Do we really need the Red States?

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: swbsam

I hate division based politics as well, but I see this growing sentiment from "Red" states, clinging onto divisive issues such as homosexuality in a way to further separate themselves, continuing to blur church and state. It personally angers me, turning America from this wonderfully progressive bastion of Freedom into something else...

I don't think that is a fair sentiment about "Red" states. I think there is a few loud voices, e.g. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, that makes great sound bites but fundamentally I don't think it is all that bad.

Think about it, the farming ag Red state of Iowa now has gay marriage, but a 'progressive' Blue State like California had their citizens ban gay marriage. Ohio has a constitutional amendment describing marriage as one man and one woman - granted Ohio is often a swing "purple" state, but it typically has been a northern state.

The McCain camp has been coming out to tell their fellow Republicans to "get over" the entire anti-gay stance. I do have my doubts on how well that message will permeate through, but at least something has been said.

Now with that being said the invasion of religion into politics bothers the hell out of me but I don't think it is necessarily as decisive as many partisan hacks like to portray it.

I think the Republican party is at an interesting turning point - they can treat the major loss last november two ways: progress socially, embrace the need to move away from Religion and stop relying on issues such as stem cell research and homosexuality and instead focus on their core ideology (small government, put an end to needless spending, etc.) OR they can clench that cross even closer to their hearts...

It worries me that the undercurrent right now suggests that they're going the wrong way, but I hope I'm wrong.

I've voted for more Republicans than democrats, fyi... But Bush took the party back 50 years in my opinion.

I do not think that is reasonable or fair to say. I am no fan of Bush, but really what did he fundamentally do that set us back 50 years?

He put more minorities into his cabinet, or otherwise high-level federal positions, than any previous President. That sure as shit wasn't seen 50 years ago. He did get us bogged down with some screwed up war. . . hello, Korea, 50 years ago.

The current climate, even during the screwed up Bush years, is so very much more progressive than society was 50 years ago. I think it is just silly and intellectually dishonest for you to claim that he set us back 50 years.

His social policies regarding civil rights and science were in no way progressive, and mirrored pre-60s "American" values.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: swbsam

I hate division based politics as well, but I see this growing sentiment from "Red" states, clinging onto divisive issues such as homosexuality in a way to further separate themselves, continuing to blur church and state. It personally angers me, turning America from this wonderfully progressive bastion of Freedom into something else...

I don't think that is a fair sentiment about "Red" states. I think there is a few loud voices, e.g. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, that makes great sound bites but fundamentally I don't think it is all that bad.

Think about it, the farming ag Red state of Iowa now has gay marriage, but a 'progressive' Blue State like California had their citizens ban gay marriage. Ohio has a constitutional amendment describing marriage as one man and one woman - granted Ohio is often a swing "purple" state, but it typically has been a northern state.

The McCain camp has been coming out to tell their fellow Republicans to "get over" the entire anti-gay stance. I do have my doubts on how well that message will permeate through, but at least something has been said.

Now with that being said the invasion of religion into politics bothers the hell out of me but I don't think it is necessarily as decisive as many partisan hacks like to portray it.

I think the Republican party is at an interesting turning point - they can treat the major loss last november two ways: progress socially, embrace the need to move away from Religion and stop relying on issues such as stem cell research and homosexuality and instead focus on their core ideology (small government, put an end to needless spending, etc.) OR they can clench that cross even closer to their hearts...

It worries me that the undercurrent right now suggests that they're going the wrong way, but I hope I'm wrong.

I've voted for more Republicans than democrats, fyi... But Bush took the party back 50 years in my opinion.

I do not think that is reasonable or fair to say. I am no fan of Bush, but really what did he fundamentally do that set us back 50 years?

He put more minorities into his cabinet, or otherwise high-level federal positions, than any previous President. That sure as shit wasn't seen 50 years ago. He did get us bogged down with some screwed up war. . . hello, Korea, 50 years ago.

The current climate, even during the screwed up Bush years, is so very much more progressive than society was 50 years ago. I think it is just silly and intellectually dishonest for you to claim that he set us back 50 years.

Because that really fucking matters when it comes to running a country.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Babbles
Think about it, the farming ag Red state of Iowa now has gay marriage, but a 'progressive' Blue State like California had their citizens ban gay marriage. Ohio has a constitutional amendment describing marriage as one man and one woman - granted Ohio is often a swing "purple" state, but it typically has been a northern state.

Did you happen to see what color Iowa was in the last Presidential election?

Fair enough, but they have had a long track record of voting Republican. They may be better described as a "purple" state.

 

[God Mode]

Modern countries seem to favor the so called blue states. I want to be in the purple though. The blue and red both have cool stuff.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: swbsam

I hate division based politics as well, but I see this growing sentiment from "Red" states, clinging onto divisive issues such as homosexuality in a way to further separate themselves, continuing to blur church and state. It personally angers me, turning America from this wonderfully progressive bastion of Freedom into something else...

I don't think that is a fair sentiment about "Red" states. I think there is a few loud voices, e.g. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, that makes great sound bites but fundamentally I don't think it is all that bad.

Think about it, the farming ag Red state of Iowa now has gay marriage, but a 'progressive' Blue State like California had their citizens ban gay marriage. Ohio has a constitutional amendment describing marriage as one man and one woman - granted Ohio is often a swing "purple" state, but it typically has been a northern state.

The McCain camp has been coming out to tell their fellow Republicans to "get over" the entire anti-gay stance. I do have my doubts on how well that message will permeate through, but at least something has been said.

Now with that being said the invasion of religion into politics bothers the hell out of me but I don't think it is necessarily as decisive as many partisan hacks like to portray it.

I think the Republican party is at an interesting turning point - they can treat the major loss last november two ways: progress socially, embrace the need to move away from Religion and stop relying on issues such as stem cell research and homosexuality and instead focus on their core ideology (small government, put an end to needless spending, etc.) OR they can clench that cross even closer to their hearts...

It worries me that the undercurrent right now suggests that they're going the wrong way, but I hope I'm wrong.

I've voted for more Republicans than democrats, fyi... But Bush took the party back 50 years in my opinion.

I do not think that is reasonable or fair to say. I am no fan of Bush, but really what did he fundamentally do that set us back 50 years?

He put more minorities into his cabinet, or otherwise high-level federal positions, than any previous President. That sure as shit wasn't seen 50 years ago. He did get us bogged down with some screwed up war. . . hello, Korea, 50 years ago.

The current climate, even during the screwed up Bush years, is so very much more progressive than society was 50 years ago. I think it is just silly and intellectually dishonest for you to claim that he set us back 50 years.

His social policies regarding civil rights and science were in no way progressive, and mirrored pre-60s "American" values.

Social policies? Okay so he is anti-abortion but that crowd has been around since Roe v. Wade. Again as I noted he elevated many minorities - regardless if you agree with those individuals or not - to high level positions. That sure as shit is not a pre-60's mindset.

The anti-science slant is mostly bullshit - except for the entire creationism thing, but that never got federal funding. The stem cells 'debate' was largely manufactured; there was a ban on using federal money on new lines of embryonic stem cells. Private money was kosher - which succeeded in developing new embryonic stem cell lines.

Hell I worked at a laboratory doing research for pharmaceutical and biotech companies - Bush didn't do a damn thing to screw over any scientific advances in my industry. What really screwed things up, surprisingly enough, was the Wall Street crash. That destroyed venture capital for biotech start-ups. If you really want to bitch about people screwing up scientific advances, go to Wall Street and bitch them out.

Yes, I do agree that the religion in politics shit is very screwed up and I don't care of that one iota but I think some of your assessments are unfair.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: swbsam

I hate division based politics as well, but I see this growing sentiment from "Red" states, clinging onto divisive issues such as homosexuality in a way to further separate themselves, continuing to blur church and state. It personally angers me, turning America from this wonderfully progressive bastion of Freedom into something else...

I don't think that is a fair sentiment about "Red" states. I think there is a few loud voices, e.g. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, that makes great sound bites but fundamentally I don't think it is all that bad.

Think about it, the farming ag Red state of Iowa now has gay marriage, but a 'progressive' Blue State like California had their citizens ban gay marriage. Ohio has a constitutional amendment describing marriage as one man and one woman - granted Ohio is often a swing "purple" state, but it typically has been a northern state.

The McCain camp has been coming out to tell their fellow Republicans to "get over" the entire anti-gay stance. I do have my doubts on how well that message will permeate through, but at least something has been said.

Now with that being said the invasion of religion into politics bothers the hell out of me but I don't think it is necessarily as decisive as many partisan hacks like to portray it.

I think the Republican party is at an interesting turning point - they can treat the major loss last november two ways: progress socially, embrace the need to move away from Religion and stop relying on issues such as stem cell research and homosexuality and instead focus on their core ideology (small government, put an end to needless spending, etc.) OR they can clench that cross even closer to their hearts...

It worries me that the undercurrent right now suggests that they're going the wrong way, but I hope I'm wrong.

I've voted for more Republicans than democrats, fyi... But Bush took the party back 50 years in my opinion.

I do not think that is reasonable or fair to say. I am no fan of Bush, but really what did he fundamentally do that set us back 50 years?

He put more minorities into his cabinet, or otherwise high-level federal positions, than any previous President. That sure as shit wasn't seen 50 years ago. He did get us bogged down with some screwed up war. . . hello, Korea, 50 years ago.

The current climate, even during the screwed up Bush years, is so very much more progressive than society was 50 years ago. I think it is just silly and intellectually dishonest for you to claim that he set us back 50 years.

Because that really fucking matters when it comes to running a country.

It doesn't matter getting the best qualified people regardless of sex or race??

Wow. . . you sound progressive . . .

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: swbsam

I hate division based politics as well, but I see this growing sentiment from "Red" states, clinging onto divisive issues such as homosexuality in a way to further separate themselves, continuing to blur church and state. It personally angers me, turning America from this wonderfully progressive bastion of Freedom into something else...

I don't think that is a fair sentiment about "Red" states. I think there is a few loud voices, e.g. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, that makes great sound bites but fundamentally I don't think it is all that bad.

Think about it, the farming ag Red state of Iowa now has gay marriage, but a 'progressive' Blue State like California had their citizens ban gay marriage. Ohio has a constitutional amendment describing marriage as one man and one woman - granted Ohio is often a swing "purple" state, but it typically has been a northern state.

The McCain camp has been coming out to tell their fellow Republicans to "get over" the entire anti-gay stance. I do have my doubts on how well that message will permeate through, but at least something has been said.

Now with that being said the invasion of religion into politics bothers the hell out of me but I don't think it is necessarily as decisive as many partisan hacks like to portray it.

I think the Republican party is at an interesting turning point - they can treat the major loss last november two ways: progress socially, embrace the need to move away from Religion and stop relying on issues such as stem cell research and homosexuality and instead focus on their core ideology (small government, put an end to needless spending, etc.) OR they can clench that cross even closer to their hearts...

It worries me that the undercurrent right now suggests that they're going the wrong way, but I hope I'm wrong.

I've voted for more Republicans than democrats, fyi... But Bush took the party back 50 years in my opinion.

I do not think that is reasonable or fair to say. I am no fan of Bush, but really what did he fundamentally do that set us back 50 years?

He put more minorities into his cabinet, or otherwise high-level federal positions, than any previous President. That sure as shit wasn't seen 50 years ago. He did get us bogged down with some screwed up war. . . hello, Korea, 50 years ago.

The current climate, even during the screwed up Bush years, is so very much more progressive than society was 50 years ago. I think it is just silly and intellectually dishonest for you to claim that he set us back 50 years.

Because that really fucking matters when it comes to running a country.

It doesn't matter getting the best qualified people regardless of sex or race??

Wow. . . you sound progressive . . .

Where does you say that? I'm all for putting the BEST person for a job, race shouldn't matter one bit.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: JDub02
Then we'll really see what works. Massive government regulation and increased taxation or freedom and liberty.

lol, because those are really the two sides of the coin. Sensationalize much?

 

[SparkyJJO]

We'll watch as you blue states turn communist and fall apart.

 

[nerp]

Red states use the most public services like welfare and food stamps. They also pay the least amount of taxes.

before you click reply, go look at the stats.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: nerp
Red states use the most public services like welfare and food stamps. They also pay the least amount of taxes.

before you click reply, go look at the stats.

If you are so sure about your numbers why don't you provide them for us? :disgust:

I guess this is why I don't visit P&N.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
We'll watch as you blue states turn communist and fall apart.

Do you know what communism is? Seems like you don't. A bailout or a temporary loan does not constitute state-owned enterprises. In communist states (those that are actually communist) there are no private companies. Are you aware of this? or are you just a bandwagon label-slapping monkey who has never actually read much world history? Dumbass.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
We'll watch as you blue states turn communist and fall apart.

Do you know what communism is? Seems like you don't. A bailout or a temporary loan does not constitute state-owned enterprises. In communist states (those that are actually communist) there are no private companies. Are you aware of this? or are you just a bandwagon label-slapping monkey who has never actually read much world history? Dumbass.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: nerp
Red states use the most public services like welfare and food stamps. They also pay the least amount of taxes.

before you click reply, go look at the stats.

If you are so sure about your numbers why don't you provide them for us? :disgust:

I guess this is why I don't visit P&N.

Because they're easily available and should be common knowledge. I don't see much stats coming from the right, just labels and sweeping generalizations.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: JDub02
Then we'll really see what works. Massive government regulation and increased taxation or freedom and liberty.

lol, because those are really the two sides of the coin. Sensationalize much?

That's what happens when people move too far to any end of the spectrum. They cease thinking logically and just say whatever is appropriate for their stripe of zealot to say.
I live in one of the reddest states there is, and let me tell you, the legislation they've been passing lately sure doesn't have anything to do with freedom or liberty (statewide smoking ban with no option for cities or counties to opt out, banning salvia divinorum--making it roughly equivalent to heroin in punishment, making it so strippers must be six feet from patrons and the clubs must close at 11PM).
Oh, and we also have one of the highest tax burdens in the country.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: nerp
Red states use the most public services like welfare and food stamps. They also pay the least amount of taxes.

before you click reply, go look at the stats.

If you are so sure about your numbers why don't you provide them for us? :disgust:

I guess this is why I don't visit P&N.

Because they're easily available and should be common knowledge. I don't see much stats coming from the right, just labels and sweeping generalizations.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: yllus
Not if you don't want half your country's natural resources anymore?

No, you didn't read the post. All the blue states have all the resources because someone said they did! That have like 93.2908% of all resources, it has been proven in a mass email!

BTW, Timewarp FTW!

actually that is pretty close to true, the deep south is fairly resource poor, and the rest of it is grain land.

iirc, most of the top ag producing states are 'blue', i think texas would have been the only dissenter in 2008. the 'farm states' ie ND, sd, nebraska kansas, montana don't actually produce a huge amount of food.

How in the hell can you say that with a straight face? Wait, did you say that with a straight face? That was effectively one of the causes of the Civil War - the resources were in the South, but the manufacturing was in the North. For fuck's sake you have to be a dolt to actually think the "south is fairly resource poor."

Copper, ever hear of it? Primarily mined in the southwest. Oil, gold, silver, diamonds, are all also found in the southern states. The world's largest supply of known helium is in the panhandle of Texas. This is a very, very important gas for scientific research as well as used in medicinal instrumentations such as MRI machines. Tons of farming in red and southern states. Ever hear of citrus? They don't grow so well up north. Gulf coast fishing & shrimping are massive industries. Houston is one of the largest port of calls in the world.

These types of posts and threads just piss me the hell off. With all of the fucking troubles in the world we have douchebags in this country that want to be so decisive with what color their political map is.

lol

the southwest is not the deep south. are you perchance retarded? the only major farming states in the south are florida and texas, and only one of those is republican (and increasingly turning blue )

on top of it, the south is the poorest and most undeveloped part of the country. Good riddance.

 

[JM Aggie08]

*Watches reruns of Obama's fail at the G20*

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
lol

the southwest is not the deep south. are you perchance retarded? the only major farming states in the south are florida and texas, and only one of those is republican (and increasingly turning blue )

on top of it, the south is the poorest and most undeveloped part of the country. Good riddance.

Hey, shut up, where am I supposed to get my bourbon from then?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: yllus
Not if you don't want half your country's natural resources anymore?

mostly in the blue states, except for oil

but guess what, we would have most of the border with canada (they have oil) plus its traded globally anyways.

Where are you going to refine it at? A large portion of the US refining capacity is on the gulf (aka red) coast.

thats what trade is for. plus a large portion of refining capacity (not to mention oil production) is in california

 

[miketheidiot]

redunant

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Babbles
Think about it, the farming ag Red state of Iowa now has gay marriage, but a 'progressive' Blue State like California had their citizens ban gay marriage. Ohio has a constitutional amendment describing marriage as one man and one woman - granted Ohio is often a swing "purple" state, but it typically has been a northern state.

Did you happen to see what color Iowa was in the last Presidential election?

Fair enough, but they have had a long track record of voting Republican. They may be better described as a "purple" state.

iowa has voted dem 5 of the last 6 elections.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
We'll watch as you blue states turn communist and fall apart.

A dash of socialism is going to save this economy from corporate greed, but no one is touting communism in it's most diluted form, not even the bluest of states. Baseless blanket statements FTL.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: nerp
Red states use the most public services like welfare and food stamps. They also pay the least amount of taxes.

before you click reply, go look at the stats.

If you are so sure about your numbers why don't you provide them for us? :disgust:

I guess this is why I don't visit P&N.

Because they're easily available and should be common knowledge. I don't see much stats coming from the right, just labels and sweeping generalizations.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

You want numbers that show that red states are on the Federal dole? That they receive more in tax dollars than they pay in? (which means that the blue states are supporting them)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...9/red_states_feed.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/U...e/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: nerp
Red states use the most public services like welfare and food stamps. They also pay the least amount of taxes.

before you click reply, go look at the stats.

If you are so sure about your numbers why don't you provide them for us? :disgust:

I guess this is why I don't visit P&N.

Because they're easily available and should be common knowledge. I don't see much stats coming from the right, just labels and sweeping generalizations.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

You want numbers that show that red states are on the Federal dole? That they receive more in tax dollars than they pay in? (which means that the blue states are supporting them)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...9/red_states_feed.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/U...e/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

I don't want them from you, I want them from the idiot spouting on about it. Don't forget this is OT, not P&N.