Democrats!

[Operation Ripper]

I guess this is just a toss off pit before I hit the sack, but does anyone else get the feeling that despite Iraq, illegal wiretapping, the economy, Katrina, etc., the Democrats are going to suck it at the next elections? Make an effort damnit! Eh, could be the diet coke talking, but what the hey.

[Marley23]

Even if they can't mount much of an effort in November, I think they're basically guaranteed to gain seats in the House and the Senate. The Republicans have been running the show for several years now, the electorate seems dissatisfied with the results, and the GOP can't blame anybody else for it.

[Sage Rat]

Iraq and wiretapping don't really effect 99% of everyone in real terms. They're more of toy issues for people to argue about based on "ethical right"--which most people don't really care about so long as they have a job and their kids are doing well in school.

And I don't know what "despite the economy" means. Outside of oil prices, so far as I was aware things have gone from internet burst+9/11+Enron and Family based major unemployment and a generally gloomy future to modern-day run of the mill everything is hunky-dorey.... Did something happen recently to change that?

And Katrina, well besides mostly only effecting Louisianaers, I think most of the blame has been shifted off of the Federal government and onto the local and state ones.

Mostly, it will come down to being given real options for people to vote for if the Democrats want a chance.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Mostly, it will come down to being given real options for people to vote for if the Democrats want a chance.Wow - I disagree with everything that came before this sentence in your post, but you nevertheless come to the correct conclusion. Eventually, meek Democrats are going to have to make way for those unafraid to stand for a position. For the upcoming elections, however, the Democrats don't have to do much of anything. The Republicans have made their own gravy, and are going to lose seats simply for the corruption that they have cultivated. They are struggling with recruitment, fund-raising, and retirements within their ranks. However, if the Democrats are going to re-establish themselves for the long term, they better start thinking about being leaders rather than simperers.

[Mr. Moto]

The Democratic Party right now has a bad case of Gladys Kravitz syndrome.

They are convinced that there are some seriously fucked up things going on next door, but they can't get most folks to believe what they've seen because they think they are stark raving nuts.

[RyJae]

Most people realize both parties are corrupt, and both turn even more corrupt when in power.
So with any luck that will lead to a successful third party sometime before pigs fly out of my ass.

[Martin Hyde]

I guess this is just a toss off pit before I hit the sack, but does anyone else get the feeling that despite Iraq, illegal wiretapping, the economy, Katrina, etc., the Democrats are going to suck it at the next elections? Make an effort damnit! Eh, could be the diet coke talking, but what the hey.

I think they will do better than any previous election during Bush's administration but I also think they will do far less than what they have the potential to do. I have nothing to support this theory other than the fact that democrats have just plain not been very impressive when it actually comes to get elected in the last few years.

[Digital Stimulus]

The Democratic Party right now has a bad case of Gladys Kravitz syndrome.

They are convinced that there are some seriously fucked up things going on next door, but they can't get most folks to believe what they've seen because they think they are stark raving nuts.
To me, this is a rather bizarre thing to say. I interpret it as saying "there's nothing fucked up going on" in the way the government is being run. Can that possibly be right? If it is, wouldn't Bush be polling at a greater than 36% approval rating?

And I'm not saying that Democrats are necessarily better -- though personally, I can't see them being any worse. Who is nuttier -- the one who points out how bad things are or the one who isn't even willing to consider (or admit) it?

[Hampshire]

I think the Dems are going to have to demonstrate that they have a better way to get things done. A solid plan that shows their plan of attack and some thought through procedures.
It's easy to point a finger and say "You Republicans messed up this and that. Srewed up these and those." But they are going to have to have a solid answer when asked "Well, how are you going to do it differently? Show me how you are going to make it work."
If they are relying on taking control by default (pick us cause the other guys suck) I think they're going to bite it.
If they present a strategy (pick us cause we're going to get it done by doing X, Y, and Z and here's how it's going to work) using specifics rather than political double-talk maybe they'll have a chance.

[stretch]

In my area, the Dems couldn't get elected unless no Republican ran. It's pretty simple--if there isn't an R by your name, you ain't getting elected. Many years there isn't even a Dem on the ballot for the local positions because everybody knows there isn't a chance in hell of winning. Shit, we consistently send Doc Hastings back to DC and he hasn't done jack shit for our state or the locals--and now that he's head of the House ethics committee, you can be sure that no Republicans will ever be censured because he is a party yes man.

I'm consistently amazed at the idiocy of my neighbors. The Republicans sell them out year after year and they still go back for more. Of course, the Dems would probably do the same; I think people prefer to go with the devil they know.

My kindgom for a viable third party!!!

[LonesomePolecat]

My kindgom for a viable third party!!!

Amen.

A lot of working stiffs like me are hurting because of what the Republicans have done over the last five to ten years. I'm particularly disgusted that Bush doesn't even much pretend that he's trying to control public debt and illegal immigration. But as long as the Democrats remain the party of Michael Moore and Al Sharpton, I'll always find it very difficult to vote for their candidates.

[An Arky]

I think nobody knows the answer yet, but it could be coming. Back in 1992, Bill Clinton was a practically unheard of governor who took the party by storm with a positive message of "we can do better". I think right now we're looking at the same old party hacks and not seeing anything we can get behind. We need to look beyond the usual suspects and get some fresh blood in there.

[LonesomePolecat]

Outside of oil prices, so far as I was aware things have gone from internet burst+9/11+Enron and Family based major unemployment and a generally gloomy future to modern-day run of the mill everything is hunky-dorey.... Did something happen recently to change that?


Yes. Wages for working stiffs like me have remained essentially stagnant for a long time. Consequently our purchasing power and standards of living are declining.

[Una Persson]

My pet theory is the Democrats will start winning, and winning big, when they decide to drop one issue that often mobilizes people to go to the polls and vote against them. IMO, this issue is gun control. When the Democratic Party will drop its (IMO) misguided backing of an (IMO) very unwise and stupid cause, then they will start getting the lead over Republicans in many close races.

What would have happened in 1994 if the Democrats would not have passed what was, in effect, an "ugly gun ban", that really did nothing whatsoever for the cause, and had no real impact on any crime at all? There would have been no "Republican Revolution", for one thing. I can't find a cite here from work, but IIRC there was a statistical study once that showed strongly pro-gun Democrats beating Republicans in races fairly soundly, almost no matter how "left" their other politics were. And yet, the Democrats keep clinging to a primarily elitist and typically highly hypocritcal and dishonest East and West-coast "ideal" of Gun Control, despite the cost, and as a result they are unable to affect change in the ways that can really help America - the economy, the environment, social programs, health care, world relations, and equal rights and respect for all.

Some say "but we can't compromise a core platform plank!" and I say "mule muffins". EVERY party changes, evolves, re-thinks, regroups, and modifies their approach. And not just because they want to win, but because Real Life is dynamic and changing, and Real Issues the same. It's a core platform plank now - was it always? Is it right? Is clinging to this one plank worth sending the whole ship down? Is it even the right cause? From what one would read on this Board, some would say "absolutely", but then, the SDMB culture, both for better and for worse, is so far removed from Real Life it's like looking into a mirror-world at times.

Mrs. and Mr. average American see a Democrat on TV say "I WILL TAKE GUNS OFF OUR STREETS" and what they imagine is Janet Reno brought out of retirement to lead the National Guard on house-to-house no-knock sweeps for guns. They see police chiefs pushing for sweeping bans of guns, while police unions go on strike, leveraging the helplessness of the disarmed populace to force them to pay them off, like Italian bandit gangs of the late Middle Ages. Some see these things as true, even if they are not true in most all cases.

But some people do want to focus on banning a tool, even if that tool is mostly (admittedly) designed to kill other people, rather than pointing the blame directly on the people. Who, really, is shooting who, most often? Why is that? What can be done? Is there always some level of tragedy that is the inevitable price for the right of self-defense? Is that price worth it (IMO, absolutely).

Most Democrats I know IRL here in the Midwest treat Gun Control like most Republicans I know IRL here in the Midwest treat the Religious Right - it's an "evil" in their party that they don't like, but which they feel like they must accept.

Anyone wants to "debate" my Gun Control points, go ahead, I'm not going to on this message board. In fact, I'm not going to debate my opinion, period. The above is IMO as befits a Pit thread. Take it at face value, or not. If you disagree, think of me as the Simpsons' crazy cat lady screeching in the alleyway and move on.

[Mr. Moto]

To me, this is a rather bizarre thing to say. I interpret it as saying "there's nothing fucked up going on" in the way the government is being run. Can that possibly be right? If it is, wouldn't Bush be polling at a greater than 36% approval rating?

I'm saying that the Democrats would do a better job of convincing Americans that there are problems if they didn't act so nuts from time to time.

[RyJae]

Amen.

A lot of working stiffs like me are hurting because of what the Republicans have done over the last five to ten years. I'm particularly disgusted that Bush doesn't even much pretend that he's trying to control public debt and illegal immigration. But as long as the Democrats remain the party of Michael Moore and Al Sharpton, I'll always find it very difficult to vote for their candidates.


Public debt, the biggest reason I will not vote for any candidate without a platform on controlling the fucking spending.
As for illegal immigrants, I cannot remember an election where anyone wanted to alienate the Latino vote by using it as a talking point.
Find me a candidate that is anti-big government, pro pre-emptive strikes, pro-choice (in everything from abortion to gay marriage it is your life not theres), and I will vote for them, regardless of party.
Yes I realize pro pre-emptive strikes will raise ire, but that's the way I feel. If you can take out a minor threat before it becomes a massive threat, do it, if done right it saves money and lives.

[LonesomePolecat]

I think nobody knows the answer yet, but it could be coming. Back in 1992, Bill Clinton was a practically unheard of governor who took the party by storm with a positive message of "we can do better". I think right now we're looking at the same old party hacks and not seeing anything we can get behind. We need to look beyond the usual suspects and get some fresh blood in there.
Yes, leaders need to inspire confidence. A large part of the reason that Gore and Kerry lost is that the personas they projected were utterly uninspiring. Whatever else Bush Jr. did wrong, at least he managed to project an image that connected with the man in the street.

It's an uncomfortable truth, but generally speaking leadership does involve some degree of charlatanry, even it it's only projecting an air of great confidence that you don't really feel when you're delivering a speech or making promises you know you'll never have to keep.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Amen.

A lot of working stiffs like me are hurting because of what the Republicans have done over the last five to ten years. I'm particularly disgusted that Bush doesn't even much pretend that he's trying to control public debt and illegal immigration. But as long as the Democrats remain the party of Michael Moore and Al Sharpton, I'll always find it very difficult to vote for their candidates.Or as long as a proportion of the population keeps mindlessly buying into the scare techniques of the right (e.g. Michael Moore and Al Sharpton are boogiemen who somehow represent the Democrats). Start thinking for yourself.

[Fear Itself]

I heard an apt description of the situation; with all the problems the Republicans are facing, the Democrats have the wind at their backs. Now if they could only find a sail to run up the mast!

I don't think it is too late however; the much touted "Contract for America" that launched the Republican revolution in 1994 was not announced until seven months before the November election. We still have time if the party can rally and agree on a meaningful platform.

[What Exit?]

...snip...
Anyone wants to "debate" my Gun Control points, go ahead, I'm not going to on this message board. In fact, I'm not going to debate my opinion, period. The above is IMO as befits a Pit thread. Take it at face value, or not. If you disagree, think of me as the Simpsons' crazy cat lady screeching in the alleyway and move on.
I cannot take it at face value or think of you as the CCL.
I think that Gun Control issue is important to a lot of people but not all. There are large segments voting republican over Abortion issues and Gay Rights.
The Democrats need to make hay over the War, Corruption, Jobs going overseas, a soft economy where the lower classes and middle class are not yet reaping the rewards of an improving economy. I would like them to fight for Clean Air & Water too, but this might not be a smart election platform. Dropping the Gun issue would help but it would not be a panacea either. The NRA would still distrust the Democrats being in power.

Jim

[LonesomePolecat]

Or as long as a proportion of the population keeps mindlessly buying into the scare techniques of the right (e.g. Michael Moore and Al Sharpton are boogiemen who somehow represent the Democrats). Start thinking for yourself.
And it's exactly this sort of contempt that makes it so hard for me to like Democrats. Thank you for providing a perfect illustration of the very thing I was talking about.

[Fear Itself]

Way to go, Hentor, you spooked him.

[Jackmannii]

Or as long as a proportion of the population keeps mindlessly buying into the scare techniques of the right (e.g. Michael Moore and Al Sharpton are boogiemen who somehow represent the Democrats).As pointed out in another thread, this should be boogeymen (boogie is a racially derogatory term).

Besides, neither of those two has any rhythm, IMHO. :dubious:

[elucidator]

I'm saying that the Democrats would do a better job of convincing Americans that there are problems if they didn't act so nuts from time to time.
You mean crazy shit like launching aggressive wars on no basis? Yeah, those nutsy, nutsy Democrats!

[LonesomePolecat]

As pointed out in another thread, this should be boogeymen (boogie is a racially derogatory term).

Besides, neither of those two has any rhythm, IMHO. :dubious:
It's also a musical term, denoting a sub-genre of jazz--or is it blues?

[John Mace]

To me, this is a rather bizarre thing to say. I interpret it as saying "there's nothing fucked up going on" in the way the government is being run. Can that possibly be right? If it is, wouldn't Bush be polling at a greater than 36% approval rating?
But there was some fucked up shit going on next door, and Gladys Kravitz was 100% correct, so I'm not exactly sure where Mr. Moto is going with that analogy...

[elucidator]

But there was some fucked up shit going on next door, and Gladys Kravitz was 100% correct, so I'm not exactly sure where Mr. Moto is going with that analogy...
If yer nuts, it doesn't matter if yer right?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

And it's exactly this sort of contempt that makes it so hard for me to like Democrats. Thank you for providing a perfect illustration of the very thing I was talking about.Really? I wonder how that could honestly be. Perhaps you could explain how Michael Moore or Al Sharpton reflect the Democratic Party in any meaningful way. Meaningful to the point that they make you not want to support the Democratic Party.

I mean, I would have to assume that if your support for a party extends to public figures who are loosely affiliated with it, you must support James Dobson if you continue to support the Republicans. Right?

It's just a bit ironic that you would pretend to be thoughtful about your voting preferences, lamenting the lack of a party you could support, and then name two people who don't represent the Democratic Party in any real way, but who have just by happenstance, been pushed by Rove as the demons of the left.

So please explain to me how Michael Moore and Al Sharpton represent the Democratic Party in a way that makes you reject the Democratic Party as an advocate for "working stiffs." Particularly when it was the Democrats who fought off (so far) the Republican party's attempt to anally rape the working stiffs on Social Security, who tried, if meekly, to fight the tax cuts for the weathly the Republicans love, or who constantly support programs favorable to working stiffs.

Think, man. Don't just spout Republican talking points and believe you've made some sort of point, and then run crying when you are called on it.

[Mr. Moto]

If yer nuts, it doesn't matter if yer right?

Bingo.

And of course the Republicans are nuts as well. I won't claim my party doesn't have its problems. However, the Democrats seem to be basing their success on how fucked up the Republicans can get without reforming their own party.

If Gladys Kravitz had only taken her thyroid pills, maybe Abner would have believed her and that show would have gone a lot differently.

[BobLibDem]

But there was some fucked up shit going on next door, and Gladys Kravitz was 100% correct, so I'm not exactly sure where Mr. Moto is going with that analogy...

Mr. Moto may not have meant to, but he actually made perfect sense. The Democratic Pary IS like Gladys Kravitz. But to make perfect sense you must also see that the nation is like ABNER Kravitz. I can see a script like this:

Gladys: Look Abner, Bush went in about WMD and there were none.

Abner: So what, we got rid of Saddam.

Gladys: But now they're torturing people!

Abner: Aw who cares, remember 9/11

Gladys: Look, Abner! Now they're spying on us!

Abner: But what do we have to hide? 9/11 changed everything!

Gladys: Abner, Abner! Look at that debt piling up!

Abner: Who cares, I got my tax cut.

And so on. No matter what Gladys sees, either Abner doesn't or he doesn't care about it. A perfect analogy.

As to Dems needing to embrace a pro-gun stance. No. Let's not even consider it. If you're anti-gun control, you're more than likely against abortion and would vote Republican based on that. Or you're afraid of gay marriage. Let's just recognize the fact that people who vote on single-issues and/or social issues just aren't going to be in our corner, so rather than alienate the base trying to placate them let's just get our own vote out.

[John Mace]

If you're anti-gun control, you're more than likely against abortion and would vote Republican based on that. Or you're afraid of gay marriage. Let's just recognize the fact that people who vote on single-issues and/or social issues just aren't going to be in our corner, so rather than alienate the base trying to placate them let's just get our own vote out.
Huh? I think you have it backwards there, but if you've got some stats to back up your claim, I'll believe you. Social conservatives are mostly anti-gun control, but I think there are a lot of anti-gun control folks who aren't social conservatives. While it's hard to read anthing about abortion in the constitution, there's a nice big fat amendment about guns that's hard to miss.

[BobLibDem]

Huh? I think you have it backwards there, but if you've got some stats to back up your claim, I'll believe you. Social conservatives are mostly anti-gun control, but I think there are a lot of anti-gun control folks who aren't social conservatives. While it's hard to read anthing about abortion in the constitution, there's a nice big fat amendment about guns that's hard to miss.

I'll see what I can find. I thought it was common knowledge. And that amendment is so big and fat that most people only see half of it.

[saoirse]

If yer nuts, it doesn't matter if yer right?

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you"

[John Mace]

I'll see what I can find. I thought it was common knowledge. And that amendment is so big and fat that most people only see half of it.
Well, we can argue about how it should be interpreted, but we can't argue about whether it's there or not. It's hard to argue about a penumbra or an emination. Talk about something that belongs in a Bewitched episode! :)

[Sage Rat]

Yes. Wages for working stiffs like me have remained essentially stagnant for a long time. Consequently our purchasing power and standards of living are declining.
Alright. Well I guess we will see if that is enough then.

But agreed (with other posters in the thread), the parties both need some good cleaning up to be viable entities as of recent.

[BobLibDem]

Well, we can argue about how it should be interpreted, but we can't argue about whether it's there or not. It's hard to argue about a penumbra or an emination. Talk about something that belongs in a Bewitched episode! :)

True, abortion is not in the Constitution. And penumbra was a pretty lame word. I just think that in the absence of compelling reasons to contrary, one should be free to do what one wants with one's body. And the opposite side thinks the fetus has these same rights. This will never be settled by reading the Constitution, short of a new amendment.

[John Mace]

Getting back to the OP...

Midterm elections are difficult to get worked up about. The incumbent re-election rate is, what, something like 95%? And most Congressional districts are so safe they're boring. The Dems need their version of New Gingrich to organize a take over of the House. I don't see anyone like that out there, and the Senate is pretty safe for the Republicans. We'll see. I think the Dems will pick up seats in both houses even if they still remain the minority party. I'll be very curious to see if my theory about Hillary holds-- that she won't run for prez if the Pubbies still hold both houses of Congress.

[BobLibDem]

Getting back to the OP...

Midterm elections are difficult to get worked up about. The incumbent re-election rate is, what, something like 95%? And most Congressional districts are so safe they're boring. The Dems need their version of New Gingrich to organize a take over of the House. I don't see anyone like that out there, and the Senate is pretty safe for the Republicans. We'll see. I think the Dems will pick up seats in both houses even if they still remain the minority party. I'll be very curious to see if my theory about Hillary holds-- that she won't run for prez if the Pubbies still hold both houses of Congress.

Would you have said the same thing in 1994? I for one think that dissatisfaction with the way the Pubs have run things for the last 12 years dwarfs the dissatisfaction with the Dems in 1994. This time next year we'll have Speaker Pelosi- you can take it to the bank.

I think what the Dems should do is watch the Pubs hang themselves. They certainly have the rope and they seem to want to do it, so why stop them?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Alright. Well I guess we will see if that is enough then.

But agreed (with other posters in the thread), the parties both need some good cleaning up to be viable entities as of recent.I think there are problems with the Democrats, but the way you have written this makes me want to check for false equivalences. When you suggest that the Democrats need to clean up, it sort of implies that they are into dirty stuff. Is that what you mean? If so, can you point to what makes you think the present Democrats are engaged in corruption in any equivalent way to the present Republicans? If not, I apologize for the digression, but I think we should be clear about what is wrong with the parties as we try to figure out what should be done about it.

I, by the way, contend that the present-day corruption is vastly more endemic to the right/Republicans, and would argue that it makes the "corruption" of the 80's-90's Congressional Democrats look about as severe as check-kiting. Concluding that both parties are similarly corrupt is like saying that the Hutus and Tutsis were involved in a dust-up in Rwanda.

[Larry Borgia]

Are the Democrats still making gun control a major issue? I thought they--or at least a lot of them--gave up on that years ago. I recall Kerry making a somewhat silly photo OP going duck hunting. Some representatives may push for gun control if that's what their constituents want, but on the national or even the state level, most Democrats don't seem to mention it at all.

[John Mace]

Would you have said the same thing in 1994?
My comment was about organizational ability, not who is the sleazier party. The Pubs probably wouldn't have succeeded without Gingrich riding point. I don't see anyone in the Democratic party doing that.

I for one think that dissatisfaction with the way the Pubs have run things for the last 12 years dwarfs the dissatisfaction with the Dems in 1994. This time next year we'll have Speaker Pelosi- you can take it to the bank.
Sounds like an invitation to a wager. Is it?

I think what the Dems should do is watch the Pubs hang themselves. They certainly have the rope and they seem to want to do it, so why stop them?
That tactic has it's place, but the Dems need to do a little more than just that. A lot of the issues in a Congressional race are local, not national.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

That tactic has it's place, but the Dems need to do a little more than just that. A lot of the issues in a Congressional race are local, not national.Well, it's a good thing then that so many localities feature corruption-tainted Republicans.

[Sage Rat]

When you suggest that the Democrats need to clean up, it sort of implies that they are into dirty stuff. Is that what you mean?
No no. I was thinking (on their side) in terms of being less sensationalist about everything. Some of this I think is just an issue of Bush being such an annoying Republican and making American politics become so polarized. But when everything that comes from their side is a "reaction" rather than simply ignoring the annoying people and carrying on with business, there just isn't much to be confident of.

And on the Republican side, personally I just want them to kick the whole religious thing out of there (Yo, you see this bit here in the law where it says that the government can't endorse any religion? No?) After that just getting rid of Bush would be most of all needed for a reasonable face to present to the People.

[BobLibDem]

Sounds like an invitation to a wager. Is it?.

Heavens no. I'm not a gambler. The amount I would wager wouldn't cover the postage.

[John Mace]

Heavens no. I'm not a gambler. The amount I would wager wouldn't cover the postage.
No wonder the Democrats are seen as wimps. :)

I was just teasing before-- I should've put a smiley on that earlier post. We've been over the betting thing before, and I know you don't partake. I just couldn't resist with that reference you made about taking a prediction to the bank.

Frankly, I wish the Dems could win back the House. Speaker Pelosi, though, would be a little much. Still, it would give the SNL folks some good fodder.

[HPL]

Are the Democrats still making gun control a major issue? I thought they--or at least a lot of them--gave up on that years ago. I recall Kerry making a somewhat silly photo OP going duck hunting.

That and he made a big deal over the lapse of the Assualt Weapons Ban and I seem to recall him leaving he campaign trail to vote againest it's sunset.

That soured him in the minds of a lot of people much more then any duck hunting photo.

[duffer]

Most people realize both parties are corrupt, and both turn even more corrupt when in power.
So with any luck that will lead to a successful third party sometime before pigs fly out of my ass.


Here's a paradox for you to work out. Those pigs would be elected before the 3rd party simply because of media coverage focused on your ass. (Which may be newsworthy in itself, but I've never met you, so I don't know) :)

[SteveG1]

Well, we can argue about how it should be interpreted, but we can't argue about whether it's there or not. It's hard to argue about a penumbra or an emination. Talk about something that belongs in a Bewitched episode! :)
Don't take this as being flippant because it isn't. BUT, don't many many people wind up somewhere in the area of "if the penumbra emanates MY way then it's justice but if it emanates the OTHER way it's bad" ??? I've been guilty of it myself.

[Stratocaster]

My pet theory is the Democrats will start winning, and winning big, when they decide to drop one issue that often mobilizes people to go to the polls and vote against them. IMO, this issue is gun control.Oh. I thought for sure you were going to say, "abortion." I am an anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, pro-union, pro-lifer who would most certainly have voted Democrat many, many times--if only they had changed a single plank in their platform.

[Una Persson]

Oh. I thought for sure you were going to say, "abortion." I am an anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, pro-union, pro-lifer who would most certainly have voted Democrat many, many times--if only they had changed a single plank in their platform.
I don't want to get into a debate, since I'm totally unprepared and swamped with work, but the basis for my *opinion* is that in my opinion abortion is an issue that is much more evenly split in the "average person at home" demographic, and thus I think a party is sort of "damned if they do..." whatever side they support idealogically. Whereas in my opinion, among the "average person at home" demographic, one is more likely to find people motivated to get out and vote against an anti-gun politician than those motivated to go out and vote against a pro-gun or neutral-gun politician.

Then of course there's the whole side debate of whether or not gun ownership and use is a true civil right (along with that of self-defense) which Democrats should be embracing just as wholeheartedly as any other civil right. But that's fodder for a whole other thread in another forum.

[Frostillicus]

I believe Rahm Emanuel mentioned recently that one of the things the Democrats are going to hammer at is the idea of the "rubber-stamp" Republican Congress that has rolled over and played dead while Bush has proceeded to destroy this country over the past five years. Therefore, the only way to restore any semblance of checks and balances to our federal government is to elect a Democratic Congress.

[pantom]

Being that strongly anti-gun control is, to a normal city person (there are a few of us) the signpost of an ignorant, rural asshole. No, we don't want you. Go figure.
An educated reading of the second amendment would allow for some regulation of firearms well above the standard of the NRA. There is no qualification re speech in the First, but there are still libel laws that are arguably stronger than anything that regulates guns in a lot of states in this union. To argue otherwise is to show yourself to be an utter, ignorant ass.
So no, we don't want you. Stay in the Republican Party. It's where the ignorant, rural assholes belong.

[duffer]

Wow. Tolerant, understanding, sympathetic and an open mind. You pantom are what make the Dems so great! You embody the ideal of the east coast, elitist, trust-funder drinking Merlot on your yacht in Martha's Vineyard deploring the ills of society while making sure the Guatamalen illegal cleaning your house isn't left alone for 5 seconds lest she steal all your wealthy trinkets.

There. Just felt the thread needed another broad brush. :rolleyes:

[appleciders]

This whole Democratic attitude of being too scared to be against anything just kills me. With Republicans, I know what to expect- they're anti-gun control, pro-business, anti-union, pro-life, pro-ID, pro-Christian, pro-Iraq War, pro-military, etc. With the Democrats, I hardly know what to expect- any given Democrat may have vastly varying opinions on all the above topics; in favor of some, against some, all different from the next Democrat down the line. Now while that may be what I want in government, these people are bound to never get elected because people can't see "Democrat" and know what a Democrat stands for.

It all just makes no sense- in the last few years, the Republicans have had the whole giant WMD debacle, the Valerie Plame affair, the Abu Gharib prison beatings, the Guantanamo Bay prison beatings, the CIA wiretapping scandal, the insurgency in Iraq, the whole Jack Abramoff thing... The Democrats have all the ammunition anyone could ever need, but they refuse to load their guns with it, because (Oh, noes!) someone might get disagree! God forbid we make anyone angry, ever! The only person who's acting on this is Russ Feingold*, and he's getting absolutely no support. The Democrats won't win elections until they can stand up for something the Republicans are against.

*I know Russ Feingold is a bit of a whacko. I agree he should have asked around, built up some support, tested the waters before asking for censure. I still agree with the guy.

[ITR champion]

I generally agree with the OP. The Democrats will climb any mountain, sail any ocean, go to the ends of the Earth, persevere through thick and thin, and generally do whatever it takes to achieve defeat in November. I think that strict partisanship has prevented me from seeing how arrogant, selfish, and falt-out stupid many high-ranking Democrats are, and also many who work in the organizations and special-interest groups. They're short-sighted, oblivious to political realities, and don't understand why their particular pet issue can't be everybody's sole priority. They don't understand the concept of compromise, don't realize that you have to work together, and they spend as much time attacking each other as working for a Democratic victory. By contrast, right-wing opinion makers are entirely dedicated to the cuase of installing savage, irrational hatred of liberals in their minions; they rarely spend a single word on anything else. That gives the Pubs an army of mindless drones who will turn out to vote without having the slightest clue what the Pubs stand for, or even what the major issues are. On top of that, the Pubs still have their traditional advantages (more campaign cash, the anti-democratic electoral college, and total control over the media). Add it all up, and the Pubs might as well count their chickens now.

[pantom]

duffer, I have no mercy, and no sympathy, for rural gits. We pay their taxes for them (you can check it out; NJ per capita contributes the most to the Feds while getting the least back; no rural state comes close to pulling its weight, meantime), and what we get back is contempt in the form of this idiotic attitude towards gun control. Just givin' 'em back what they spit at me.

[Zoe]

pantom: I have no mercy, and no sympathy, for rural gits. We pay their taxes for them (you can check it out; NJ per capita contributes the most to the Feds while getting the least back; no rural state comes close to pulling its weight, meantime), and what we get back is contempt in the form of this idiotic attitude towards gun control. Just givin' 'em back what they spit at me.

I think that you have an excellent point. New Jersey should become self-sufficient. Keep your tax money. Just don't expect any grains, produce, meat, nuts, dairy products, wool, cotton or oil from the more rural states. I'm sure that you have some there. We will miss lovely Cape May and Princeton. We wish you well.

Meanwhile, I support gun-control measures, but I think there are more pressing issues at the moment: balance of power, invasion of privacy, torture, civil liberties, basic health care

[Gamaliel]

I think that you have an excellent point. New Jersey should become self-sufficient. Keep your tax money. Just don't expect any grains, produce, meat, nuts, dairy products, wool, cotton or oil from the more rural states. I'm sure that you have some there. We will miss lovely Cape May and Princeton. We wish you well.

With all the money they'll be saving, they should have enough to purchase their own crops, or a state to do their growing for them. How much would Iowa sell for?

[Sage Rat]

It all just makes no sense- in the last few years, the Republicans have had the whole giant WMD debacle, the Valerie Plame affair, the Abu Gharib prison beatings, the Guantanamo Bay prison beatings, the CIA wiretapping scandal, the insurgency in Iraq, the whole Jack Abramoff thing... The Democrats have all the ammunition anyone could ever need, but they refuse to load their guns with it, because (Oh, noes!) someone might get disagree! God forbid we make anyone angry, ever! The only person who's acting on this is Russ Feingold*, and he's getting absolutely no support. The Democrats won't win elections until they can stand up for something the Republicans are against.
They did load ther guns and fire off, the problem is is that in a country where the most staunch Democrats spend all day decrying all this, then go home and post on everyone's favorite message board about how cool Jack Bauer for doing all the things you mention...well there's just not a lot of believability there.

Batman is great for the great pains he goes to to guarantee his enemies never die, but in the US this trait is dropped at a hat for the sake of a story that lives up to the desires of the mass populace--half of whom are Democrats. You watch Japanese anime though, the heroes who are avowed never to kill are very often submitted to horendous choices they have to make due to this, and that is almost never glossed over for something more keeping with the id.

If you cheered at the end of A Time to Kill, are you really against the death penalty? Etc.

Americans as a majority, regardless what they may say in public, still are a people who are going to make the hard choice and play low ball when push comes to shove. Bush himself may be an idiot, but the policies he has implemented are very in-keeping of what Americans seem to accept when they let their guard down--and personally I trust where people put their money a lot more than I do where they put their mouth.

[Stratocaster]

I don't want to get into a debate, since I'm totally unprepared and swamped with work, but the basis for my *opinion* is that in my opinion abortion is an issue that is much more evenly split in the "average person at home" demographic, and thus I think a party is sort of "damned if they do..." whatever side they support idealogically. Whereas in my opinion, among the "average person at home" demographic, one is more likely to find people motivated to get out and vote against an anti-gun politician than those motivated to go out and vote against a pro-gun or neutral-gun politician.Right, I wasn't trying to start that debate, just making an observation. I understand your point.

[The Highwayman]

You know, this thread reminds me of this Republican congressperson from Florida on the Real Time show saying "all politicians are corrupt" and "they are just as corrupt as we are." I used to agree with this but I don't think that this is the case anymore on a whole. I don't think that all politicians are corrupt; I would point to the fact that they are under the scrutiny of the media, the public, and the opposite party all of the time. However, in a few cases, we will have corruption and it is a problem for either party.

I'm a centrist Democrat for the most part; a real honest to goodness Clintonian. What disturbs me about the Republicans is not corruption or politics but the fact that they are hypocrites and liars most of the time. In this instance, we have the Republicans, who control all three branches of government, claiming politics as usual. "We are no more corrupt then they" is what they are saying. Those of us with a little better memory will recall the spirit of reform envisioned by the Contract on America. What really burns me is that they capitalized on the sense of distrust and dissatisfaction in government that most Americans have. In a way, they capitalized on the disillusionment in our democracy by promising that once they were in power, things would be different.

Now that they have that power, things aren't different. I think that the Republicans should be held accountable for two things: Encouraging the disconnect of the government from the people and regardless of whether you feel that all politicians are corrupt or not, they are not only just as corrupt but hypocrites as well.

Who would you vote for?

One more thing, let's not keep letting the Republicans define our platform for us. Our issues are: We run better economies, fight better wars, and increase the benefits of our society for more people. As far as what we stand for not being known to the population at large answer me this: What did Dumbass stand for in 2000? I'm not Gore?

[Sage Rat]

One more thing, let's not keep letting the Republicans define our platform for us. Our issues are: We run better economies, fight better wars, and increase the benefits of our society for more people. As far as what we stand for not being known to the population at large answer me this: What did Dumbass stand for in 2000? I'm not Gore?
I don't know about Dumbass, but the Republican party goes for: We run better economies, fight better wars, and increase the benefits of our society for more people. Conundrum, eh?

[The Highwayman]

I don't know about Dumbass, but the Republican party goes for: We run better economies, fight better wars, and increase the benefits of our society for more people. Conundrum, eh?Not so much when you apply the lessons of history and come to find that Democrats actually do run better economies, fight better wars, and increase the benefits... I would run through the facts that prove this again but that takes time. Do your own research.

People like me worry about these things rather than who's getting a blowjob. But rather than obfuscate the issue further, which is what Republicans would like to do, I have offered up in my last post this:

Now Republicans by their own admission are just as corrupt as Democrats even though they have gained their majority from saying that they were not as corrupt. Not only are they corrupt by their own admission but they are hypocrites as well.

No conundrum as far as I'm concerned.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I think that you have an excellent point. New Jersey should become self-sufficient. Keep your tax money. Just don't expect any grains, produce, meat, nuts, dairy products, wool, cotton or oil from the more rural states. I'm sure that you have some there. We will miss lovely Cape May and Princeton. We wish you well.I'm sure that there are lots of places one might buy such resources, given than they aren't being given them for free right now. In fact, in terms of farm subsidies, they may be paying for what they aren't getting, too.

I do think it's ironic that those states apparently most prone to bemoan the federal government and cry out in favor of states rights are those deriving the greatest financial benefit from being a part of the union.

[Sage Rat]

Maybe, but the point is that everyone has the same goals. Saying "We're here to make a better economy" isn't very meaningful, since it makes it sound like this is what differentiates your platform from the other guys. But the other guy isn't saying "We'll make a better economy" he's saying, "We'll cut taxes." And for the response to that to be "You're just trying get in with the rich!" instead of a different strategy for a better economy, again doesn't inspire confidence.

That doesn't mean that they don't have a plan, nor that they wouldn't necesarily do a better job--just that without anyone talking about that plan why would anyone on the fence have any confidence in that direction?

And a big reason I think that Dems do this is simply because they don't think that Republicans want those things you listed, and they don't hear "We'll cut taxes" as being synonymous with "trying to create a better economy." To them it's just a big "WTF, where'd that come from?"

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Not so much when you apply the lessons of history and come to find that Democrats actually do run better economies, fight better wars, and increase the benefits... I would run through the facts that prove this again but that takes time. Do your own research.Actually, others have done the research. Check out this collection at eRiposte (http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm) On every indicator, whether contemporaneous or lagged, the economy performs better under Democrats.

Here's data (http://www.eriposte.com/economy/tax/tax_n_spend_truths.htm) demonstrating the tendency for the redder states to be greater teat-suckers.

How does a party combat such facts? It shouts "Michael Moore! Al Sharpton! Queers! Orange Alert!" Somehow, some people are such whiny ass titty babies (WATB) who are so easily scared that they will vote for you if you just find the thing that scares them the most. Mr. Moto's Gladys Kravitz analogy has some legs, I think. The truth is right there, but so many people are like Abner, with their ass on the couch, reading what the media are telling them to be afraid of instead. "I don't care what you see out the window, Gladys. It says right here that the gays are going to come and take my bible out of my hands! It also says that John Kerry lied about Viet Nam!"

The difference is that Samantha could wiggle her nose to alter reality. These guys had to make Scooter Libby fuck Judy Miller to do it, or pay Anderson Williams et al some money. (Okay, I've never heard that Libby and Miller actually had sex.)

[LonesomePolecat]

IIt's just a bit ironic that you would pretend to be thoughtful about your voting preferences, lamenting the lack of a party you could support, and then name two people who don't represent the Democratic Party in any real way, but who have just by happenstance, been pushed by Rove as the demons of the left.

When Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" was released, guests at the premier included Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, New York Rep. Charles Rangel, Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, and Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe. McAuliffe said the film "was essentially fair and factually based"--and there aren't enough :rolleyes: 's in the world to express how I feel about that--and apparently agreed with Moore's incredible accusation that America invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 to build an oil pipeline. At the Democratic National Convention, Moore sat in Jimmy Carter's box. And I'm supposed to believe Moore isn't a big shot in the Democratic Party, that he has no influence?

Pretense? I haven't voted for the presidential candidate of either major party since 1976. If it's a pretense, I've kept it up for amost 30 years.
You vilify me, and you wonder why I won't listen to you. There's so much more I could say to you, but what's the point? Your mind is obviously closed, and the real irony here is that you haven't got a clue as to how people like yourself help the Republican party.

I remember watching a newsreel of George Wallace walking out into a rally during a presidential campaign where dozens of hecklers tried to shout him down. Wallace just grinned, blew them a kiss, waved his arms in the air, and shouted, "THANK YOU FOR A MILLION VOTES!"

And he was right. Those idiots were helping him much more than they were hurting him.

Just like you're helping the Pubs right now.

[Fear Itself]

Just like you're helping the Pubs right now.All that help still won't prevent them from losing seats in November.

[LonesomePolecat]

All that help still won't prevent them from losing seats in November.
Perhaps they would lose even more seats if guys like Hentor knew how to talk to people decently.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Perhaps they would lose even more seats if guys like Hentor knew how to talk to people decently.Perhaps I'm just too cynical to believe that nobody has said to you "Hey, please understand that boogeyman here] doesn't represent the Democrats." Perhaps I saw what John Kerry's nice and quiet answer did for the Swift Bullshit, versus Bill Clinton's "It's the economy stupid" rapid smackdown of the GOP bullshit back then. Frankly, someone who claims that "a person on a message board wasn't nice to me when I spouted GOP talking points, so I'll vote against my economic interests instead of considering other options" is either a liar or is irrevocably stupid.

Just imagine this: In 5 years, you'll be expressing consternation about the Democrats because Jim Davison represents them. Who's Jim Davison? I have no idea, but the Karl Rove of 5 years from now will have you up in arms about a controversial movie he made or because he's the leader of some future fringe group in San Francisco or New York City. You'll continue to bend over and take it in the ass economically because of your fear of some guy you don't even know about yet.

[LonesomePolecat]

Frankly, someone who claims that "a person on a message board wasn't nice to me when I spouted GOP talking points, so I'll vote against my economic interests instead of considering other options" is either a liar or is irrevocably stupid.

It isn't just one peson on a message board. It's lots of people all across the Net, in the media, and face to face. Do you want me, and the millions of people like me, to listen? Then stop spewing venom.

[Squink]

It isn't just one peson on a message board. It's lots of people all across the Net, in the media, and face to face. Do you want me, and the millions of people like me, to listen? Then stop spewing venom.Whiny Titty Baby (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142722231554)

[Hentor the Barbarian]

It isn't just one peson on a message board. It's lots of people all across the Net, in the media, and face to face. Do you want me, and the millions of people like me, to listen? Then stop spewing venom.Here, this is for those countless millions. This is the horribly "venomous" response I originally gave LonesomePolecat:

Or as long as a proportion of the population keeps mindlessly buying into the scare techniques of the right (e.g. Michael Moore and Al Sharpton are boogiemen who somehow represent the Democrats). Start thinking for yourself.Ouch! How could anyone ever withstand such a horrible browbeating? It's a shame that I so viciously attacked someone who had a leg over the fence and all ready to vote Democrat!

Or, alternatively, LonesomePolecat is engaging in the tried and true conservative counterattack of calling someone "crazy" or "mean" (e.g. John McCain, Howard Dean) to distract from a point.

Note, countless millions, how, simply because Democrats attended Moore's movie premiere, and Moore sat with Democrats at an event, he and Al Sharpton represent Democrats. Note also that because Moore made a controversial movie and expressed controversial sentiments (that the war was wrong or misguided) he is a pariah who should be shunned and who makes thoughtful people not vote Democratic.

LonesomePolecat, Michael Moore has the interests of working stiffs far more at heart than most of the Republican politicians you support. It's sad that my suggestion that you think for yourself hurt your feelings so badly. Please continue to let others think for you, as long as you feel good doing so. Fear Jim Davison!!!!

[Digital Stimulus]

Whiny Titty Baby (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142722231554)
Off topic, but I especially like this:
Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

[LonesomePolecat]

Ouch! How could anyone ever withstand such a horrible browbeating? It's a shame that I so viciously attacked someone who had a leg over the fence and all ready to vote Democrat!

Or, alternatively, LonesomePolecat is engaging in the tried and true conservative counterattack of calling someone "crazy" or "mean" (e.g. John McCain, Howard Dean) to distract from a point.

Well, let's look at couple of your other comments from the same post.
It's just a bit ironic that you would pretend to be thoughtful about your voting preferences ...
Here you call me dishonest.
Think, man. Don't just spout Republican talking points and believe you've made some sort of point, and then run crying when you are called on it.
Here you call me stupid, dishonest and cowardly. And I'm not supposed to be offended by this?
Note, countless millions, how, simply because Democrats attended Moore's movie premiere ...
Those Democrats were very high up in the party heirarchy, and they were invited VIP guests at the premier. They weren't just random moviegoers. This is clearly a dishonest misrepresentation on your part.
...and Moore sat with Democrats at an event ...
Moore sat with Jimmy Carter, a former Democratic president, in Carter's reserved box,and the event was the Democratic National Convention. This is quite obviously VIP treatment at an important party function. Again, you are using weasel words to misrepresent the nature of the event.
... he and Al Sharpton represent Democrats. Note also that because Moore made a controversial movie and expressed controversial sentiments (that the war was wrong or misguided) he is a pariah who should be shunned and who makes thoughtful people not vote Democratic.
Oh, please. Moore's film had about as much integrity as Chariots of the Gods. Many left-wingers were embarassed by it.
Michael Moore has the interests of working stiffs far more at heart than most of the Republican politicians you support. It's sad that my suggestion that you think for yourself hurt your feelings so badly. Please continue to let others think for you, as long as you feel good doing so ...
So now you're a mind reader? Please do tell which Republican politicians I support. I can't think of very many politicians of any stripe that I support.

Michael Moore, like Al Sharpton, is a demagogue. Moore isn't concerned about working stiffs like me. He's concerned with feeding his own ego. Both Sharpton and Moore appealed to the lowest and ugliest aspects of human nature to make fortunes and build power bases for themselves.

And of course you close here with the broad gauge, one-size-fits-all insult that appears to be habitual with you: anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't "thinking for himself." It's a funny thing. Nobody ever accused me of not thinking for myself when I was agreeing with them.

Your posts here quite clearly show you to be both malicious and dishonest. Now, I already have all the unpleasantness I need in my life, and I have better things to do than to bicker with you. Goodbye.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Well, let's look at couple of your other comments from the same post.Bullshit, liar. I quoted that post in its entirety. See here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7213525&postcount=18). The rest of your quotes from me come from later posts as our exchange evolved. I made my first post, you started whining about me being mean, and I did not change my tone based on your crying. But my first post was exactly as I quoted, and did not include the other elements you claimed.

As to your nitpicking about my description of your links between Michael Moore and the Democrats, I chose no weasel words. They attended a premiere. I said this. He sat with Democrats at an event. I said this. Take your charges of weaseling and go fuck yourself.

(Somehow the exchange from The American President comes to mind:

Lewis Rothschild: Yeah, just vote your conscience, you chicken-shit lame-ass! [hangs up] We lost Jarrett.

Leon Kodak: Well, I hope so, because, you know, if that was an "undecided", then we need to work on our people skills.)

[LonesomePolecat]

Bullshit, liar. I quoted that post in its entirety. See here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7213525&postcount=18). The rest of your quotes from me come from later posts as our exchange evolved. I made my first post, you started whining about me being mean, and I did not change my tone based on your crying. But my first post was exactly as I quoted, and did not include the other elements you claimed.

As to your nitpicking about my description of your links between Michael Moore and the Democrats, I chose no weasel words. They attended a premiere. I said this. He sat with Democrats at an event. I said this. Take your charges of weaseling and go fuck yourself.

(Somehow the exchange from The American President comes to mind:

Lewis Rothschild: Yeah, just vote your conscience, you chicken-shit lame-ass! [hangs up] We lost Jarrett.

Leon Kodak: Well, I hope so, because, you know, if that was an "undecided", then we need to work on our people skills.)
Okay, so the comments weren't from the same post. BFD. They're still your comments to me, and they still show you to be malicious. And you're most definitely being a weasel here; but there is no point in trying to reason with a weasel like you.

Your little tantrum is quite amusing, though. You've demonstrated yet once again that far too many lefties have no idea about how to approach people with their ideas. Like people who take Jack Chick tracts seriously, you haven't got a clue as to why others find you repugnant.

[Fear Itself]

You're back?Now, I already have all the unpleasantness I need in my life, and I have better things to do than to bicker with you. Goodbye.I guess this was just another lie then?

[LonesomePolecat]

You're back?I guess this was just another lie then?
Naw, I just couldn't resist taunting him for his cluelessness one more time.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Naw, I just couldn't resist taunting him for his cluelessness one more time.Please don't taunt me again, you big meanie. This is why I could never vote Republican. You are just so full of venom. (Well, that and representatives James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh.) I was just about to vote for Rick Santorum until this! Now I never will, even though I love me nothing better than a big tax cut for the wealthy.

Please go away and leave me alone! Help, Help! Waaaaah! Goodbye, I'm leaving (for three posts).

[LonesomePolecat]

Please don't taunt me again, you big meanie. This is why I could never vote Republican. You are just so full of venom. (Well, that and representatives James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh.) I was just about to vote for Rick Santorum until this! Now I never will, even though I love me nothing better than a big tax cut for the wealthy.

Please go away and leave me alone! Help, Help! Waaaaah! Goodbye, I'm leaving (for three posts).
Goddam. You really are as stupid as you seem to be.

[Sage Rat]

Actually, others have done the research. Check out this collection at eRiposte (http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm) On every indicator, whether contemporaneous or lagged, the economy performs better under Democrats.
I only know about the last four presidents, but from those it seemed to go that Reagan did well but built up a massive debt via military, Bush I received that and as he set about repairing it ended up starting the Gulf War. Which left Clinton to have the first non-war government and with the financial policies worked out under Bush I, just to let it ride and grow until it blew up under Bush II just about the same time as a bunch of terrorists rammed a plane into a building and leading us again to war.

So of the four, it seems that Republicans run a booming economy...if you could get them to not go to war and mess that up.

Here's data (http://www.eriposte.com/economy/tax/tax_n_spend_truths.htm) demonstrating the tendency for the redder states to be greater teat-suckers.
What all do states take out of the Federal governments' pocket instead of state taxes? My personal guess would be this is mostly showing farming subsidies. I don't recall what I read that was talking about it (probably some GD thread) but it seemed that outside of corn (?) subsidizing for bio-fuels, no one on either side had any issue with any of the other subsidies as they help us stay in the race with China.

Of course that is based on the assumption that that is what we are looking at, as said. I'll follow the link trail later today.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I only know about the last four presidents, but from those it seemed to go that Reagan did well but built up a massive debt via military, Bush I received that and as he set about repairing it ended up starting the Gulf War. Which left Clinton to have the first non-war government and with the financial policies worked out under Bush I, just to let it ride and grow until it blew up under Bush II just about the same time as a bunch of terrorists rammed a plane into a building and leading us again to war.You didn't look at the linked information at all, did you? It looks like you could develop alibis for Republican presidents fairly well, but the nice thing about data is that it is less dependent on creative excuse finding (or conversely suggesting that the other party coasted along without problems).So of the four, it seems that Republicans run a booming economy...if you could get them to not go to war and mess that up.I'm sure one can continue to believe that if they want only to do so. Otherwise, look at the data.What all do states take out of the Federal governments' pocket instead of state taxes? My personal guess would be this is mostly showing farming subsidies.Huh? I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe that farm subsidies are the only federal spending by state you could think of. For instance, you might have heard of Katrina? Here's a list (http://harvester.census.gov/cffr/asp/Geography.asp) of categories of federal spending from the Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Pennsylvania. Here's a randomly grabbed small portion of the categories of federal spending in the report:

ANIMAL HEALTH AND DISEASE RESEARCH
SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH
SECONDARY AGRICULTURE EDUCATION GRANTS
INTEGRATED PROGRAMS
VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSING REPAIR LOANS AND GRANTS
RURAL SELF-HELP HOUSING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
RURAL HOUSING PRESERVATION GRANTS
HOUSING APPLICATION PACKAGING GRANTS
DIRECT HOUSING-NATURAL DISASTER LOANS AND GRANTS
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

You could look up your own state, if you like.

[SteveG1]

It isn't just one peson on a message board. It's lots of people all across the Net, in the media, and face to face. Do you want me, and the millions of people like me, to listen? Then stop spewing venom.
You want venom? You really want venom? How about the shit "your side" spews...

Commie
Faggot
Godless
Traitor
Liberal Wimp/Pansy/Pussy
Get outta my country
Kill da liberals (Coulter's style)
Bomb San Francisco (O'Reilly's approach)
God killed them because they deserved it (Robertson and Falwell)
That liberal Mormon guy got a taste of reallity (Limbaugh, on that man who was recently beheaded)


Is that enough? But we are the meanies. Sheesh. You are a whiny titty baby.

[Sage Rat]

You didn't look at the linked information at all, did you? It looks like you could develop alibis for Republican presidents fairly well, but the nice thing about data is that it is less dependent on creative excuse finding
I read through it and to the Forbes article it linked predominately and read that as well.

And I didn't create an alibi for Republicans. They may do well on the economy if they didn't keep dumping money in the military. So long as they continue to do so, there is no reason to think they will ever run a proper economy per your data.

(or conversely suggesting that the other party coasted along without problems.)Per your site's source (Forbes), "The key to Clinton's success, says Alice Rivlin, a Brookings Institution scholar who served as his director of management and budget, was adhering to the "pay/go" agreement first forged by President George H. W. Bush and a Democratic Congress, whereby tax cuts or entitlement increases had to be funded on a current basis."

I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe that farm subsidies are the only federal spending by state you could think of.
I didn't say it was the only thing I could think of. I suggested it as the reason red states might be, on average, drawing more money from the federal government than other states. Saying that red stated use more money doesn't mean anything negative to being red unless you show where that money is going and who decided for it to go there. For all we from just the information that "red states eat more money" the reason they do so may be due to blue, federal legislation. Without figuring out where the money is going, the stat doesn't mean anything. And I admit, and admitted, that I had not tracked down that information yet. ...though checking the site shows that most of the links are broken, though the last is a word document with the line, "Perhaps more interesting, the states in which Al Gore did worse than Bill Clinton did in 1996 are the states that increased their net take from the federal government in the two years leading up to the 2000 election." So...the red states were given most of their money by Dems....

You could look up your own state, if you like.
Tokyo takes very little I am sure.

[Sage Rat]

As to the whole LonesomePolecat tangent...yeesh people, I know this is the pit and all but I'm seriously doubting that this is the kind of ranting that makes you feel better for having gotten it out there. (Which is directed at both sides.)

[duffer]

I'm sure that there are lots of places one might buy such resources, given than they aren't being given them for free right now. In fact, in terms of farm subsidies, they may be paying for what they aren't getting, too.

I do think it's ironic that those states apparently most prone to bemoan the federal government and cry out in favor of states rights are those deriving the greatest financial benefit from being a part of the union.


Jesus you're dumb. You have no clue about simple economics, do you? Do you honestly propose that NJ has enough land to grow a sufficient amount of crops to feed the residents? More corn can be grown in a fraction of Iowan land than in the Garden State. Add to that wheat, barley, soybeans, potatoes, sugar beets, sunflower seeds, etc. No reason to recognize the sparcity of population means all the fertile land can be used to feed your face.

More money comes to rural states in farm subsidies? Um, farm subsidies are the pet project every election cycle of the Democrats. Your own people are the ones that set it up that way! Dumbass.

The majority of farmers in the rural states are Democrats. They want that subsidy year in and year out. Your party is the one fighting for increased money every year. You're either wrong in your thinking or an idiot. Maybe both.

Tell you what, dipshit. Lobby your reps to cut subsidies to the farmers and make income/dispersal equal. make sure it's tied to the food you eat. It's easy for a state like NJ to generate taxable income with a few Universities that charge an arm and a leg to the out-of-state students, and run a few ports THAT SHIP PRODUCTS PRODUCED IN RURAL STATES.

Keep your fucking elitist bullshit on your plate, us red staters will be happy with the food we produce on ours.

By the way, make sure your federal income for the tenements and slums isn't taken from our taxes. You're more insular in statehood than you blame Conservatives to be. You're full of shit, and you know it. i'm done playing with you. Go fuck yourself.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Jesus you're dumb. You have no clue about simple economics, do you? Do you honestly propose that NJ has enough land to grow a sufficient amount of crops to feed the residents? More corn can be grown in a fraction of Iowan land than in the Garden State. Add to that wheat, barley, soybeans, potatoes, sugar beets, sunflower seeds, etc. No reason to recognize the sparcity of population means all the fertile land can be used to feed your face.And I'm the dumb one? I said they had the resources to buy them, dumbass, not produce them all themselves. Do you think rural America is the only place to obtain such products? Fucking moron. I ain't never seen nobody so shit-all stupid as you.

[Fear Itself]

Keep your fucking elitist bullshit on your plate, us red staters will be happy with the food we produce on ours.Are you sure you want to play this game? OK, you asked for it:<removed copyright violation>All in all, I'll take that bargain!

[Scumpup]

I ain't never seen nobody so shit-all stupid as you.

Have a look in the morror, jit-stain, if you want to see stupid. The best I can say for New Jersey is that some consider it the bastard child of Philadelphia.

[Scumpup]

Have a look in the morror, jit-stain, if you want to see stupid. The best I can say for New Jersey is that some consider it the bastard child of Philadelphia.

Have a look in the mirror... :smack:

[SteveG1]

As to the whole LonesomePolecat tangent...yeesh people, I know this is the pit and all but I'm seriously doubting that this is the kind of ranting that makes you feel better for having gotten it out there. (Which is directed at both sides.)
Fuck that. I'm not sitting on my ass while someone pulls that "I'd listen if you weren't so mean" bullshit.

Some call me a liberal, some may call me a middle roader. I see myself as a conservative, in the truest sense - in the sense that no government or president has any right or authority to break the law (or ignore it), or interfere with the private lives of its citizens. Call it the "leave us the hell alone" doctrine.

I'm sick of the "america hater" crap, the fag crap, the commie crap, the "terrorist helping" crap, ALL of it. I was sick of the "we got a mandate so fuck you" shit too. Don't make me pull out my long list of hateful quotes from The Right. I can start reall good, with the full damn transcript of the Falwell Robertson jerk off session about 9/11 and go downhill from there.

So to anyone who wants to play the "you're so mean" game, I got yer mean, right here. Bring it.

[duffer]

Are you sure you want to play this game? OK, you asked for it:All in all, I'll take that bargain!


That's real cute. Something amusing from a comedic angle, but not really substantive. If quoting verbatim something that makes you feel good gives you a sense of participation, good on ya. But the adults are talking. Go lay down little one. :rolleyes:

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Have a look in the morror, jit-stain, if you want to see stupid. The best I can say for New Jersey is that some consider it the bastard child of Philadelphia.Am I supposed to be hurt by an attack on New Jersey? Jesus Christ, these stupid motherfuckers are just pouring out of the woodwork. Hint: I'm not from New Jersey anyway.

[Fear Itself]

But the adults are talking. Where? You? The juvenile potty mouth? Haw-Haw-Haw, you are full of yourself tonight!

[Neurotik]

Keep your fucking elitist bullshit on your plate, us red staters will be happy with the food we produce on ours.

By the way, make sure your federal income for the tenements and slums isn't taken from our taxes. You're more insular in statehood than you blame Conservatives to be. You're full of shit, and you know it. i'm done playing with you. Go fuck yourself.
Whatever. Your venom just masks the fact that for all your high and mighty talk about red-state work ethic, self-dependency and pulling yourself up by the boostraps, you fucks are the biggest leeches in the country. From this cite (http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm):

North Dakota pays out $5,129 in federal taxes per capita but receives back $9,513 in federal spending. New Jersey pays out $8,920 in federal taxes per capita but only gets back $6,353 in federal spending. In other words, New Jersey not only takes care of its own slums and tenements, but also pays a chunk of North Dakota's. Basically, for all their tough guy, independent rhetoric North Dakota is basically one big welfare recipient.

[Sage Rat]

So to anyone who wants to play the "you're so mean" game, I got yer mean, right here. Bring it.
See, now this is healthy ranting attitude.

[Sage Rat]

North Dakota pays out $5,129 in federal taxes per capita but receives back $9,513 in federal spending. New Jersey pays out $8,920 in federal taxes per capita but only gets back $6,353 in federal spending. In other words, New Jersey not only takes care of its own slums and tenements, but also pays a chunk of North Dakota's. Basically, for all their tough guy, independent rhetoric North Dakota is basically one big welfare recipient.
So then you are stating that the states decided amongst themselves who got to take the most money, rather than the Federal government deciding how much of its money it was going to give?

[Fear Itself]

So then you are stating that the states decided amongst themselves who got to take the most money, rather than the Federal government deciding how much of its money it was going to give?I don't see 'em giving it back...

[Sage Rat]

I don't see 'em giving it back...
So then we are discussing Federal spending of Federal taxes that somehow doesn't involve the Federal government spending Federal taxes?

[Fear Itself]

So then we are discussing Federal spending of Federal taxes that somehow doesn't involve the Federal government spending Federal taxes?So you admit that the red states are federal tit sucklers?

[SteveG1]

See, now this is healthy ranting attitude.
So what's your point?

[Sage Rat]

Only if they had a choice on how much money they got. Which was my point. Try reading up the thread a bit, the "red suckle" appears to be farm subsidies put through by the Federal government based on Democrat policy. Saying the red states "take" more money assumes that they have the option to chose the Federal budget, that they did chose it, and that they chose a higher number due to Republican policy. None of those appear to be true and the first strikes me as entirely flying in the face of logic.

[SteveG1]

So you admit that the red states are federal tit sucklers?
I have an idea.... let's stop subsidies, and allow free market open trade. If the red states can't cut it without breaks and subsidies, then shit let's just outsource to some other countries. While we're at it, let's stop the free use of federal lands too.

[Sage Rat]

So what's your point?
That I'm happy you feel better now...?

I guess I do need to stop posting in the pit. No one wants to be happy.

[The Highwayman]

It's the hypocrisy gentlemen, it's the hypocrisy.

I'm telling you, that's why I can't stand Republicans. I have voted for a few Republicans in my day but for the most part, I can't stand the hypocrisy and lies.

I was watching Bush today at a new conference and whew boy I have yet to see him that aggimatated. His feet seem put to the flame. Can't say I didn't relish it just a bit watching him string fragmented sentences together.

Damn that enemy for trying to thwart us! Why are they fighting so? Why don't they just lay down and give up?

I say let the Republicans continue along with the "Democrats don't have a plan and are liberals" bent because it is going to do them in. How is that old canard working to bring up their shitty approval rate? Keep it up, that's all I say.

We Democrats merely need to sit back and just be there as the opposition to the party who is in charge and fucking things up. We are the alternative and we have a plan that is different from what they have been doing to fuck this country up. The only thing is we have to resist the temptation to scream "I TOLD YOU SO!!!" at the top of our lungs.

[Sage Rat]

We Democrats merely need to sit back and just be there as the opposition to the party who is in charge and fucking things up. We are the alternative and we have a plan that is different from what they have been doing to fuck this country up. The only thing is we have to resist the temptation to scream "I TOLD YOU SO!!!" at the top of our lungs.
Yes...well I'm sure there was no doubt that Democrats are the party of "putting it to the man." But anyone who wants to put it to the man already knows which way they are going to vote without having to understand any policy. The problem is those dang swing voters who may actually like to know that sort of stuff.

[SteveG1]

That I'm happy you feel better now...?

I guess I do need to stop posting in the pit. No one wants to be happy.
No, I'm just tired of that "you're so mean" nonsense. It's bullshit. You can stop the condescension now.

[Sage Rat]

Well believe me or not, it's up to you.

[The Highwayman]

Yes...well I'm sure there was no doubt that Democrats are the party of "putting it to the man." But anyone who wants to put it to the man already knows which way they are going to vote without having to understand any policy. The problem is those dang swing voters who may actually like to know that sort of stuff.How many of those swing voters are amongst the latest 34% and 32% approval rate for the President and Congress?

It is an old saying in political circles that people come out to vote against a candidate more than for him or her. Watch what happens in '06.

And for the last time, the Democrats stand for the same things the Republicans claim they stand for. One exception, we actually get it done. How about this for a platform:

Let's bring back the good old days of Bill Clinton-like effective government:

1. America at the pinnacle of its power militarily, economically, and socially around the world. Both respected and rational.
2. Actually trying to kill Bin Laden and keeping terrorists at bay... Regardless of the Republican lies, Bin Laden walks with a limp because Clinton sent 40 cruise missiles over a sovereign nation without asking to attempt to kill him. Not bad given Bush's continuous bungling.
3. Good old fashion honest and effective government. A big criticism of Clinton was he governed by the polls... And that is bad? I'll never forget Bush in a debate saying that "government should stand side by side with the people." Newsflash dipshit, the government is the people or at least it should be. Please don't bring up the blow job lie because that didn't hurt anyone unlike the countless lies told by members of your party which have killed thousands of Americans and have diminished our great nation in the world in so many ways.

[SteveG1]

Well believe me or not, it's up to you.
If you have somethig to say, then just say it. I'm not going to play Twenty Questions, or try to figure out what you're saying. Spit it out.

[Updike]

We Democrats merely need to sit back and just be there as the opposition to the party who is in charge and fucking things up. We are the alternative and we have a plan that is different from what they have been doing to fuck this country up.

And how well did "I'm not Bush" work for Sen. Kerry last time around?

[Sage Rat]

Exactly what I said. You mellowed and got happy, so I was happy for you. But commenting on it pissed you off so now I've just thrown my hands in the air and am answering your questions as they come.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

So then you are stating that the states decided amongst themselves who got to take the most money, rather than the Federal government deciding how much of its money it was going to give?It would seem likely that the duly elected representatives from each state had a hand in helping money go back to their state. Isn't that what pork is? Do you think Pennsylvanians are keen on Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' bridge boondoggle? Or did you think that Federal spending was decided by some "government" star chamber? Of course, if Specter and Santorum (both Pennsylvania republicans) want help from Stevens, a fairly powerful member of the Senate, they aren't going to overtly shit on his bridge project, are they?

The point, for me anyway, isn't that every state has to get a dollar for dollar match of taxes and federal spending. I'm perfectly happy to accept that we are strongest as a union, together we stand, and so on. The thing that bothers me is having Republicans shit on such principles when they in fact benefit greatly from them.

[Sage Rat]

How many of those swing voters are amongst the latest 34% and 32% approval rate for the President and Congress?
Better the devil you know?

I don't understand what the harm is in publicizing your positions and the methods you intend to solve them, and not just getting up in a huff over everything stupid that the other team does. Yes you may be in the fortunate position of having the other team currently being headed by a bumbling moron--but that doesn't do you any good if you don't present anything to make yourselves look better. And indeed for the last two elections you were up against the same bumbling fool and drew dead even. And that's because the swing voters really had no choices to make.

As to returning to Clinton--sure give me Clinton. If you want to return to Reagan, then I'll go for that too. But so long as we're talking about parties and not individual leaders and they're ability to grab the position based on their charisma and not on their platform--I don't see what is to be gained by bringing them up. To you Clinton may have been "The Ultimate Democrat, showing what Democrats can do." But to someone who doesn't have party loyalties, he's just "a guy" who ranks high on the President list and no more a guarantee of what that Party will bring to the table than any other failed or successful president from either side throughout history.

[Sage Rat]

It would seem likely that the duly elected representatives from each state had a hand in helping money go back to their state. Isn't that what pork is? Do you think Pennsylvanians are keen on Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' bridge boondoggle? Or did you think that Federal spending was decided by some "government" star chamber? Of course, if Specter and Santorum (both Pennsylvania republicans) want help from Stevens, a fairly powerful member of the Senate, they aren't going to overtly shit on his bridge project, are they?
Certainly each state has a say (i.e. vote) via their Federal representatives, but ultimately they will be stuck with what the other 49 stated voted for. And these generally wouldn't be as clearcut as X dollars to Y state. It would be "We want to subsidize farming" which effects all states with heavy farming including California.

Given that the money is for a Democrat policy, and these are red states, doesn't it seem more likely that the representatives of the states voted against the policy and got it anyways?

[duffer]

Whatever. Your venom just masks the fact that for all your high and mighty talk about red-state work ethic, self-dependency and pulling yourself up by the boostraps, you fucks are the biggest leeches in the country. From this cite (http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm):

North Dakota pays out $5,129 in federal taxes per capita but receives back $9,513 in federal spending. New Jersey pays out $8,920 in federal taxes per capita but only gets back $6,353 in federal spending. In other words, New Jersey not only takes care of its own slums and tenements, but also pays a chunk of North Dakota's. Basically, for all their tough guy, independent rhetoric North Dakota is basically one big welfare recipient.


So you admit that the red states are federal tit sucklers?

Can you two douchebags consult each other before making your case as complete assholes?

North Dakota, as a complete non-entity in your egotistical, insular world, is a "Red State". We don't count in your world as we're nothing but rubes and hicks. Given your superior intellects, I should just crawl back into my hole in the earth and trust your knowledge of all that is right and good.

Wait. Oh yeah, I forgot about Congress. You know, those 2 Democrat Senators and that spitfire, renegade Representative of the Democratic Party we keep sending to Washington.

You know, the three that keep fighting for increased farm subsidies? The subsidies that help tip the balance of federal funds coming to this state? For things like highways to truck the food to the rest of the country?

I don't benefit at all from the imbalance. If you're so upset about it, talk to Howard Dean and see what he can do.

Listen up ignorants. It's the Democrats sending that money to us. Don't like it? Don't blame me, moron. Your party is is responsible for it. Whine all you want, but the issue is in your lap.

[duffer]

It's the hypocrisy gentlemen, it's the hypocrisy.

I'm telling you, that's why I can't stand Republicans. I have voted for a few Republicans in my day but for the most part, I can't stand the hypocrisy and lies.

I was watching Bush today at a new conference and whew boy I have yet to see him that aggimatated. His feet seem put to the flame. Can't say I didn't relish it just a bit watching him string fragmented sentences together.


Man, can I realte to that! I remember feeling the same way in my idealistic days 10 years ago wondering why people just weren't more angry about the President looking them in the eye and directly lying to them. Then his wife went on a tv circuit talking about a vast conspiracy. I mean, the President was lying to us directly! He wasn't sidestepping, playing symantics (that time) or deflecting. He was directly lying to us!

He had his wife actively campaigning that the charges were (proven true) bullshit.

And don't give me shit about the charges and the effect. If you're that concerned about the President being honest, it applies to any facet of honesty. If you have a beef about the Iraq War, state it honestly. Don't state the President lied, then rail against people with "Oh, there they go bringing up Clinton!" If you want the President to be honest, it applies to all facets.

And this shit about bringing up Clinton? If you want to deflect it, that's cool. It's in the past. But so are the Presidencies of GHW Bush, Reagan and Nixon. When they're no longer subject to mention, Clinton will drop off the list. You can't have it both ways.

[Fear Itself]

Listen up ignorants. It's the Democrats sending that money to us. Don't like it? Don't blame me, moron. Your party is is responsible for it. Whine all you want, but the issue is in your lap.Our lap hasn't had the political power to appropriate anything without Republican approval in almost four years, so you North Dakota Republican welfare queens have no fear of dislodging that federal teat from your mewling mouths for the foreseeable future. Idjit. You are the SDMB equivalent of the Stay Puf't Marshmallow Man, ponderously stomping through threads armed with nothing more than a fearsome scowl, then exploding into harmless gooey fluff when your arguments cross the beams of truth and reason.

Go home old man, five minutes to Rush Limbaugh.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

See you on the other side, Fear Itself.

(A perfect pop culture analogy, my friend.)

[An Arky]

Ick. If this stuff is indicative of how both sides of the ideological coin deal with each other, we're fucked. In case anyone doesn't remember American history, this country was built and made great by compromise. Each side repecting or at least tolerating the others' point of view, and working to find solutions that we can all at least live with. Both sides are guilty of whipping up the froth these days. It's incredibly short-sighted. While our polarized factions are bickering, the rest of the world is laughingly sopping up our gravy. We have to be Americans first, Democrats and Republicans second, or it's around the bowl and down the hole.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Ick. If this stuff is indicative of how both sides of the ideological coin deal with each other, we're fucked. In case anyone doesn't remember American history, this country was built and made great by compromise. Each side repecting or at least tolerating the others' point of view, and working to find solutions that we can all at least live with. Both sides are guilty of whipping up the froth these days. It's incredibly short-sighted. While our polarized factions are bickering, the rest of the world is laughingly sopping up our gravy. We have to be Americans first, Democrats and Republicans second, or it's around the bowl and down the hole.Keep in mind that nearly 80% of Republicans continue to express support for an administration that is by any objective measure an abject failure, and which continues to do things that are horribly detrimental to America. As one who does love America, what do you propose that I do about that? Offering no opposition has been a strategy that has led us to where we are today. The present Republicans have not shown that they are willing or able to compromise or work together, have they? In fact, they write books called "Treason" and so forth. If there are reasonable Republicans, they have remained silent and have failed to check the runaway corruption and failed policies of their party. And how can Democrats engage in partisan bickering and whip up the froth in some substantial way when they have no political power?

I'm much more inclined to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them than I am wiling to continue to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Republicans.

Finally, it isn't about partisanship - it's about what works versus what doesn't. When they've run their mouths and run their shit for a decade, and its clear that we are in serious trouble, its not the time to say "Gee, we're both to blame for this." It's not like I was born with a Democratic uniform on, so I play for that team. I look at what works best for the most people and who supports that and fights for that.

[An Arky]

I was being generous; it's obvious that the GOP is much more culpable in terms of unwillingness to compromise. But the ultimate responsibility lies in the voters. We are lazy and stupid and selfish and unwilling to make difficult choices and sacrifices. I have no solution for that; if I did, I reckon I'd be in politics. I have no idea how to make voters take their responsibilities more seriously. Radical campaign reform and penalties for misrepresentation by politicians (yeah, I know that's hard to do) might be a start. We have to take money out of the equation because it's the cause of the corruption. I say we federally fund all campaigns for federal office. No corporate contributions, no special interest contributions, nothing. I realize this stuff sounds unrealistic, but it's also unrealistic to think we can continue as we are.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I was being generous; it's obvious that the GOP is much more culpable in terms of unwillingness to compromise. But the ultimate responsibility lies in the voters. We are lazy and stupid and selfish and unwilling to make difficult choices and sacrifices. I have no solution for that; if I did, I reckon I'd be in politics. I have no idea how to make voters take their responsibilities more seriously. Radical campaign reform and penalties for misrepresentation by politicians (yeah, I know that's hard to do) might be a start. We have to take money out of the equation because it's the cause of the corruption. I say we federally fund all campaigns for federal office. No corporate contributions, no special interest contributions, nothing. I realize this stuff sounds unrealistic, but it's also unrealistic to think we can continue as we are.I agree with everything you've said here. I wish I had an idea how these proposals could be enacted.

[LonesomePolecat]

Finally, it isn't about partisanship - it's about what works versus what doesn't. When they've run their mouths and run their shit for a decade, and its clear that we are in serious trouble, its not the time to say "Gee, we're both to blame for this." It's not like I was born with a Democratic uniform on, so I play for that team. I look at what works best for the most people and who supports that and fights for that.
ROTFLMAO! You are such a self-deluded shitbrain!

[Hentor the Barbarian]

ROTFLMAO! You are such a self-deluded shitbrain!That's the embarrassing thing about making a pronouncement that you are leaving. When you keep showing up, you prove yourself to be a pathetic asshole. (And so venemous! Yikes.)

Remember, fear Jim Davison!

[Neurotik]

Only if they had a choice on how much money they got.
When did we rescind the representation of rural states in Congress again? Oh yeah, and don't they have a disproportionate influence in Congress due to the vagaries of the system?
Which was my point. Try reading up the thread a bit, the "red suckle" appears to be farm subsidies put through by the Federal government based on Democrat policy.
And Republican policy. Really, any rural representative's policy, no matter which side of the aisle he sits. In any case, Democratic representatives from those states tend to be pretty conservative.
Saying the red states "take" more money assumes that they have the option to chose the Federal budget, that they did chose it, and that they chose a higher number due to Republican policy. None of those appear to be true and the first strikes me as entirely flying in the face of logic.
They "take" more money in that their representatives have the clout to block budgets until they get their money due to their disproportionate representation in Congress. Although I will happily grant that it's not due to Republican policy.

My point is that these red staters sneer at the blue states as a bunch of welfare sucklers and tout their rural work ethic and independence, and then stick out their hands and demand and outsized portion of federal spending.

[Steve MB]

Are the Democrats still making gun control a major issue? I thought they--or at least a lot of them--gave up on that years ago. I recall Kerry making a somewhat silly photo OP going duck hunting. Some representatives may push for gun control if that's what their constituents want, but on the national or even the state level, most Democrats don't seem to mention it at all.
The national party (mostly) came to its senses when it occurred to them that, if not for the political albatross of gun control, Al Gore would be president.

[Steve MB]

There is no qualification re speech in the First, but there are still libel laws that are arguably stronger than anything that regulates guns in a lot of states in this union.
There are states where it's legal to shoot out people's windows?* I learn something new on the SDMB every day....

*Petty vandalism by gunshot is about the closest gun-based analogy I can think of to trashing someone's reputation with libelous statements.

[LonesomePolecat]

That's the embarrassing thing about making a pronouncement that you are leaving. When you keep showing up, you prove yourself to be a pathetic asshole.

But at least I'm just a pathetic asshole and not a pathetic lying asshole like you.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

The national party (mostly) came to its senses when it occurred to them that, if not for the political albatross of gun control, Al Gore would be president.Really? This intrigued me, since I couldn't recall Al Gore pushing some sort of radical agenda on gun control.

Here's Wikipedia's take on Al Gore's campaign positions regarding gun control, for what it's worth.

Gun Control
Introduce mandatory photo licenses for handgun purchases
Limit gun sales to one per person per month
Crack down on gun shows
Ban junk guns (cheap handguns often used in violent crimes)
Increase penalties for knowingly selling a gun to someone ineligible to purchase one
Require gun manufacturers and federally-licensed sellers to report gun sales to a state authority
Oppose efforts to provide special legal protection for gun manufacturers, or to loosen existing limits on concealed weapons
Increase penalties for gun-trafficking and gun-related crimesAre any of these issues particularly noxious to gun owners/proponents of gun ownership? Which ones and why? For my money, I think these are pretty straightforward and no-brainer positions. Given that I think the Democrats hurt themselves by running scared from issues, I would prefer that we adopt such proposals clearly and forthrightly. I think that the political problem comes from a lack of a clear stand. If people knew that this was exactly what the Democrats stood for in terms of guns, it would be harder to convince them that the Democrats are gonna come and take your guns out of your cold dead hands.

Republicans have proven that when it comes to campaign issues, they are going to push a mischaracterization or outright lie about the Democratic position anyway. The only way to counter that is to manage the message better. Rather than avoiding it, say what we believe in and why.

[duffer]

Our lap hasn't had the political power to appropriate anything without Republican approval in almost four years, so you North Dakota Republican welfare queens have no fear of dislodging that federal teat from your mewling mouths for the foreseeable future. Idjit.

Remember the part about the bulk of money coming in farm grants? Remember the part about farmers being almost always Democrats? Remember how I mentioned the Congressional delegation are all Democrats?

I know you do, but it means you have to realize what you're bitching about is in the hands of the Dems. I don't see a dime of any of that money. Idjit.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Remember the part about the bulk of money coming in farm grants?Where do you get your information? Seriously. Are you a willfully ignorant person? According to this site (http://www.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=38000&yr=2004&progcode=total&page=states), North Dakota received a total of $465,026,443 in USDA subsidies in 2004. According to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report (http://harvester.census.gov/cffr/asp/Reports.asp), North Dakota received $6,034,799,466 in Direct Expeditures or Obligations and another $3,782,350,462 in Other Federal Assistance.

How is $465 million the "bulk of" $9.8 billion? You could consider crop insurance, which apparently was $2.2 billiion. Of course, one would typically consider "the bulk of" to be at least half.I don't see a dime of any of that money.I would be willing to wager that you do benefit in some way from some of that $9.8 billion as a resident of North Dakota. Don't you do something related to the military? Also, don't you drive?Idjit.I've never seen anybody so shit-all stupid as you. Of course, I've only gathered this information from a couple sources on the internet. Feel free to correct where I've made any errors.

[Fear Itself]

I know you do, but it means you have to realize what you're bitching about is in the hands of the Dems. I don't see a dime of any of that money. Idjit.The House is controlled by Republicans, the Senate is controlled by Republicans, the White House is held by a Republican, and yet you still blather that Democrats are sending all this unwanted cash to North Dakota? To say you are as dumb as a bag of hammers is an insult to hammers everywhere.

[duffer]

The House is controlled by Republicans, the Senate is controlled by Republicans, the White House is held by a Republican, and yet you still blather that Democrats are sending all this unwanted cash to North Dakota? To say you are as dumb as a bag of hammers is an insult to hammers everywhere.


Yes, I know. The Democrats have no power or influence whatsoever. Jesus, you're dense. Were you bitching about the subsidies those 40 years the Dems had control? You're wrong on this one, and I'm tired of trying to get you to see that.

Just keep signing the fucking checks and we can all be happy.

[Sage Rat]

The House is controlled by Republicans, the Senate is controlled by Republicans, the White House is held by a Republican, and yet you still blather that Democrats are sending all this unwanted cash to North Dakota?
Except that the farm subsidy program was set under the Clinton administration.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Except that the farm subsidy program was set under the Clinton administration.A: What the fuck is this fetish with farm subsidies? B: Farm subsidies have existed since at least the 1930's. Clinton was not president until 1992.

[Fear Itself]

Except that the farm subsidy program was set under the Clinton administration.And as we all know, any policy set by a Democrat six years ago is inviolate, and a Republican Congress and President is powerless to change it. :rolleyes:

Look, the point is, no one expects frugality and self reliance from Democrats; we are the profligate tax-an-spend party of nanny state wastrels. Republicans are the ones who have billed them selves as the party of fiscal responsibility, out to slash government spending an slay the evil dragon of big government. So when Republicans reap the political trifecta and control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, there is an expectation of change toward fiscal responsibility. Only it turns out, Bushco is all hat and no cattle, and Republicans are just as prodigal as Democrats when it comes to cutting spending, or, in the case of North Dakota, just as willing to continue gorging themselves at the public trough at the expense of the blue states who are productive enough to pay not only their own way, but that of the red states as well.

[fluiddruid]

duffer, you know the drill. A short quote (with link, if necessary) is fine. Just because it is, presumably, an anonymous piece does not mean that you can post it in its entirety.

[Fear Itself]

duffer, you know the drill. Uh, that was me. Mea culpa. I blame irrational exuberance.

[jsgoddess]

Are any of these issues particularly noxious to gun owners/proponents of gun ownership? Which ones and why? For my money, I think these are pretty straightforward and no-brainer positions.

I think all of them are no-win positions.

I look at it this way. I am pro-abortion rights. If someone suggested a plank in a party platform aimed at whittling away those rights, I would be against them. It wouldn't matter if some of the suggestions weren't too bad. What would matter is the attitude behind whittling at all.

That's the same thinking that the (or at least some of the) pro-gun rights people (I'm one) have. If you look at guns and think "We need more laws!" then it doesn't matter what the specifics of the laws are that you suggest--you're already on the wrong side.

Hope this makes things a little clearer, at least from this perspective. I don't speak for anyone, mind you. This is just my thinking.

[pantom]

If I may.
First of all, thanks to jsgoddess for the mindlessness of her thinking; if you need to see why we get so upset, simply bookmark the post, and refer to it. Stupid doesn't do justice to it.
Now, the thing of it is, up here we did stuff for ourselves by ourselves and on our own. We then took what we did and exported it to rural, poverty-stricken places.
What do we get in return? Contempt. That, and brain-dead Republican presidents who get elected because they promise to cut taxes. I got news for you idiots: debt is a tax. Ask your kids when they have to pay it back.
Now, on to specifics:
New York State built the New York State Thruway on its own and by itself. Senator Moynihan got the state reimbursed for the expense after it was made a part of the interstate highway system, but the point remains.
Near me, there's the Palisades Interstate Parkway, jointly maintained by New York and New Jersey. Small highway, but it makes the point: interstate highways don't have to be built by the Feds.
Our ports are maintained by our self-financed Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9060908) No Army Corps of Engineers need involve themselves.
We have the New York State Power Authority, (http://www.nypa.gov/) established by FDR in 1931 when he was NY governor, and the basis for, among others, the Tennessee Valley Authority. (http://www.tva.gov/)
When New York, and Newark and Jersey City in New Jersey, wanted to set up reservoirs, they did it on their own. When Atlanta wanted to do this, they went to the Feds, hat in hand, and got Lake Lanier, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Lanier) built and maintained to this day by the Army Corps of Engineers. Up here in Bergen, the water works are privately owned and run, for a profit, by a profit-making company. 'Cause, you know, we're such leftist bastids.
Then the red states turn around, from their artificially built Federal resorts, fed by power from Federal power plants, with ports and waterways dredged and maintained at Federal taxpayer expense by the Army Corps of Engineers, and transported to their jobs on roads built by the Feds at Federal taxpayer expense, and tell the Northeast, which did all of this on their own with their own money, how we're the ones who aren't self-reliant, budget-conscious, and all the rest, so they're going to vote Republican, so we don't tax them to death.
Hypocrisy beyond belief.