Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I love all of this and the other 20 posts like it today. "These people are so stupid that they don't know what's good for them." This is one of the prime reasons the DEMs are now in the minority. Just because you are educated and live in a city does not mean you know what's best for people on either side of the aisle.

It has nothing to do with living in a city. It has to do with facts. he Bush tax cuts do NOT help the people poor/middle class people who voted for him. Yet they believe the cuts will bring them piles of money, so they keep voting for him. They also believe untruths like Saddam being involved in 9/11 and that the inheritance tax will hurt them someday.

When the people in the City tell these voters "Hey, this guy's lying", instead of investigating the facts, a lot of them instead get angry with the messenger. They'd rather make mistakes than admit somebody from the "liberal parts" is right. You just did that in your post, in fact.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your ass -- which I'm sure is both pleasant and nicely proportioned, though I've never seen it -- must be responding to someone else, because I don't believe I said that. My simple point was that we blue states tend to subsidize you red states.

Please explain what this one simple point has to do with the election, which is what was being discussed when you raised it. I doubt it was a non sequitor, so if you could set out how this "simple" point works into your larger argument . . .

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Hey --

Back off, motherfucking jackass.

Self-immolation after a soul-crushing electoral defeat? That's OUR gig. Not yours. Ours.

You can watch the pretty flames, you can chuckle about it amongst yourselves (but quietly, and somewhere else -- maybe the Detroit Board or something), but do not -- do NOT -- add the swift kicks to the ribs. There's probably a 48 hour ban on that shit.

You want amusement, go find that hooker from yesterday with the funny yellow hat.

Gatti(still working through step 3, obviously)gap

Actually, we are trying to help you. None of us thinks it is a good thing for there to be a one party system.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Actually, the GOP has come to resemble nothing so much as an old-style Southern Democrat. Socially conservative and fiscally liberal - the worst combination of features out there. Unfortunately, the Democrats hae not changed to become fiscally conservative (i.e. Libertarian). This leaves us with a battle solely over social issues, and the Republicans are going to win that battle.

The Dems have become the party of fiscal responsibility (we can't say conservative 'cause it scares the base); but it's usually a levy-reasonable-taxes-and-make-reasonable-expenditures kind of fiscal responsibility not a cut-everything-to-the-bone and cut my taxes even deeper kind of fiscal responsibility.

Come on over, though, there's room for you. And you won't have to sit next to Sanitorum any more.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My bad.

And I'm not gloating, mainly because we, and I mean WE, have a lot of work to do in this country. I just hate those that look down on those that are poor, not educated, etc.

Very quick. I was going to make a gas-to-water joke.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
When I talked to him today, he said that he just looked at the people walking down the street, wondering why they all hate him. He's a smart, educated, productive member of society. He pays his taxes, gives back to the community, spends a lot of his time working with not-for-profits. He can get along with anyone, and they hate him because they're afraid of him.

I can guarantee that he's much more afraid of what they might do to him than they are of what he could do to them.

Drum (I think it was Drum) made an interesting point, suggesting that it was the Massachusetts Supreme Court's activism - by effectively forcing the topic of gay marriage on a "not-ready-as-of-yet" populace - really backfired, as it made the topic a rallying point for both conservative Dems and Reps, white, black and hispanic.

It unnecessarily brought to the fore an issue - which, I truly beleive, with the mere passing of time would become fairly moot.
Among all my under-40 left and right-leaning friends, I don't know a single person who has an issue with gay marriage (except, perhaps, as a legal mental exercise).

It's really an age gap thing more than anything.

Gays and lesbians have made huge strides forward in the last 2 decades. And with each new generation, greater acceptance is becoming the norm. And the old folk are dying off.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It has nothing to do with living in a city. It has to do with facts. he Bush tax cuts do NOT help the people poor/middle class people who voted for him. Yet they believe the cuts will bring them piles of money, so they keep voting for him. They also believe untruths like Saddam being involved in 9/11 and that the inheritance tax will hurt them someday.

When the people in the City tell these voters "Hey, this guy's lying", instead of investigating the facts, a lot of them instead get angry with the messenger. They'd rather make mistakes than admit somebody from the "liberal parts" is right. You just did that in your post, in fact.

I think that "they," whoever "they" may be, want to believe in a leader and in someone who will tell them that everything will be ok. "They" watch Jerry Bruckheimer films and like the chutzpah of a President landing on an aircraft carrier to congratulate a troops on a job well done. "They" are big picture people, who don't like you messing around with the idea and poking holes into it. "They" want to feel safe, and "they" want their children to be safe, so poorly thought out plans like NCLB and the Iraq War and the USA PATRIOT Act are good things for them. Pointing out the flaws in these things will just result in their directing their ire at the messenger. They want to believe.

[SlaveNoMore]

dtb
That's a real rapist wit you have there.

Did you mean "Rapier" - or do you find the Green River killer somehow amusing

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Drum (I think it was Drum) made an interesting point, suggesting that it was the Massachusetts Supreme Court's activism - by effectively forcing the topic of gay marriage on a "not-ready-as-of-yet" populace - really backfired, as it made the topic a rallying point for both conservative Dems and Reps, white, black and hispanic.

It unnecessarily brought to the fore an issue - which, I truly beleive, with the mere passing of time would become fairly moot.
Among all my under-40 left and right-leaning friends, I don't know a single person who has an issue with gay marriage (except, perhaps, as a legal mental exercise).

It's really an age gap thing more than anything.

Gays and lesbians have made huge strides forward in the last 2 decades. And with each new generation, greater acceptance is becoming the norm. And the old folk are dying off.

Go spend some time in the Red states with whom you agree on so many issues. You are sadly mistaken if you think this is an issue that would have become moot.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Actually, we are trying to help you. None of us thinks it is a good thing for there to be a one party system.

Amen. All I'm saying, is the Rs out here better be screaming loud, loud, loud for the next 4 years. Because if it ain't fixed after 4 years with 55 Senators, 36 Rep. delagations to the HR, 30+ governors and a R president, we may never have the chance to fix anything again in our lives. That's about as scary a thing as there is out there.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
2. There is no way in hell we are ever going to win with an attitude that half the country is worthless and of no value. Howard Dean was laughed at for suggesting that the Dems need to start talking to the guy in Georgia with the Confederate Flag sticker on the back of his car. We wrote him off years ago, and that was stupid as hell. I know these people. I grew up with them. They sneer at ya'll as much as you sneer at them. But there are more of them. There's a hell of a lot of common ground, but everyone spends so much time on the differences that commonalities are swept under the rug.

I grew up in a "heartland" (red) state and am familiar (with the works of Pablo Neruda -- uh, no) with the people you are talking about. Hell, I'm related to lots of them! Unhappily, I don't share your optimism that there's a lot of common ground. I hope I'm wrong.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Drum (I think it was Drum) made an interesting point, suggesting that it was the Massachusetts Supreme Court's activism - by effectively forcing the topic of gay marriage on a "not-ready-as-of-yet" populace - really backfired, as it made the topic a rallying point for both conservative Dems and Reps, white, black and hispanic.

It unnecessarily brought to the fore an issue - which, I truly beleive, with the mere passing of time would become fairly moot.
Among all my under-40 left and right-leaning friends, I don't know a single person who has an issue with gay marriage (except, perhaps, as a legal mental exercise).

It's really an age gap thing more than anything.

Gays and lesbians have made huge strides forward in the last 2 decades. And with each new generation, greater acceptance is becoming the norm. And the old folk are dying off.

I think it goes further back. I think Cheney's duck hunting buddy planted the seeds of the revolution in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas. I didn't realize it at the time, because I was so elated about the decision, but that was the first time in the public discourse that "gay marraige" was brought up. The Massachusetts Supreme Court and Gavin Newsome definitely brought the issue to the forefront. Had those two things not happened, I think we'd be having a very different discussion today. But Scalia's ranting about a slippery slope was the spark.

[dtb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Did you mean "Rapier" - or do you find the Green River killer somehow amusing

You know, I was worried that perhaps this crowd was not as facile as I with the word-for-word dialogue of the movie "Dumb and Dumber", but I decided to take the chance.

I know. Lead balloon.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Well, at least they're getting duped into choosing a party that will actually benefit them. Like Sebby said, Two years down the road the lower-middle class wingnuts are going to wake up, rub their eyes and realize that, economically (micro), they voted for the wrong guy. But the halo around Bush's head obscured that at the polls.

They've been voting this way for at least 24 years, and you think they're going to wake up in the next 2? What, pray tell, is going to be the sudden catalyst?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Please explain what this one simple point has to do with the election, which is what was being discussed when you raised it. I doubt it was a non sequitor, so if you could set out how this "simple" point works into your larger argument . . .

Cheval said:

• I'm wary of any broad-based argument that the coasts "produce" more than the middle of the country and are net exporters of tax revenue to red states. The anecdotal and partial economic data I've seen suggest that the real division is urban/ex-urban. Large, blue-leaning cities seem to be net IMPORTERS of state and national tax revenue (Detroit being one of the clearest examples, but there are many more).

and so I responded by saying:

• I think this is wrong, at least on a blue-state/red-state basis. Blue states tend to send the federal government more revenue than they get back. Red states tend to get more federal expenditures than they send in revenue. I've posted this data here before, and if I can find it and post it again, I will.

Dunno what conversation you and Burger are having.