On Red And Blue States
The color of money; "amateur political geography", and other considerations

Once upon a time it was the red and the blue. Then the blue and the gray. And then, "Better dead than red!" And now we're back to red and blue.

Politics is largely a smear of shades of gray, though we like to pretend it's black and white. Blue collars turn to the white in hopes of scrabbling up the pyramid, but the white collars care only for the green. "Chickenhawks" in the executive add a splash of yellow to your Cheerios.

And so on.

• • •

November's presidential election sparked a boom in amateur political geography. You remember the maps that flew like rumors of war over the Internet. First, there was the plaintive spectacle of the election outcome: the blue-tagged Democratic states clinging to the Pacific, Great Lakes and North Atlantic shores, beachheads of civilization wrapped around a vast red wilderness ....

.... Even as they chuckled over these maps, blue Americans fumed in ways once reserved for Dixiecrat rebels, neo-Nazis fleeing to Idaho and other fringe separatists. You probably heard the grumbling; perhaps you even vented a little yourself. In 2000, you could blame the outcome on butterfly ballots, Ralph Nader and the "compassionate conservative" stealth campaign. But November 2004 offered fewer excuses, and it posed the question: What if a large section of this country really cares more about putting God in government, keeping gays out of marriage chapels and cutting rich folks' taxes than about fiscal, environmental and geopolitical sanity? What if what we've got is what they actually want? And what if the country's relatively liberal, cosmopolitan and secular regions are paying through the nose to be captives in a political madhouse?

SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html)

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer takes a brief glimpse at the red and blue states. Seattle author Eric Scigliano offers some advice: "Follow the money".

Regional inequities -- who pays and who gets -- go back far and deep in U.S. history. One-way taxation without representation made the colonies rebel against Britain; the fight over whether the slave-holding South or anti-slavery North would prevail in the Western territories led to the Civil War. Discontent has bubbled up since then, whenever this state or that region lands in disfavor for federal spending, taxes and tariffs. But it's reaching a new boil now, thanks to two trends.

One is the way that the newest federal pie, Homeland Security funding, has been divvied. The likeliest terror targets are blue coastal cities -- New York, Seattle, Los Angeles (where al-Qaida was stopped from striking in 1999) and underprotected seaports generally. But that's not where the money's gone. A stock formula allocates 40 percent of funding equally to each state. So Wyoming, Dick Cheney's off-and-on home state and about as tempting a target as Baffin Island, gets seven times as much funding per capita as New York. When Homeland Security responded to criticism by trying to place a little more money where it's actually needed, Republican lawmakers snarled about favoring "Democratic cities."

SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html)

And even though Homeland Security is "just a small slice" of federal expenditures, the larger outlook apparently looks the same. According to an annual report by the National Tax Foundation, a flat-tax advocacy group, among the fifty states:

The top nine recipients of subsidies, as a ratio of money in to money out, are New Mexico, Kentucky, Virginia, Montana, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Alaska. New Mexico saw a ratio of $1.99/1.00 in 2003.

Two of the top fourteen net losers were "traditional red Western states that are starting to turn purple": Colorado and Nevada. The other twelve are blue states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Wisconsin, and New Jersey. The big loser, New Jersey, saw a ratio of $0.57/1.00 for the same period.

Only five blue states were net-recipients of federal subsidies. Only two red states were net-payers.

Washington, despite its large military presence and big defense contractor The Boeing Co., received just 90 cents on its federal tax dollar. Oregon and swinging Florida are perfect washes: They received one federal dollar for every dollar they paid in taxes.

SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html)

William Ahern, the NTF report's author, points out that if voters really cared about themselves, they'd join his organization. He doesn't find this likely, though. Republicans will follow Bush wherever he leads them, while Democrats, Ahern asserts, will "obey their instincts" and stand off against the president.

But you can look at this topsy-turvy lineup another way. Blue-staters earn more on average and pay more in taxes, because they are better educated, more productive, less likely to be retired or disabled and generally healthier; rates of obesity, smoking and alcoholism (not to mention divorce and suicide) all peak in the South or West. The highly educated have always been healthier and earned more but more of them used to vote Republican; as the two parties have switched identities, these voters have gone Democratic.

SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html)

Altogether, the situation is that the blue states paid $966b to the federal treasury and got $830b in return. The red states paid $697b and saw a $909b return. As the author Scigliano observes, "Welfare queens, indeed."

• • •

I found the phrase "as the two parties have switched identities" rather interesting. If only that were the case.

Certain points are shifting: the Bush administration hopes to steal Social Security from the Democrats, the Bush administration is leading the GOP on a spending spree such as Reagan would have scornfully blamed on "tax-and-spend liberals". But to consider Michael Moore's 2001 lament, "Where has the Democratic party gone?" If the parties were truly switching places, the GOP's "wide tent" would include "the little guy". It doesn't. "The little guy" is only necessary to feed the conservative economic pyramid scheme.

The Democrats, of course, are the guilty party here. Republicans are still Republicans, only moreso these days. Democrats have become Lite Republicans, scrabbling about to keep up with voters' demands. In making it about market share and not the interests of the people, the Democrats certainly became more like the Republicans, but a GOP spending spree on military and law-enforcement desires does not represent a Republican shift to be more like Democrats.

Curious, indeed.

• • •

So much for "liberal elitism". Apparently, it bankrolls the wide tent of conservatives.

Perhaps the red states should consider an attitude adjustment. As the adage says, don't bite the hand that feeds you.
______________________

Notes:

Scigliano, Eric. "Red and blue and the color of money". SeattlePI.com. February 13, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html

Government For Profit?
And why not? It's already for sale.

A few years ago, Enron and other power marketers sent Northwest electric rates soaring with the manipulation of a West Coast energy crisis. Now, President Bush wants to pick up where his one-time pals at Enron left off.

The president's budget proposes to charge premium prices, equivalent to those from higher-cost power plants, for the low-cost electricity produced by federal dams. The budget envisions "modest" annual rate increases to bring the costs up to those for power from other market sources.

SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211707_bpaed.html)

It's a curious end-around tax increases, but angry Democrats see it as all being the same thing. According to Seattle City Light, Bush's move would cost up to $1.5 billion a year in energy rate increases. The Bonneville Power Administration "expect up to 20 percent yearly increases" in their wholesale electric rates.

Democrats are not the only opposition Bush faces. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) has pledged to use any possible procedural means to block this proposal. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), head of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has publicly refused to support the administration on the issue.

Nor is this the first time an executive has sought to raise rates on federal energy markets. Nor is this the first time Congress has disagreed. In fact, Congress has never agreed.

The Bush administration talks about BPA's current rates as taxpayer subsidies of the region. In fact, though, BPA and other power-marketing agencies are charged by law with providing power at their costs. A government agency should not be a profit center.

BPA is such a dominant provider of electrical power that it is almost impossible to imagine how it could operate as a normal part of a market. If ordered to make money, Bonneville would almost inevitably take on monopoly-like powers to control prices, and in ways that would be almost impossible to monitor.

SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211707_bpaed.html)

Apparently the Bush administration, facing the tough choices demanded by tax cuts, is simply flipping through myriad ideas previously rejected by Congress. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) noted that Congress has previously prohibited any government spending to even study the idea of charging market rates for BPA power.

Sen. Smith told the Associated Press: "BPA's customers are still recovering from the West Coast energy crisis and a sluggish economy. They've already been hit with rate hikes and can't afford any more."

As long as the administration is looking for power-marketing injustices to remedy, maybe it could first see if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can force suppliers to reimburse Western homeowners, businesses and schools for the energy crisis losses they continue to suffer.

SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211707_bpaed.html)

Why would they do that? BPA is in a blue state. Milking an extra $1.5b a year out of a blue state? Fine by Bush.

• • •

See? It's thematic. Once again, the government looks to the blue states to pay up.
______________________

Notes:

Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "Enron-like madness". SeattlePI.com. February 13, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211707_bpaed.html

The US isn't breaking up, so I don't know what this has to do with anything. Most areas get federal money in one form or another... Bush wants to cut the farm subsidies... which favors 'red' states... so I'd chill

or you can freak if you like too...

Love and peace, Karmashock.

The Democrats, of course, are the guilty party here. Republicans are still Republicans, only moreso these days. Democrats have become Lite Republicans, scrabbling about to keep up with voters' demands. In making it about market share and not the interests of the people, the Democrats certainly became more like the Republicans, but a GOP spending spree on military and law-enforcement desires does not represent a Republican shift to be more like Democrats.

A good example of why I'm not a Democrat OR a Republican.

As for the energy hike, it's a good thing I'm getting solar power soon. :)

- N

Let's just say that without equalization payments the Red States would be like...Argentina some very rich most relatively poor.

Wonderful article.

Deceptive accounts such as this are Exhibit #A in showing why the left is and will continue to lose power. So Blue States support Red States eh?

This from a paper in Seattle too. Where Boeing (#2 in defense contracts in 2004) is. Boeing Corporate is in IL--another Blue State.

#1 Defense contractor is Lockheed. Maryland. Blue State.

#3--Raytheon. Massachusetts. Bluest of the blue

Little Connecticut is #4 or #5. Blue state.

Of the top 10 Defense contractors in 2004, only three are located in Red States (TX, FL, KY).

But defense isn't where the big money is spent. Social programs are. Nearly everyone involved in that spending is a member of an extreme left wing, Democratic party supporting union.

Every IRS office in the nation is filled with NTEU members. Public housing (HUD) has Kerry supporters administrating the program and Kerry supporters receiving the subsidies. Every Social Security Office, every EPA, OSHA, EOEC and Gawd knows what other Federal Offices in the nation is run by unions which support Blue State candidates.

Welfare in America is run by liberals. And you don't find many conservative voters on it.

Education is in a class by itself. With the exception of 3 or 4 small colleges, higher education is left wing. Same with K-12 education. Same with the unions which maintain K-12 classrooms, colleges and universities . Federal funding for education funds liberals (some conservatives too, must a decided minority).

Yes, huge amounts of money go to Red States. But those who vote Blue state get a more than, as Bill Clinton would say, "their fair share."

Lots more.

Red State voters would be more than happy to have most of these people pack their bags and move to Blue states.

And to take the Welfare leeches, the HUD housing leeches, the drunks , drug addicts and other derelicts George Soros hired last year to get out the vote for Kerry with them.

The left will start to win elections again when it cuts out BS such as found in this Seattle paper.

I hope it never does.

A good example of why I'm not a Democrat OR a Republican.

As for the energy hike, it's a good thing I'm getting solar power soon. :)

- N
Solar power? :bugeye:

The US isn't breaking up, so I don't know what this has to do with anything.

What an interesting observation, Karmashock. Perhaps I could compel you to explain the relevance?

Or are you just introducing an irrelevant factor for the hell of it?

Of the top 10 Defense contractors in 2004, only three are located in Red States (TX, FL, KY).

Regardless the only way the industry is funded is by the US tax payer, and taxpayers of other nations. It shown that Blue State taxpayers even with military expenditures are losing out big time. The biggest subsidies like agricultural almost all go to the Red States, and when the median GDP per capita of the Blue states is approaching $35,000 and in the Red States a mere $28,000 there is a disparity of wealth and education generally speaking Blue staters are more educated, have a greater propensity to have college education, and contribute much more to the American economy then millions of Wal-Mart employees.

Welfare in America is run by liberals. And you don't find many conservative voters on it.

During the Great Depression who went to California? Red States without that “welfare” cheque is not much of an economy to say the least. Many conservative voters don’t realize that social welfare programs are actually a conservative machination (shocking as it may be). Welfare is a conservative idea.

With the exception of 3 or 4 small colleges, higher education is left wing.

Education usually does that.

Yes, huge amounts of money go to Red States. But those who vote Blue state get a more than, as Bill Clinton would say, "their fair share."

No they don’t their economies are losing billions in capital that could be better spent at home improving education for their citizens, their healthcare, etc. Instead its going to ungrateful idiots on the plains who can barely read.

Red State voters would be more than happy to have most of these people pack their bags and move to Blue states.

Historically its visa versa, Red Staters are usually itching to leave their hickish state for greener pastures. Lets face it, capitalism exists much more in the Blue then Red states, you want to make big bucks go to the blue states, or stfu.

And to take the Welfare leeches, the HUD housing leeches, the drunks , drug addicts and other derelicts George Soros hired last year to get out the vote for Kerry with them.

Sounds like the confederacy, and they lost too.

The left will start to win elections again when it cuts out BS such as found in this Seattle paper.

Oh the left will come back with a vengeance wait and see; this is only a temporary shift in US policies. American’s will realized how much the GOP has fucked them over.

What an interesting observation, Karmashock. Perhaps I could compel you to explain the relevance?

Or are you just introducing an irrelevant factor for the hell of it?
The relevance of my point is self evident... but here you go anyway.
Red States Can't Live Without "Liberal Elites", Blue States
Why would either group need to live without the other when they simply won't?

Furthermore, you overestimate the power of your group... every blue state has a significant republican footprint... just as the red states have a signicant democrat footprint.

The dems would be greatly weakened by losing the reps and vis versa. Saying otherwise is just kidding yourself. ;)

Why would either group need to live without the other when they simply won't?

We had an election in November. Perhaps you missed it?

Much campaign rhetoric was devoted to divisive and inaccurate complaining about "liberal elites" and their "contempt" for "middle America".

The politics of that are their own story. "Middle America" endorses bigotry, contempt for humanity, and dishonesty. Liberals are considered "elitist" for disagreeing that bigotry, contemptuous violence, and dishonesty are positive attributes for a free and noble nation.

However, what we see here is that the "red states" that complain about the blue states need the blue states. It isn't about breaking up the country; if you'd read the article, you would have caught that paragraph.

It's about hypocrisy and biting the hand that feeds you. Liberal elitism? Blue states? We're bankrolling the bigotry, dishonesty, and contempt for humanity so revered by voting majorities in the "red states".

Furthermore, you overestimate the power of your group... every blue state has a significant republican footprint... just as the red states have a signicant democrat footprint.

Actually, you're just trying to invent an issue. It's more to the point to note that the voting majority in this country is factually confused at best, or downright dishonest at worst.

Seriously, are there any Bush voters who will openly admit that they endorse bigotry, dishonesty, and contempt for humanity as "American values"?

They ought to stand up and be proud.

Karma...yup

Democrats hold power for three main reasons:

1.They run the "permanent government"--the legions of federal unionized employees. They used to brag about that to Reaganites. "You are here for a while, " they would said, "we are here forever."

Very quietly, Bush is contracting them right out of their government union into the real world.

2.They run nearly all education from pre-school to post grad degrees. And they run it as a patronage system.

3.The media cooperates with the above to keep the system running.

The media is shattering before our eyes. Bush is making inroads into lessening the power of government union. They are safe in education. For now.

The screams we hear are because the old trade routes are being constricted. Used to be once in, liberals went from college to the media or government (those with no talent went to PBS or NPR). Then the merry-go-round would begin. From government to media to education--round and round.

The final resting place for those who played the game well was a slot at the Kennedy School of Government.

There is no way for Democrats to paper this over, to put a new label on themselves and hope the public buys it. Unless the party reforms, it will be in the minority for decades.

Muhlenberg

Contempt and poisoning the well get you nothing. Sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors get you nothing.

You try the detailed breakdown for what reason? Do you think you can change the final outcome?

It is quite clear to anyone with good verbal comprehension, that the conservatives currently use more purposefully ambiguous language than has ever been seen before. This is precisely to avoid having to admit they are "dishonest". If they present language which means one thing to the average person, but should actually be interpreted differently, can they be called liars? No.
Quite clever. And deceitful.
Look at Rice's response when pressed on her description of the situation in Iraq before the war. She says, "I didn't mean that", although the common understanding of the language she used implied many unsupportable claims to the american people.

Although I think we know who the biggest liars are, the conservative republicans say that the liberals are the "dishonest" ones. My feeling is that the descriptive terms, "bigotry" and "contempt for humanity", which the conservatives obviously demonstrate, are the most damning ones, because the dishonesty is so hard to prove. (Thanks to the ubiquitous use of phrases which have many meanings, or none at all if you listen to rumsfeld, he is the worst of the worst.)
Also, we will have to get much better at detecting these slippery statements no matter who they come from. This will require advances in education which the conservatives so desperately are trying to keep from happening. The crippling of public education should do the trick.

Another vapid comment. No content. Right out of Saul Alinsky. Make it personal

Well I can do that too tiassa.

Write your own material. George Orwell:

"1.Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print."

click here for Orwell's other rules (http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html)

Might as well reply to my computer than someone who uses "Sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors" to make a point.

Well, Muhlenberg, you could try offering something other than argumentative fallacies and irrelevance. Oh, wait. Sorry. I forgot, you don't have anything else to offer.

Blue states might be the financial centers but red states are the food centers. I know that money is a good thing but it is not too palatable. Plus we red states get more money back because we are much more efficient with what we have. Blue states have all the massive taxing and spending on liberal programs so of course they would get less back.

You're not even trying, Brutus, are you?

Blue states might be the financial centers but red states are the food centers.

Nearly everything I eat comes right outta California. I say good riddance to the Reds. :)

- N

We are the United States of America. Not the United Red States, or United Blue States. Opposition is a good thing. It makes both sides stronger. We have our differences but we have more in common. Just look at other countries that kill each other over thier differences. We fight for what we want using the democratic process. It isn't perfect. It requires a lot of give and take, but in the end it beats any and all alternatives.

Seriously, are there any Bush voters who will openly admit that they endorse bigotry, dishonesty, and contempt for humanity as "American values"?
Look in a mirror. You are the bigot. Your contempt and arrogance speaks for itself. You can not even consider the fact that someone could HONESTLY hold a view different from yours. Who is it that has "contempt for humanity"? Is it the party that respects the beliefs of the people, or the party that denigrates the masses as ignorant rednecks? Who is dishonest? Both candidates believed their were WMD's in Iraq. Bush put his presidency on the line to do something about it. Kerry voted for the war, then voted against funding the troops (while claiming he had actually voted for it, earlier). If I'd wanted to vote for bigotry, dishonesty, and contempt for humanity; I'd have cast a vote for John Kerry.

Who is it that has "contempt for humanity"? Is it the party that respects the beliefs of the people, or the party that denigrates the masses as ignorant rednecks?

Bush does not respect the beliefs of the other 50% of people in the country.

He gets about half the vote, and then says he has a "mandate". That is some sick and twisted thinking.

That is pure "might makes right" thinking.

The votes are in, I win, I therefore can commit no sin.

I am disgusted. That isn't the united states of america I learned about in school. (of course you have to keep learning if you want to realize what has really been happening)

Nearly everything I eat comes right outta California. I say good riddance to the Reds. :)

- N

Ah, but if you notice the areas in California that grow food are red if you look at the map based on counties. Infact there are just small spatterings of blue here and there. California is mostly a red state.

California kicks ass!
Even if we became a laughingstock for voting in the governator, we have everything here. I hope there is a giant earthquake and we become an island so we can have our own country, haha. After seeing most of cali over the years, I would be perfectly satisfied for this red and blue state to leave the rest behind. We have Hollywood, and some airforce bases too to protect Hollywood, haha.

Who is it that has "contempt for humanity"? Is it the party that respects the beliefs of the people, or the party that denigrates the masses as ignorant rednecks?

Does the word "legitimacy" have any meaning to you?

See, the thing is that there are legitimate assertions of belief, and then there are illegitimate insofar as our society is constructed. For instance, we all know of "goths", but heaven help us the day being "Goth" is a protected status. The identity politic isn't legitimate in the context of protection.

Now, what does this have to do with your point? Very simply, when you imply that the GOP "respects the beliefs of the people", and the Democrats "denigrate the masses as ignorant rednecks", what you're dealing with there are illegitimate assertions of belief.

For instance, gay rights.

When our society believed that people randomly woke up one day and decided to invite society's scorn upon themselves by "choosing" to "turn" or "become" gay, the courts had no problem allowing discrimination--see Bowers v. Hardwick. However, as we learn more and more about humanity, some of that progress informs us that people do not simply wake up one day and decide to be gay. Additionally, we see that gays can indeed participate efficiently in society. As the prejudices fall to stronger suggestions of fact--e.g. parts of sexuality are determined before birth, kids do okay with gay parents, &c.--the justifications for discrimination fall. What's left is a moral assertion derived from religion.

Suddenly, the conservatives are left holding an empty bag. Their "belief" is not legitimate in the face of facts. Their political demand--e.g. discrimination--is not legitimate in the face of facts.

And it's somehow contemptuous of people's beliefs to reject unjustified discrimination?

The political dialogue is made nearly impossible by the conservative insistence on simplicity and superficiality. Looking for a "single gay gene"; asking for a "single constitutional directive". Homosexuality in nature is the result of a combination of factors; Roe v. Wade reflects a combination of constitutional principles. Conservatives refuse the subtleties of reality, demand unrealistic terms of discussion in pursuit of an antisocial sociopolitical imbalance.

Or, what beliefs were you thinking of?

Both candidates believed their were WMD's in Iraq.

Sometimes I think you just don't understand the magnitude of Bush's "error". When Ronald Reagan was president, the gloom-and-doom disaffected leftists made all sorts of wild predictions about what it would lead to. Whether or not that continuity is valid, what has happened since 9/11 in this country does in fact reflect dimensions of those oft irrationally-expressed fears. Imagine the proverbial time machine. Were I to go back twenty years and recite the history of 9/11 to the present as a prediction for the future, most glaringly offensive to people at the time would be the suggestion that the United States government could act so irresponsibly. These are decent men and women in the government, despite their faults, people would say. Such a scenario would be cast out among the gloomy fringe: the magnitude of Bush's errors were unimaginable to many, and sometimes I think that's part of his appeal: traditional values recoil so sharply that folks in "middle America" may be in denial.

At the time Kerry was asked to vote, he had no reason to distrust his president so gravely. In fact, the big question about that first vote was whether or not Congress had the power to write such a carte blanche investment of war.

By the time it came to the $87b, it was clear the administration had screwed up. Without answers, that $87b could easily have been squandered further endangering our troops through irresponsible policy planning. On that count, Sen. Kerry had foresight.

Bush's errors are the kind of thing Ronald Reagan would have had you fear of liberals, and then some.

If I'd wanted to vote for bigotry, dishonesty, and contempt for humanity; I'd have cast a vote for John Kerry.

When you base such opinions on constructions of history reflective of facts on record, they'll have a little more impact.

If you have to choose between, "flip-flop", and "stay the course", well, only an uneducated person would think "stay the course", is right. Especially when you consider the complexity of the laws that are being voted in, and the "extras" that are included in each appropriation.

Maybe that's why higher education is still a haven for democrats.

I think it is sad that I hear conservatives slander the institutions for being "liberal". When people become educated they see that "stay the course", is not the best answer. It's like the old adage about insanity... insanity = trying to get a different result with the same tactic.

Does the word "legitimacy" have any meaning to you?
For instance, gay rights.
Their "belief" is not legitimate in the face of facts. Their political demand--e.g. discrimination--is not legitimate in the face of facts. And it's somehow contemptuous of people's beliefs to reject unjustified discrimination?

No one is demanding that gays sit in the back of buses or work in cotton fields as slaves. No one is forcing them to live is seperate areas or do the same job for less pay. The only real issue is marriage. Now you may believe that a "marriage" between two people of the same sex is exactly the same as between members of the opposite sex, but most people do not. Since the dawn of civilization, marriage has been defined as a union of man and woman. The primary purpose of which is to provide a safe and stable environment for children. Reproduction is a biological imperative for us as individuals and as a species. It is so important to us as a species as to accord those unions that have the potential of producing children special status: marriage. This does not mean that I (or most other Republicans) would oppose some sort of marriage analog (civil unions) to simplify things like inheritance, visitation in hospitals, etc. That's my defense on this issue. Now the other thing is, people don't like having things shoved down their throats by activist judges. Marriage has one definition for six thousand years and then some judge interprets a law written in the 18th century as guaranteeing the right to gay marriage! WTF!!! If you could get a time machine and ask the guys who wrote the law, every one of them would say they had no intention of the law allowing gay marriage. If the written word does not mean what its author meant it to mean, it means nothing. If you want to legalize gay marriage, change the law. Don't re-interpret it to mean the opposite of what was intended. This will do nothing but provoke the sort of backlash you saw in the last election.

The political dialogue is made nearly impossible by the conservative insistence on simplicity and superficiality.

Complexity is not synonymous with truth. Simplicity is not synonymous with superficiality. Quite the contrary. Occam's Razor states that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity. This principle underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. The explanation for the movement of the planets and the stars that existed prior to Newton was quite complex, and completely wrong. Then Newton came along with his laws of motion, and suddenly things made a lot more sense, while simultaneously getting a lot simplier.


Bush's errors are the kind of thing Ronald Reagan would have had you fear of liberals, and then some.

please specify which errors you are referring to.

so what about the dawn of time. Science was regarded as herasy by the catholic church for most of the early centurys but that doesnt stop it being proper today, slavery was thought to be good and propper even LONGER and that doesnt stop it being an international crime now

we live NOW not in the past

and if you want to get historical it was good and proper in greece and rome for homosexuals so why isnt it now?

Since the dawn of civilization, marriage has been defined as a union of man and woman. The primary purpose of which is to provide a safe and stable environment for children. Reproduction is a biological imperative for us as individuals and as a species. It is so important to us as a species as to accord those unions that have the potential of producing children special status: marriage.
Are you brutus?
This isn't the dawn of civilization anymore. Natural selection has been usurped by human control of the planet. In china they should give gay marriage a bonus value since they don't want a population explosion. Better than marriage, gay marriage, I can see it now.

Occam's Razor states that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity. This principle underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. The explanation for the movement of the planets and the stars that existed prior to Newton was quite complex, and completely wrong. Then Newton came along with his laws of motion, and suddenly things made a lot more sense, while simultaneously getting a lot simplier.

And now we have multiple theories to try to explain how it all works, so we should have stuck with newton? Let's drop the occam thing, it is a method for research, not a proof of truth. Simpler theories are not correct by default.

Cole Gray

No I am not Madanthonywane. Sorry

My statement was due to some of the wording in the post, especially the part I quoted. I am not on a hunt anyway, it was just a joke.

No one is demanding that gays sit in the back of buses or work in cotton fields as slaves. No one is forcing them to live is seperate areas or do the same job for less pay. The only real issue is marriage. Now you may believe that a "marriage" between two people of the same sex is exactly the same as between members of the opposite sex, but most people do not.

The problem with what people believe is the dichotomy between what people believe and what the law says. Look at Florida: pressed to the wall, the state has instituted the rape culture. That's sanctifying marriage, tellyawhat.

Since the dawn of civilization, marriage has been defined as a union of man and woman.

It might also be pointed out that until the twentieth century, marriage was a proprietary issue. For instance, do you know why it's traditional for the bride's family to pay for the wedding? It's an old standard: you used to pay people to take your daughters off your hands.

The primary purpose of which is to provide a safe and stable environment for children.

And it's working so well, isn't it?

Reproduction is a biological imperative for us as individuals and as a species. It is so important to us as a species as to accord those unions that have the potential of producing children special status: marriage.

First, this we are not the Jews wandering the desert. Secondly, the dawn of humanity was a long time ago. The modern day sees us struggling to keep up with the population we have.

Furthermore, your limitation of marital status is incorrect. A man and a woman not capable of reproducing are still allowed to be married.

This does not mean that I (or most other Republicans) would oppose some sort of marriage analog (civil unions) to simplify things like inheritance, visitation in hospitals, etc. That's my defense on this issue.

Separate but equal? Purely discriminatory, which flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution.

As a side note, though, perhaps you don't recall when conservatives organized against a state governor for instituting a "marriage analog" (e.g. civil unions).

By far the most controversial decision of his career, and the first to draw serious national attention, came in 2000, when the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state's marriage laws unconstitutionally excluded same-sex couples and ordered that the state legislature either to allow gays and lesbians to marry or create a parallel status. Facing calls to amend the state constitution to prohibit either option, Dean chose to support the latter one, and signed the nation's first civil unions legislation into law, spurring a short-lived "Take Back Vermont" movement which helped Republicans gain control of the State House.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean)

The Republican call for civil unions is one given grudgingly.

Now the other thing is, people don't like having things shoved down their throats by activist judges

This is one of the lamest complaints put up by conservatives. At its core, the term "activist judge" refers to a judge who does not read each point of the Constitution in a fashion that holds it disconnected from all other parts. A common analogy I've made note of before, regarding conservative politics:

• "Single gay gene": Even into 2004, we heard the argument that there is no "single gay gene", therefore homosexuality cannot possibly be natural. Science, however, suggests something more subtle: an interaction of genes and hormones in utero. It's getting harder and harder for conservatives.

• "Single constitutional principle": Conservatives seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade often make the assertion that the decision is the result of "activist judges". There is no single constitutional point empowering abortion, they reason. Well, the reality of the matter is a bit more subtle: looking at the facts in front of them, diverse points of the Constitution came together in such a fashion as to instruct the court to the decision it made.

I often say conservatives are superficial. This is an example of what I mean: they only look a layer or two into a deep, complex, multi-faceted issue.

Marriage has one definition for six thousand years and then some judge interprets a law written in the 18th century as guaranteeing the right to gay marriage

It may come as a shock to you, but marriage has evolved over time. I believe it was the British who made it into the late 20th century before an "activist judge" in ruled that a wife is not the legally-owned property of her husband. In 1967, "activist judges" in the United States kicked anti-miscegenation laws out of our society. We in the United States do not promise our daughters to men they do not love. We do not buy husbands. Marital women are no longer commodities.

If you could get a time machine and ask the guys who wrote the law, every one of them would say they had no intention of the law allowing gay marriage. If the written word does not mean what its author meant it to mean, it means nothing.

Your appreciation of the dynamism and flexibility of the U.S. Constitution is rather lackluster. The founding fathers did not intend Free Speech to cover modern advertising. They did not intend the right to bear arms to include weapons of mass destruction. And yet, here we are in the twenty-first century.

If you want to legalize gay marriage, change the law.

One of the things that invites judicial scrutiny is when a law is written and enacted with the specific intent of discriminating. Conservatives have entered that region quite aggressively. Additionally, you'll notice that it's conservatives who have to change the law. And it was also conservatives who argued that following the law is breaking the law. This, too, is a common pattern among conservatives.

Don't re-interpret it to mean the opposite of what was intended.

Only when you fix the Constitution and our laws in concrete do they start to crumble away.

Remember that laws tell us what we cannot do. If a specific outcome was intended, it should have been addressed.

This will do nothing but provoke the sort of backlash you saw in the last election.

Yeah, that's what they said about civil rights.

See, the thing is that the scoreboard may be what's important to conservatives, but I hold with principles. I'll hold out for equality and justice, and hold in contempt those who celebrate their own barbarism for the amusement cruelty brings them.

In the meantime, nothing you've done has made the case that harmful, intentional irrationality deserves respect.

One of the cruel ironies that leaves me grinning is that our American conservative Christians, for instance, are creating a hell of a record of doing unto the least of His brethren. It's amazing to me what "sacred" principles conservatives will sell out for the scoreboard.

Complexity is not synonymous with truth. Simplicity is not synonymous with superficiality.

Nor is it always wrong to turn right instead of left. Unless, of course, turning left takes you to where you say you want to go.

Relying on the general to excuse you in the specific is unwise. It's superficial, and transparent as well.

Aside from that, see the examples given above (e.g. common analogy).

please specify which errors you are referring to.

Such contemptuous bullshit, Madanthonywayne, is why I have no respect for you. It has nothing to do with the fact that you're a conservative. That you're a contemptuous, superficial person, however, affects my opinion of you greatly.

To start with, you made the point that "Both candidates believed there were WMD's in Iraq".

The problem with using that as any political fuel is that Kerry, being a Senator, ought to be able to trust Bush, being the president. When the president brought information to Congress and said, "There are weapons there," the standing presumption was that the president was telling the truth. As I have said many times, and as I stated in my prior post--and as you ignored, apparently, in that post--Bush's conduct since 9/11 has been what was, even during Reagan's years, insultingly unimaginable. When Republicans call the characterization of Bush as a liar being hateful, they're appealing to an old standard where you weren't supposed to badmouth a president even that badly. The conduct of the GOP during the Clinton years notwithstanding, the idea is simple.

If I had said publicly, in 1985, that:

• George HW Bush would serve one term as president
• Zealous Republicans would impeach a Democratic president for fellatio
• George W Bush would be elected president
• (Fall of Enron and resulting economic troubles)
• The GW Bush administration would hide its connections to a massive criminal scheme (e.g. Enron)
• Terrorists would hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001, killing thousands
• The then-Vice President's son, as President of the United States, would ask for the USA-PATRIOT Act, and Congress would approve it
• President George W. Bush would use 19 Saudis killing thousands of Americans as a pretense for war in Iraq
• President George W. Bush would send his Secretary of State to the U.N. with bogus evidence in support of a war
• President George W. Bush would seek to sidestep the Geneva Conventions (POW/Illegal Combatant)
• President George W. Bush would choose to ignore the Geneva Conventions (fall of Saddam, resulting chaos)
• President George W. Bush would handle the Abu Ghraib scandal so poorly (or even that such an event could occur in the first place)
• President George W. Bush would run such a (criminally, by that period's standard) inefficient occupation
• President George W. Bush would bring America's prestige to its lowest point since it began its ascent
• President George W. Bush would see his administration buying off journalists ....

The list goes on, more or less according to how vile one finds the man. Certain details are nitpicking. The idea of stabbing the idiot Christian-conservative GOP political base in the back, for instance, doesn't surprise anybody. They're whores with nowhere else to go if they want a share of the political power: only whores of common degree can tolerate them. I mean, I'm all for prostitution, but there's a line to be drawn when one's spreading disease.

If I had said such things of the GOP's future in 1985, it would have been the sort of thing to get a man beaten in "middle America". If I had projected such a future to my father, for instance, who thankfully was not a violent man, he would have simply said, "You're sick. That's horrible. How can you say that about anybody?"

I mean, think about it: a large, intrusive government racking up record deficits while demanding a lockstep bandwagon and resorting to propaganda. Never mind that the Reagan administration racked up some irresponsible defecits of its own, nor that it demanded a patriotic lockstep, nor that it resorted to propaganda, nor that it was a large, intrusive government. Such indignity is what the GOP's favorite president would have had you fear of liberals. The detail? Well, that would have been indecent to project of anyone.

My statement was due to some of the wording in the post, especially the part I quoted. I am not on a hunt anyway, it was just a joke.


Cole Gray. Yes some of Madanthonywaynes posts are very simular to some of mine so I can see why you that It might also be me.

Red To Blue: Love It Or Leave It

Many in our country today are asking why the vast and ever-increasing number of "Red States" that appear to be slowly nudging the few remaining "Blue States" into the Atlantic and Pacific?

Well, from a historical perspective, it's simply in their genes. More specifically, it's in their rebellious, or "rebel," gene; an independent rebel gene that crossed the Atlantic in rebellion against a lack of freedom.

Augusta Free Press (http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$31708)

Gosh those red-staters have awesome senses of humor.

A "Red States" gene from which moral values and the dream of our founding fathers have flourished despite "Blue States" past domination and have expanded from the South to the heart and the far reaches of this nation, diminishing "Blue States" to near insignificance, a feat unattainable by a bloody civil war.

Unlike President Lincoln, President Bush, in accordance with the will of our founding fathers, will honor the "Blue States"’ right to secession if so inclined.

Augusta Free Press (http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$31708)

Or, to quote Karmashock:

The US isn't breaking up, so I don't know what this has to do with anything.

I agree we're not breaking up anytime soon, but it seems to me that some red-staters would like that, too, despite the fact that they will lose an inflow of needed cash from blue-state funds.

Gee ... I wonder if they've identified that single "rebel" gene, yet.
_____________________

Notes:

Simmons, Armond. "The South shall rise again ...". AugustaFreePress.com. February 16, 2005. See http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$31708

Yall liss'n here. This here is a thrid jack; But relative ta the debates of blue vs red states!.

Seems like some Bush supporters year all pissed off!. YOU GET WHAT YOU VOTED FOR!.

Servesem riat ;)

Anyhow here's the awful news:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&ncid=509&e=33&u=/ap/20050217/ap_on_bi_ge/farm_scene

By non other than an open minded, conservative!. Ya reckon?

Godless.

• "Single gay gene": Even into 2004, we heard the argument that there is no "single gay gene", therefore homosexuality cannot possibly be natural. Science, however, suggests something more subtle: an interaction of genes and hormones in utero. It's getting harder and harder for conservatives.

STRAW MAN. You always seem to mention this single gay gene deal. Rest assured, I have a good understanding of genetics and am aware that the lack of a single gene linked to a specific disorder by no means is evidence that there is no genetic component to that disorder. If there was a single gay gene, its presence could easily be deduced from the pattern of inheritence. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to assume that a complex behaviour such as sexuality could be controlled by a single gene. The fact that some conservative somewhere used this absurd "gay gene" argument is completely irrelevant.

• "Single constitutional principle": Conservatives seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade often make the assertion that the decision is the result of "activist judges". There is no single constitutional point empowering abortion, they reason. Well, the reality of the matter is a bit more subtle: looking at the facts in front of them, diverse points of the Constitution came together in such a fashion as to instruct the court to the decision it made.
Again, you overcomplicate things. The tenth ammendment states that all rights not specifically granted to the government reside in the people or the states. The reason many of the founding fathers were against the Bill of Rights was they were concerned that people would come to think that the only rights were those specifically mentioned in any Bill of rights. So they put in the tenth ammendment to remind us that was not the case. Of course there is a right to privacy, it was not necesary to bring together diverse points in the constitution to create a right to privacy, it already existed. Unfortunately, the founding fathers were right and many have come to the view that if a right is not explicitly listed in the constitution, it doesn't exist. As far as I am concerned, the only real issue as far as abortion is concerned is at what point the right of the child to live overules the women's right to privacy. Surely most would agree that abortion at nine months is wrong? So it's just a matter of balancing the child's rights with the mothers.


Your appreciation of the dynamism and flexibility of the U.S. Constitution is rather lackluster. The founding fathers did not intend Free Speech to cover modern advertising. They did not intend the right to bear arms to include weapons of mass destruction. And yet, here we are in the twenty-first century.
BS. There is no comparison. Of course the founding fathers would have intended that modern advertising be included in the right to free speech. There is no difference in principle here. Speech is speech. Now as far as considering flag burning or nude dancing speech, that's a bit of a stretch. I am quite familiar with the "living, breathing document" crap. That is nothing more than an excuse for ignoring the constitution when, as written, it doesn't suite you. You want to change the constitution? Amend it. There is no comparison between applying a constitutional principle (free speech, right to bear arms) to modern situations never envisioned by the founding fathers and interpreting a law to mean the opposite of what was intended.

Such contemptuous bullshit, Madanthonywayne, is why I have no respect for you. It has nothing to do with the fact that you're a conservative. That you're a contemptuous, superficial person, however, affects my opinion of you greatly.
Stop with the ad homs. I don't care what you think of me. My comtemptuous, superficial nature should speak for itself without you constantly drawing attention to it.

As far as lying about WMD's, I believe he was mistaken. To lie, one must know that what one is saying is untrue. Where's your proof that he KNEW there were no WMD's? If you had such proof, John Kerry could really have used it a few months ago.

Madanthonywayne


STRAW MAN

Thank you for appropriately disclaiming your response.

Yes, I'm aware that's not what you meant, but it's what you accomplished.

You always seem to mention this single gay gene deal

You are very perspicacious. I use it because it serves as an example. Now, hang on, I do intend to explain that:

Rest assured, I have a good understanding of genetics and am aware that the lack of a single gene linked to a specific disorder by no means is evidence that there is no genetic component to that disorder.

What an interesting attempt to change the subject. Really, it's quite artful; I'm not being sarcastic.

Let's just look at the record here:

You wrote that, "people don't like having things shoved down their throats by activist judges". I responded that this is one of the lamest arguments to come from the conservative camp. I then provided "a common analogy I've made note of before". (I mentioned your perspicacity, right?)

Your response to the common analogy is, well, rather a stupid sleight of hand:

• "You always seem to mention this single gay gene deal." Have I praised your perspicacity lately?
• "Rest assured, I have a good understanding of genetics and am aware that the lack of a single gene linked to a specific disorder by no means is evidence that there is no genetic component to that disorder." I'm glad you understand that. But the issue has to do with more general trends; after all, "people" don't like certain things, remember? (Hint: "having things shoved down their throats by activist judges".)
• "If there was a single gay gene, its presence could easily be deduced from the pattern of inheritence". This argument is at the core of some conservatives homophobia; they can't conceive of a biological determinant other than a single gay gene.
• "Furthermore, it's ridiculous to assume that a complex behaviour such as sexuality could be controlled by a single gene." I'm glad that's clear to you. But it's not necessarily clear to other conservatives (http://www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t68476.html). Remember, that's the issue with this part of the analogy: general trends of conservative political argument.
• "The fact that some conservative somewhere used this absurd "gay gene" argument is completely irrelevant." Says you, but then again, what the hell are you talking about? You've invented a new discussion and declared the point to which it responds irrelevant.

Really, it was a smooth attempt. Your only real error was the focus on the self, which made it completely obvious. If we wish to make ourselves that important to the discussion, I voted for Kerry because he was the closest thing I had to an acceptable, viable candidate to stop the advance of a profane ideology asserted of "middle America" which so greatly disdains the very principles upon which these United States justify themselves as one nation. You, as I recall, were a Bush fan. What's your excuse?

Really, if you want to go and make either of us that important to the discussion, go for it. There's nothing like taking a discussion of broader ideas and making it about yourself, is there?

Straw man, indeed. Egotistical scarecrow is more like it. It's a fine argument, but for a different discussion.

Again, you overcomplicate things.

I don't think so. History, at least, bears me out:

The tenth ammendment states that all rights not specifically granted to the government reside in the people or the states. The reason many of the founding fathers were against the Bill of Rights was they were concerned that people would come to think that the only rights were those specifically mentioned in any Bill of rights. So they put in the tenth ammendment to remind us that was not the case.

Strangely, your explanation doesn't serve your point, at least in this context. Consider, please:

In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1965 decision in Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S.E.2d 749, as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id. at 90, 87 S.E.2d at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) ....

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 1967 (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html)

The Tenth Amendment is reasoned to be a mere truism (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt10.html).

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

U.S. v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 1941 (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0312_0100_ZO.html)

What has not been surrendered, but rather codified to be upheld and defended, is the equal protection of all Americans before the law. If the people are to submit to law, that is, to forfeit their liberty to the institution, they must be assured of equal representation under its laws. This is the basic constitutional expectation which diminishes the Tenth Amendment argument. As with Loving v. Virginia, the court held in Roe v. Wade with the Fourteenth Amendment:

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 1971 (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html)

Thus the Tenth Amendment argument seems rather inapplicable. What is surrendered is the right to enforce invasive policy. Among those powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution is the duty to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment: if the conflict can be shown, the Tenth Amendment falls away.

BS. There is no comparison. Of course the founding fathers would have intended that modern advertising be included in the right to free speech.

Now, let's just think about this for a minute. You're charging, on the one hand, that the Founders intended that free speech should include vulgar and dishonest appeals for commercial patronage?

I make no defense of the Hollywood standard of verbal obligation, but when was fraud considered part of free speech?

You'll notice I'm giving right-wing radio as free of berth as possible. Gordon Liddy getting a good, stern talking-to after shooting an effigy of the president and irrational civil disobedience (something along the lines of "If you don't like a law, don't obey it") is enough for me. I think it's funny more than it is threatening. At least, inasmuch as a sick man making a fool of himself is supposed to be funny.

There is no difference in principle here. Speech is speech. Now as far as considering flag burning or nude dancing speech, that's a bit of a stretch.

Same with applause or theatre itself? Is there a difference between "free assembly" and making a human pyramid in the middle of the crowd? ("Uh-oh. They're climbing up each other. Get the tear gas and the paddy wagon!")

I've bought organic milk before that had disclaimers on it intended to falsely denigrate the product. I mean, come on. Saying it makes no difference in appearance or taste is an outright lie; quality? Well, that's more subjective. To the other, is Listerine really all alone in the American advertising market as far as lying about its product quality? Is the guy hawking coral calcium really the only huckster out there? Why is "read the fine print" a cultural catch-phrase?

I've actually had a Better Business Bureau man tell me, "But the problem is that, well, I'm about five years behind. You might not hear from me for a while. Or, to be honest, ever." What is it these masses are complaining about? What is it that swamps these poor bureaucrats? Frivolity alone cannot explain it away: what is frivolous in that context is often determined in large part by where people draw a curious boundary: how much bullshit they're willing to accept.

Telling me something is what it isn't in an effort to get me to trade my money for the product as represented is still considered a despicable practice; we're just much more tolerant of it as a culture. We hate it, but it's the bread and butter of both sales and politics.

I am quite familiar with the "living, breathing document" crap. That is nothing more than an excuse for ignoring the constitution when, as written, it doesn't suite you.

Hmm ... on those issues in which my politics look to the Constitution, I'm generally satisfied. To the other, however, there are blocs of the body politic I disagree with who are so disgusted at what the Constitution does not afford government, they would seek to expand the federal government's power against the people through amendment. Anti-abortion amendments, flag-burning amendments, marriage amendments ... I don't have to ignore the Constitution in order to get my way.

Generally speaking, one of the reasons I side with liberal politicians is that liberal political causes often coincide roughly with my own desires for society. With the Democrats, at least there's common ground to work on. Were those attributes apparent in, say, the Republican party, I would support those politicians. However, all this is intended to suggest is that you're projecting conservative political demons onto liberals.

You want to change the constitution? Amend it.

Funny you should mention that. Abortion, flag-burning, marriage ....

There is no comparison between applying a constitutional principle (free speech, right to bear arms) to modern situations never envisioned by the founding fathers and interpreting a law to mean the opposite of what was intended.

Example?

Stop with the ad homs. I don't care what you think of me.

(chuckle)

My comtemptuous, superficial nature should speak for itself without you constantly drawing attention to it.

Nonetheless, I do feel a need to tell you why it's so hard to take your demonstrations of ignorance seriously. You're acting out a stereotype, and a bad one.

Or should I presume that you actually don't know there's a war going on in Iraq?

As far as lying about WMD's, I believe he was mistaken. To lie, one must know that what one is saying is untrue. Where's your proof that he KNEW there were no WMD's?

Well, there was the little "incident" with the yellowcake. There was the fact that much of the intelligence was from shaky sources. What? Did you miss out on that? He knew what he was saying could not be verified; he knew he was conning the people. He was intentionally gambling on faith, and he lost. But what do we find out? It's not that important to "middle America". Contemptuous superficiality seems to be their specialty. Integrity and good faith are apparently not part of mainstream-American values.

If you had such proof, John Kerry could really have used it a few months ago.

Stop with the idiocy. Or else help me out: is that all I'm supposed to think of the intelligence motivating your opinions?

Question: What would you have said if John Kerry had voted differently in the Senate on the grounds that George W. Bush was a liar?

Think about it. The advisability of Congress signing away its authority like that aside for the moment: 9/11, USA-PATRIOT Act, War on Terror, hunt and punish ... it would be months later that Bush would officially start building his case for war with Iraq. So imagine John Kerry, facing the invasion of Afghanistan, standing up and saying, "I'm voting against the president because he's a liar."

I mean, come on. Let's try to be realistic here. It is not unreasonable to assign the president the responsibility of being accurate when his executive administration advises the Congress on relevant affairs. When Bush put together his push for Iraq, American political tradition suggested to watch for the typical alarmist rhetoric, but the sheer magnitude of the disparity between what Bush and company told the people to expect and what they came up with is simply beyond all prior standards.

Did Congress screw up? In many ways, yes. But Bush could not have failed to be aware that he was treading well beyond precedent and into uncharted territory.

Then again, I'm told that even the caterers are poking fun at George Tenet these days.

To keep bludgeoning John Kerry's name with the mistake of (gasp!) trusting a president to accurately inform Congress of the nation's affairs is rather a useless distraction.

Think about it. Seriously, think about it: by the end we were hoping for some scrap of a WMD program. Didn't have to be all that big. Didn't have to be anywhere we were told it would be. Anything, just bring us anything. That's how lowly we grovel in search of our appearance of dignity.

The magnitude of presumption Kerry would have had to put up against Bush is the kind generally accused of and reserved for internet debates. I mean, how do we end up hacking on John Kerry for not being a presumptuous, excitable, fanatic Bush-hater from day one?
____________________

Notes:

RightNation.us. "New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory". See http://www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t68476.html

U.S. Supreme Court. "Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1". June 12, 1967. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Government Printing Office. "Tenth Amendment--Reserved Powers". See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt10.html

U.S. Supreme Court. "United States v. Darby 312 U.S. 100". February 3, 1941. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0312_0100_ZO.html

U.S. Supreme Court. "Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113". January 22, 1973. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

Since the dawn of civilization, marriage has been defined as a union of man and woman. [...] Marriage has one definition for six thousand yearsOh, please, I beg of you, for the love of all that is intelligent tell me you were exaggerating.


...


I was going to try to add something to this conversation. In fact, I had a whole notepad document of cut and pasted quotes I wanted to respond to.

However, madanthonywayne if you re-read your argument it is often hypocritical and vague; and well, plainly non-existent.

I'll wait and look for a thread with actual discussion instead of rhetoric rambling.

Oh, and tiassa, you're not helping :p