So you admit that the red states are federal tit sucklers?
So what’s your point?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, I’m just tired of that “you’re so mean” nonsense. It’s bullshit. You can stop the condescension now.
Well believe me or not, it’s up to you.
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:
- America at the pinnacle of its power militarily, economically, and socially around the world. Both respected and rational.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
And how well did “I’m not Bush” work for Sen. Kerry last time around?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
See you on the other side, Fear Itself.
(A perfect pop culture analogy, my friend.)