeting device for the trigger mechanism for the missile that is launched from the Flying Fortresses, but you get my drift), a new HHS/social security regional complex. You name it, he'll take it for us, and we keep electing him by overwhelming margins in appreciation for all of the bacon he brings home.

And yet he campaigns as a fiscally conservative, anti-spending watchdog. I think that that was Ty's point -- he (and representatives like him, and we voters who elect him) are hypocritical. (Though, in his defense, he doesn't push the fiscal conservative thing as hard as others do.)

As for your state government being smaller in red states, that may or may not be true. But (1) our educational system -- K-12 and post-secondary schools sucks in comparison (under any metric you care to use) to California, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc.; and (2) we ain't doing so hot on crime, either. (As an aside, I'd like to see how low-tax Nevada does when they try to educate kids with the kinds of problems that the kids have in California -- language, health, etc.)

Throwing money at problems isn't a cure, but it is hard to cure things without it. There's a reason why Mississippi and Alabama are at the bottom of education rankings, and it ain't because their kids are intrinsicly stupid. And this is a problem that private sector is starting to see -- according to an automobile industry trade group, Toyota built their latest US plant in Ohio instead of South Carolina or Alabama (home of the US plants for BMW and Mercedes, I think), despite higher labor costs and less governmental incentives -- the education of their prospective workers. It apparently costs too much to train the workers in SC and Ala to make up for their lack of learning.

You are getting into other issues. I was making the point, that in the more rural areas of America people have a stronger inclination towards limited government. And this is reflected in their size of their state governments. For reasons, that are beyond me this statement was disputed by Sexual Harassment Panda and Ty. The main point of evidence used to dispute my assertion was that most rural states recieve more money from Washington than they send to Washington.

I think I have demonstrated that the people in the more rural areas of America are less inclined towards a large government and this inclination is reflected in the state governments. In addition, I have demonstrated that the fact that they receive more federal money than they pay out in no way contradicts or lessens the validity of that statement.

As is typical with this board I make pretty obvious statments, that are then disputed, and then the people that dispute them try and change the argument so they don't have to face the fact that their original derision of my statement was wrong.

Nice Try Not Bob. As soon as you acknowledge that Ty and Panda were wrong in contesting the validity of my statement we can move on to any other issue you like.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Some of this stuff, sure, is a subsidy. (although I imagine California gets as much as anywhere). But sending military money is hardly a subsidy. I'm as protected by a naval base in Virginia or Mississippi as I am by one in Maine or New York. And same for where they build the battleships. Sending the money to a particular state is certainly political, but it's not a subsidy, because I'm still getting the benefit.

I would argue that in some cases there is a subsidy, because the locations are determined not by where it is most efficient to have a naval base (from a tactical and an economic perspective) but also in large part by how much pull the senators and reps from that state have.

If I weren't so tired, I'd throw in some "you aren't listening" "you aren't paying attention" "this is glaringly obvious" stuff, but I am tired, so if you would just read it into the appropriate areas, I would very much appreciate it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And still do, since the people whom you say "mistrust" government have expanded it, and are using it to redistribute money from their neighbors in other states.

To make the blanket statement that the recent upsurge in Federal spending has been 1)Soleley at the direction of people from small states 2) has been for the purpose of expanding government and getting money to the rural states is absurd. Over long periods of time rural states have created smaller bureacracies. To say that this is all nullified by the fact that in the past four years a party which has a large representation from rural states has increased federal spending nullifies this trend that has occurred over the past one hundred years is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Economic output per person. I think you will find that output is significantly greater for urban and coastal areas. Not surprisingly, this is where economic activity is most diverse.

I am not buying it and in any case does not reflect at all on the statement I was making.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop See, the difference is that I'm not the one pretending that our economy is the measure of our greatness. You are.

You make the statement , that if I am so into "limited government" I should move to Somalia. Considering that Somalia has no government, and I have never advocated anarchy or anything close to it, makes your statement, not only absurd, but petty. And now some how the fact that I believe our economic success is related to our greatness some how justifies your statement I should move to Somalia. Are you smoking crack?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Most Californians disagree with you, which is why the legislature is full of people you don't like, and why Arnold is growing less popular as people understand what he stands for.

You know this is wrong. I have seen consistent polls that show most Californians think the state government needs to be reduced. That was the theme of Arnolds campaign and he won by huge margines. He is dropping in the popularity polls because of a massive, and highly dishonest advertising campaign, that Arnold is trying to screw teachers and firefighters.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You keep saying that they distrust big government, and ignoring that the clowns they elect are spending federal dollars like it's going out of style. They do not practice what they preach when they go to Washington. And perhaps the only reason they don't do this at home is that their state economies are not rich enough to let them blow money on a similar scale.

You can't really believe what you are saying. This is just absurd. 1) you are talking about a recent development 2) It is also possible that these "clowns" are not doing exactly what they wanbt 3) Over the past one hundred years this trend has occurred.

Do you really not understand statistics. As I have said over and over again, they spend a smaller proportion of their money on the government. Following that trend, even if they had the money we have, they would not spend it. So your statement that, if they would spend the money if they had it is just absurd. And again, I use Nevada and Alaska as an example. They are gettting the revenue but they choose not to spend it. Maybe you missed this part I added later.

California is lucky enough to have the most productive are in the world. The Silicon Valley. And with it they get a huge amount of tax dollars. So does that mean I pay less taxes in California, because California has this huge source of revenue. No - I pay more.

Nevada gets a lot of revenue from Gambling. As a result they don't have a state income tax, and no sales tax. Their property taxes are significantly lower. Yet they have better schools, higher paid law enforcement etc.

Alasksa, with all its extra revenue from Oil taxes, actually give each of its residents a rebate every year. But California, with the biggest tax generator in the world, the Silicon Valley, charges me more state income taxes, higher sales taxes, and higher property taxes than most other states. I don't think you should be using California as an example of a well run state government.

[Penske_Account]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
To make the blanket statement that the recent upsurge in Federal spending has been 1)Soleley at the direction of people from small states 2) has been for the purpose of expanding government and getting money to the rural states is absurd. Over long periods of time rural states have created smaller bureacracies. To say that this is all nullified by the fact that in the past four years a party which has a large representation from rural states has increased federal spending nullifies this trend that has occurred over the past one hundred years is just ridiculous.

We agree, then, that the Republicans now running the federal government (at least the executive and legislative branches) have abandoned a century of conservative principles to spend money like drunken sailors, notwithstanding whatever lip service they may pay to the idea of limited government.

What eludes me is why you think that what small states were doing at the start of the twentieth century is particularly significant today. For most of the last hundred years, North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons. Now it does. Suggesting that North Korea's recent possession of nukes is an exception to the historical rule may be accurate enough, but it still bothers me that they have nukes.

You make the statement , that if I am so into "limited government" I should move to Somalia. Considering that Somalia has no government, and I have never advocated anarchy or anything close to it, makes your statement, not only absurd, but petty. And now some how the fact that I believe our economic success is related to our greatness some how justifies your statement I should move to Somalia. Are you smoking crack?

When I previously invited you to kiss my ass, I didn't really want you to kiss my ass. I'm not that kinda guy, NTTAWWT.

You know this is wrong. I have seen consistent polls that show most Californians think the state government needs to be reduced. That was the theme of Arnolds campaign and he won by huge margines. He is dropping in the popularity polls because of a massive, and highly dishonest advertising campaign, that Arnold is trying to screw teachers and firefighters.

Maybe people answer the poll questions that way, but then when you ask them whether they want to spend money on education/roads/prisons/etc., it turns out that they do. They like the idea of shrinking the size of state government, so long as it doesn't mean that state government stops giving them fewer services. Arnold, like other prominent Republicans nationally, has figured this out and runs on a nebulous package of "reform" and "reducing the size of government" while not actually proposing to do anything of the sort, since that would piss people off. So we get Grey Davis budgets.

You can't really believe what you are saying. This is just absurd. 1) you are talking about a recent development 2) It is also possible that these "clowns" are not doing exactly what they wanbt 3) Over the past one hundred years this trend has occurred.

Do you really not understand statistics. As I have said over and over again, they spend a smaller proportion of their money on the government. Following that trend, even if they had the money we have, they would not spend it. So your statement that, if they would spend the money if they had it is just absurd. And again, I use Nevada and Alaska as an example. They are gettting the revenue but they choose not to spend it. Maybe you missed this part I added later.

California is lucky enough to have the most productive are in the world. The Silicon Valley. And with it they get a huge amount of tax dollars. So does that mean I pay less taxes in California, because California has this huge source of revenue. No - I pay more.

Nevada gets a lot of revenue from Gambling. As a result they don't have a state income tax, and no sales tax. Their property taxes are significantly lower. Yet they have better schools, higher paid law enforcement etc.

Alasksa, with all its extra revenue from Oil taxes, actually give each of its residents a rebate every year. But California, with the biggest tax generator in the world, the Silicon Valley, charges me more state income taxes, higher sales taxes, and higher property taxes than most other states. I don't think you should be using California as an example of a well run state government.

At this point, it's clear that you are not bothering to figure out what I am saying, let alone to respond to it, so I'm not going to bother either. But I'm not going to bother in fewer words.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We agree, then, that the Republicans now running the federal government (at least the executive and legislative branches) have abandoned a century of conservative principles to spend money like drunken sailors, notwithstanding whatever lip service they may pay to the idea of limited government.

What eludes me is why you think that what small states were doing at the start of the twentieth century is particularly significant today. For most of the last hundred years, North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons. Now it does. Suggesting that North Korea's recent possession of nukes is an exception to the historical rule may be accurate enough, but it still bothers me that they have nukes.

Are you using the Bong tonight. Again, I was pointing out that in the small states the people have inclination towards limited government. Just because some of their politicians representing their states are voting for increased spending during a war at the Federal level does not mean that the citizens of these states have abandoned their anitpathy towards government. Have the state governments in these states started increasing their spending recently? Have they changed their state legislatures from being part time to full time? Just because some of their representatives have voted for increased government spending over the past few years does not mean that the average citizen of these states have changed their inclinations towards small government.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop When I previously invited you to kiss my ass, I didn't really want you to kiss my ass. I'm not that kinda guy, NTTAWWT.

No but the statement kiss my ass is just as petty and juvenile as telling me to move to Somalia, and both demonstrate that you are losing the argument and are therefore resorting to juvenile statements.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Maybe people answer the poll questions that way, but then when you ask them whether they want to spend money on education/roads/prisons/etc., it turns out that they do. They like the idea of shrinking the size of state government, so long as it doesn't mean that state government stops giving them fewer services. Arnold, like other prominent Republicans nationally, has figured this out and runs on a nebulous package of "reform" and "reducing the size of government" while not actually proposing to do anything of the sort, since that would piss people off. So we get Grey Davis budgets..

We are getting nothing close to Gray Davis budgets. He increased spending by forty percent while he was in office. And it would be nice if the government was spending the money on roads, prisons and schools. Instead it is spending money on bureacracys and no bid contracts.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At this point, it's clear that you are not bothering to figure out what I am saying, let alone to respond to it, so I'm not going to bother either. But I'm not going to bother in fewer words.

I am listeneing to what you are saying, but trying to argue that voting population in the rural states are less inclined towards big government is a completely ridiculous position to take. It is completely unsupportable and yet you try and argue it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If every state received $1.00 in federal spending for every $1.00 paid in taxes, there'd be no subsidy. The fact that some states receive much more of the largess than they pay for results in a subsidy.

And surely you get some benefit from military bases, but I don't think Senator Thune, Senator Johnson, and Representative Herseth were working so hard to save Ellsworth Air Force Base out of a commitment to the national commonweal.

I think that you, like most politicians, underestimates the displacement effects of such spending. That is, if S.D. didn't have a military base, someone else would employ people there for something else, at least beyond the short term. (In the specific case of military installations, a defense contractor likely would hire many of them; more generally, they'd find jobs doing something else).

That said, your argument that only a 1:1 spending/taxing ratio would not create a subsidy is wrong for broader reasons. Some amount (and we can argue how much) of the $1.10 going to South Dakota has external benefits. Perhaps 5c, perhaps 10c (and it likely differs depending on the nature of the payment). But it benefits people outside of S.D. The value of that money is not fully captured by S.D.'ans (put alternatively, some of the value is reaped by the rest of the US).

Bottom line, you have to look at the types of spending and whether it can fairly be said to benefit just people in the state or benefit more broadly before you call it a subsidy.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But if you tried it with Spanky on politics you'd lose. This is his profession. He is paid to be on conference calls all the time. so he can take liberties in condencending posts, can't he?

Good point, Hank. But on the other hand, he is a California Republican, so his winning percentage is pretty damn low. (Arnold being the exception proving the rule.)

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
The comforting attachment to small government of red state residents doesn't keep them from taking in more federal dollars than they pay out, while the opposite is true of the blue states (as a general rule). In other words, the people who whine about big government and their crushing tax burdens are the same ones cashing the welfare and subsidy checks. Why is that?

The answer is: "the United States Senate."

The secondary answer is a healthy dose of hypocrisy and self-interest which seems to be inherently human.

Blame the Founding Fathers from the several small colonies who insisted that representation must be by state, not just by population.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
It ties into the scintillating discussion on the Drivel Board about the pros and cons of circumcision. I don't even know what female circumcision could be.

They cut off the clitoris.

S_A_M