OT: Stupid Red States

[Kestral]

Isn't it funny how it's the States who get {censored}ed by Bush were the ones that voted for Bush? Must be a lot of masochists out there:

 

Rev, hope you're not affected by this:

 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050223/BUSINESS04/502230314/1029/archive

[kerb]

PAAAAAIN FOR PLEASURE! m/

[SteveR]

ELECTRIC EYEYEYEEEEEYEYEYEYEEEYEYEYEYEEEEE!!!

[TheTripster]

don't blame me, i voted for a prime minister

{censored}ing canadians

[camillo wong]

{censored}ing canadians

The only good thing in Canada is "The Beer Store". It's like buying beer in a Foot Locker.

[MrSage]

I just find it fascinating that all the exit polls indicated that terrorism and America's safety were among the most important things people considered when making their decisions for President...

Yet when you look at the places that are most vulnerable to terror attacks, they all voted for Kerry. I mean, New York and D.C. were actually hit, and they went blue. After those two locations, I'd guess Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco would be high-risk areas...but Illinois and California voted against Bush.

It's weird that all the people living in Podunkville, Nowhere - who have no chance of ever being hit - made the decision to re-elect a guy that those of us in real danger don't trust.

I know terror wasn't the only issue people voted on, but it was up there in the #1 and #2 slot for something like 80% of voters.

[Thelonius]

Originally posted by MrSage I just find it fascinating that all the exit polls indicated that terrorism and America's safety were among the most important things people considered when making their decisions for President... Yet when you look at the places that are most vulnerable to terror attacks, they all voted for Kerry. I mean, New York and D.C. were actually hit, and they went blue. After those two locations, I'd guess Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco would be high-risk areas...but Illinois and California voted against Bush. It's weird that all the people living in Podunkville, Nowhere - who have no chance of ever being hit - made the decision to re-elect a guy that those of us in real danger don't trust. I know terror wasn't the only issue people voted on, but it was up there in the #1 and #2 slot for something like 80% of voters.

 

 

The exit polls are wrong. Or at least don't tell the whole story.

[saturdaysaviour]

Originally posted by MrSage I just find it fascinating that all the exit polls indicated that terrorism and America's safety were among the most important things people considered when making their decisions for President... Yet when you look at the places that are most vulnerable to terror attacks, they all voted for Kerry. I mean, New York and D.C. were actually hit, and they went blue. After those two locations, I'd guess Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco would be high-risk areas...but Illinois and California voted against Bush. It's weird that all the people living in Podunkville, Nowhere - who have no chance of ever being hit - made the decision to re-elect a guy that those of us in real danger don't trust. I know terror wasn't the only issue people voted on, but it was up there in the #1 and #2 slot for something like 80% of voters.

actually all the exit polls i've seen said that "moral values" was the number one issue. but you're right. i guess not having to worry about being attacked gives them more time to worry about the godless liberals' souls

[AMZ-FX]

My favorite part of the article is the response from the company representatiive:

She declined to say where Celestica would manufacture the items now made in Mount Pleasant, but she said the company has operations in Mexico. The company "leverages low-cost geography" to lower operating costs, she said.

Low cost geography? What is that, corporate-speak for sweatshops?

-Jack

[MrSage]

Originally posted by saturdaysaviour actually all the exit polls i've seen said that "moral values" was the number one issue. but you're right. i guess not having to worry about being attacked gives them more time to worry about the godless liberals' souls

I always thought this country was built on religious freedom, not electing people or making laws to save others' souls.

As important as it is for a country's leader to have a moral compass while leading his people, I don't think it's right to legislate your religion.

I'd rather let people worry about their own souls and have the president fix the economy, healthcare, foreign relations, and the other things you elect a civil leader for. If you want to save souls, you go to a religious leader. "Render unto Cesaer..."

Do you really think that society would have been overrun by heretics and paganists if Kerry had been elected? I doubt it. I know Kerry's agenda was much further to the left than Bush's, but it wasn't devoid of moral value. It just had a more secular focus.

Conversely, I think that Bush's agenda focuses too much on religious issues at the expense of some of the other important issues we're facing (like the economy, or the fact that we're $200 billion into a war that was supposed to cost $2 billion tops).

It's one thing to have your decisions influenced by your morality...It's another thing to make policy based on your own personal belief system.

That's why Jed Bartlett (The West Wing) was/is such an awesome president. He was a deeply religious guy, but he didn't let that drive decisions that were supposed to be made on behalf of an entire nation. It kept his decisions in check and influenced his thinking, but didn't completely overtake his decisionmaking.

Bartlett for President in '08.

[Brian Marshall]

Hey Kestral...

While i probably agree with your setiment about the president, this is something that John Kerry couldnt have stopped. Even if we change the laws here it will take years to fix all the problems. The USA is at a point where it is almost impossible to make anything here. The Chinese basically dump goods here, and people buy them with out even thinking about the fact that their job is next. A guy i know works in oregon at a company that actually still makes and engineers their stuff here in the states. I told him all this a bunch of times, and he said, "i dont mind as long as im reaping the bennefits" Well he is for now, but we'll see what happens when they move the company to China, or India.

We could try to impose tarrifs on china, but then who would buy all our T-bills (which coincidentally account for a large part of our national debt) Just wait 20 years, and China will own us.

Sad
Sad
Sad

And no one seems to care... That's ok, i still have citizenship in australia.

[LongJohnny]

I am in a Red State, and voted for Bush. I like how he has handled the situation he was dealt when he came into office. I dont think people in the red states wanted a typical tax and spend New England guy running the country. I didnt.

If Kerry would have gotten elected, not much would change, so it was an easy choice for me.

One thing I despise is that people from the Blue states have an elitist attitude. I live in the 5th largest metro area in the US population wise, and second area wise, and we voted for Bush. All I can say is that our state(AZ), will have the next pres, so watch out...McCain in '08

John

[Montag]

Originally posted by MrSage I always thought this country was built on religious freedom, not electing people or making laws to save others' souls. As important as it is for a country's leader to have a moral compass while leading his people, I don't think it's right to legislate your religion. I'd rather let people worry about their own souls and have the president fix the economy, healthcare, foreign relations, and the other things you elect a civil leader for. If you want to save souls, you go to a religious leader. "Render unto Cesaer..." Do you really think that society would have been overrun by heretics and paganists if Kerry had been elected? I doubt it. I know Kerry's agenda was much further to the left than Bush's, but it wasn't devoid of moral value. It just had a more secular focus. Conversely, I think that Bush's agenda focuses too much on religious issues at the expense of some of the other important issues we're facing (like the economy, or the fact that we're $200 billion into a war that was supposed to cost $2 billion tops). It's one thing to have your decisions influenced by your morality...It's another thing to make policy based on your own personal belief system. That's why Jed Bartlett (The West Wing) was/is such an awesome president. He was a deeply religious guy, but he didn't let that drive decisions that were supposed to be made on behalf of an entire nation. It kept his decisions in check and influenced his thinking, but didn't completely overtake his decisionmaking. Bartlett for President in '08.

{censored} yeah, another west wing fan

[jrak]

Bush sucks

[Heckles]

Originally posted by LongJohnny I am in a Red State, and voted for Bush. I like how he has handled the situation he was dealt when he came into office. I dont think people in the red states wanted a typical tax and spend New England guy running the country. I didnt. John

 

 

You'd rather have the borrow and spend policy? Don't you realize that this president has spent more money than any other president ever? Before him, it was Reagan...get a grip man, we will have to pay all this spending back eventually...This "tax and spend liberal" idea is a joke. Going back to Nixon, the Republican presidents have consistently outspent the Democrat presidents. They just chose to drive up an enormous federal deficit instead of taxation. The thing about national debt is that we WILL have to pay it back, and it WILL cost us more later than now. WAKE UP!!!

[Heckles]

Originally posted by LongJohnny All I can say is that our state(AZ), will have the next pres, so watch out...McCain in '08 John

 

 

Oh, and McCain is way too old, and has lost all that respect that the left used to have for him by ignoring his own beliefs about Bush's policies and choosing to campaign for him anyway. I don't know how many times I saw McCain on TV over the summer condemning these IDIOTIC fiscal policies. Yet, out he trots like a balding lapdog when the party needs him. Partyliners suck, regardless of the party.

[saturdaysaviour]

Originally posted by jed heckman You'd rather have the borrow and spend policy?

 

 

to even consider bush a conservative is a joke. he's spent so much money and is planning to just keep spending it even though we don't have it. the original amount of money that we were planning to put into the war was 1.something billion dollars and what we've actually put in is around $200 bilion. where is all of it supposed to come from? and this is after he gave away a trillion dollar surplus. possibly losing a war isn't going to ruin our country but running out of money will.

[jadesky]

i find this map particularly interesting. broken down to counties within states, and shaded blue to red giving one a much better idea how things were laid out...



i find it particularly interesting that, if you mapped out the major cities in the US on that map, you'd find almost all of them voted for Kerry where as more sparsely populated, rural counties voted for Bush...

that sure has interesting implications.

[jadesky]

here's a map of major US cities to compare it to:



p.s. the colors of the names of the cities in the above pic has no relationship to the election results.

[4Kenoath]

Originally posted by Brian Marshall And no one seems to care... That's ok, i still have citizenship in australia.

Don't get too comfy there Brian...

...Bush's browning-nosing lapdog of a mate, John Howard (our PM), is {censored}ing our country up royally, and it will only get worse when we effectively lose an independant senate mid year. We will then be a fascist state.


I really wish all the sad, inadequate, little men who are currently 'in charge' around the world would get small pox and die...

...am I being too harsh?


p.s. It won't be too long before the US economy etc will collapse either...there's the early rumblings around the world of that new age paradigm.

[jadesky]

here's a more interesting map of the US's population distribution via light pollution:

[hookstrapped]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/opinion/25krugman.html?hp

 

Kansas on My Mind

By PAUL KRUGMAN

 

Call it "What's the Matter With Kansas - The Cartoon Version."

 

The slime campaign has begun against AARP, which opposes Social Security privatization. There's no hard evidence that the people involved - some of them also responsible for the "Swift Boat" election smear - are taking orders from the White House. So you're free to believe that this is an independent venture. You're also free to believe in the tooth fairy.

 

Their first foray - an ad accusing the seniors' organization of being against the troops and for gay marriage - was notably inept. But they'll be back, and it's important to understand what they're up to.

 

The answer lies in "What's the Matter With Kansas?," Thomas Frank's meditation on how right-wingers, whose economic policies harm working Americans, nonetheless get so many of those working Americans to vote for them.

 

People like myself - members of what one scornful Bush aide called the "reality-based community" - tend to attribute the right's electoral victories to its success at spreading policy disinformation. And the campaign against Social Security certainly involves a lot of disinformation, both about how the current system works and about the consequences of privatization.

 

But if that were all there is to it, Social Security should be safe, because this particular disinformation campaign isn't going at all well. In fact, there's a sense of wonderment among defenders of Social Security about the other side's lack of preparation. The Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation have spent decades campaigning for privatization. Yet they weren't ready to answer even the most obvious questions about how it would work - like how benefits could be maintained for older Americans without a dangerous increase in debt.

 

Privatizers are even having a hard time pretending that they want to strengthen Social Security, not dismantle it. At one of Senator Rick Santorum's recent town-hall meetings promoting privatization, college Republicans began chanting, "Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security's got to go."

 

But before the anti-privatization forces assume that winning the rational arguments is enough, they need to read Mr. Frank.

 

The message of Mr. Frank's book is that the right has been able to win elections, despite the fact that its economic policies hurt workers, by portraying itself as the defender of mainstream values against a malevolent cultural elite. The right "mobilizes voters with explosive social issues, summoning public outrage ... which it then marries to pro-business economic policies. Cultural anger is marshaled to achieve economic ends."

 

In Mr. Frank's view, this is a confidence trick: politicians like Mr. Santorum trumpet their defense of traditional values, but their true loyalty is to elitist economic policies. "Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. ... Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization." But it keeps working.

 

And this week we saw Mr. Frank's thesis acted out so crudely that it was as if someone had deliberately staged it. The right wants to dismantle Social Security, a successful program that is a pillar of stability for working Americans. AARP stands in the way. So without a moment's hesitation, the usual suspects declared that this organization of staid seniors is actually an anti-soldier, pro-gay-marriage leftist front.

 

It's tempting to dismiss this as an exceptional case in which right-wingers, unable to come up with a real cultural grievance to exploit, fabricated one out of thin air. But such fabrications are the rule, not the exception.

 

For example, for much of December viewers of Fox News were treated to a series of ominous warnings about "Christmas under siege" - the plot by secular humanists to take Christ out of America's favorite holiday. The evidence for such a plot consisted largely of occasions when someone in an official capacity said, "Happy holidays," instead of, "Merry Christmas."

 

So it doesn't matter that Social Security is a pro-family program that was created by and for America's greatest generation - and that it is especially crucial in poor but conservative states like Alabama and Arkansas, where it's the only thing keeping a majority of seniors above the poverty line. Right-wingers will still find ways to claim that anyone who opposes privatization supports terrorists and hates family values.

 

Their first attack may have missed the mark, but it's the shape of smears to come.

[4Kenoath]

Originally posted by fernmeister which new age paradigm would that be? the US economy will probably not recover anytime soon, which to me is the main explanation for th current admin's policies. they *believe* that US economic ascendency is a thing of the past and they are trying to create a geopolitical situation around the world, and a new social contract within the US in light of that. however, the current system of globalisation is here for a long time to come. all we are going to see is the EU playing an ever bigger role in that and China starting to act more directly within it.

 

Globalisation will come crashing down with the rest of this economic pretence...as though that's what makes the world go round. That's the paradign shift...current concepts in economics are and never have been sustainable, and will become ever more irrelevant as each pile of organic dung hits the fan.

 

I hope you're not too invested in this bull{censored} Fern...it'll be tough if you are.

[89strat]

1. Our economy is growing faster and adding more jobs than most european countries combined. Bush's unemployement rate was lower at the end of his first term than Clinton's after his first term.

2. Bush has not indoctrinated his faith anymore than other presidents. Kerry campained from church to church, nobody seemed to mind. Clinton walked everywhere with a bible in his hand, nobody cared. Carter? Another religious fruit cake. After five years of Bush, and christianity is on the decline. Doesn't sound like his religous agenda is taking hold.

3. Although other countries may be catching up in the trade market, to think that we will be overtaken by another country years down the line because of what occurs during this president's term is extreme ignorance to say the least. It's not as simple as that.

4. Our economy has grown at amazing speed and a stable one at that despite the illogical rantings from the left, our entering into a war, being attacked, and coming out of a recession.

5. I agree that Bush has spent tons of money, but given the circumstances we were in with the inherited recession and the attacks on 9/11, changes needed to made, and nothing happens in Washington without someone getting paid.

6. Bush may not have done much for the environment, but far more than his predicessor. Air is cleaner, water is cleaner, and improvements are being made. Bush's home has always been solor powered and well water, his trucks you see driving on his property are run on propane and electric, and most of his life has maintained a living more environmentally friendly than most of this country with ironically the absence of oil for his source of fuel. Kerry on the other hands spends more energy just to fly his hairdressor in on the campain train than I spend on my SUV in a year, has several mansions heated that he rarely uses, has a fleet of gas guzzling SUV's, and he is embraced by the environmentalists.

7. Bush has pushed for more higher positions for minorities in his cabinet than anybody before him. Home ownership is at an all time high then ever before in this country's history, with the highest gains made by african amercians and minorities.

8. Social Security. This needs to be fixed. I first became aware of it when Clinton made the same speech a few years back and the Dems stood behind him all the way. Now that Bush brings it up, the Dems act like he's making all this up.

These are a couple of points that influenced my position along with others. Obviousely, you probably can guess who I voted for. Bush is not my favorite president, but he is no Hitler and to think that this country is going to hell in a handbasket because of him is ridiculous. For all of you guys living in fear that the U.S. is going to collapse because of the actions of one man wth a term limit, you have little understanding of how our government works. Don't worry, in a few more years you can vote for Hillary Clinton and we can go back to the days of a less than adequate military, reduced intelligence, less money in our pay checks, higher interest rates, resurgance of communism, and being oblivious of terrorist threats to our nation and the world, and terrorist attacks on our country without retaliation.

I know I'm going to get attacked now by some of you, so let the name calling begin, but I have my opinions, and apparently I share them with the majority of this country who voted in more republican governors, more republican senators, more republican congressmen, and a republican president. Instead of the left in this country calling the republicans stupid, and listening to the rantings of hollywood elitists and "has been" comedians on air america, maybe they should focus their attention on why they are losing government positions to the "stupid red states".

[Rasta Shaft]

Originally posted by 89strat 1. Our economy is growing faster and adding more jobs than most european countries combined. Bush's unemployement rate was lower at the end of his first term than Clinton's after his first term. 2. Bush has not indoctrinated his faith anymore than other presidents. Kerry campained from church to church, nobody seemed to mind. Clinton walked everywhere with a bible in his hand, nobody cared. Carter? Another religious fruit cake. After five years of Bush, and christianity is on the decline. Doesn't sound like his religous agenda is taking hold. 3. Although other countries may be catching up in the trade market, to think that we will be overtaken by another country years down the line because of what occurs during this president's term is extreme ignorance to say the least. It's not as simple as that. 4. Our economy has grown at amazing speed and a stable one at that despite the illogical rantings from the left, our entering into a war, being attacked, and coming out of a recession. 5. I agree that Bush has spent tons of money, but given the circumstances we were in with the inherited recession and the attacks on 9/11, changes needed to made, and nothing happens in Washington without someone getting paid. 6. Bush may not have done much for the environment, but far more than his predicessor. Air is cleaner, water is cleaner, and improvements are being made. Bush's home has always been solor powered and well water, his trucks you see driving on his property are run on propane and electric, and most of his life has maintained a living more environmentally friendly than most of this country with ironically the absence of oil for his source of fuel. Kerry on the other hands spends more energy just to fly his hairdressor in on the campain train than I spend on my SUV in a year, has several mansions heated that he rarely uses, has a fleet of gas guzzling SUV's, and he is embraced by the environmentalists. 7. Bush has pushed for more higher positions for minorities in his cabinet than anybody before him. Home ownership is at an all time high then ever before in this country's history, with the highest gains made by african amercians and minorities. 8. Social Security. This needs to be fixed. I first became aware of it when Clinton made the same speech a few years back and the Dems stood behind him all the way. Now that Bush brings it up, the Dems act like he's making all this up. These are a couple of points that influenced my position along with others. Obviousely, you probably can guess who I voted for. Bush is not my favorite president, but he is no Hitler and to think that this country is going to hell in a handbasket because of him is ridiculous. For all of you guys living in fear that the U.S. is going to collapse because of the actions of one man wth a term limit, you have little understanding of how our government works. Don't worry, in a few more years you can vote for Hillary Clinton and we can go back to the days of a less than adequate military, reduced intelligence, less money in our pay checks, higher interest rates, resurgance of communism, and being oblivious of terrorist threats to our nation and the world, and terrorist attacks on our country without retaliation. I know I'm going to get attacked now by some of you, so let the name calling begin, but I have my opinions, and apparently I share them with the majority of this country who voted in more republican governors, more republican senators, more republican congressmen, and a republican president. Instead of the left in this country calling the republicans stupid, and listening to the rantings of hollywood elitists and "has been" comedians on air america, maybe they should focus their attention on why they are losing government positions to the "stupid red states".

 

 

I'm with you.