Texas Secede
- Thread starter Htrlman1
- Start date
purevilpleasure
Dedicated LVC Member
Texas is already it's own thing....been there a few times.....man oh man.
slowmkviii
Dedicated LVC Member
+1 except it should say most Americans.
Markviiiedrea
Speed Bump
Then we could take Porto Rico as a 50th state and not have to change our flag.
Basically what i meant. Yes people are struggling over here without cable tv or a cheap phone, but in parts of the world even having a tv or phone at all is a luxury.
And we don't have to deal with civil war or being invaded by neighboring countries.
LOL. I was born in San Juan and love going back whenever i can. Was raised here on the mainland but do speak spanish and i keep up with the culutre and everything over there.
Its a great place to go. They do pay taxes except for federal income tax, but if you are a government employee you still pay fed tax. Its pretty much a state as it is right now, not officially but the money is the same, same stores and restaurants for the most part. But it still feels way different than the mainland.
And for car lovers, strong car scene over there. Mostly imports, but some old muscle as well. Roads are narrow so imports have always been very popular. Lots of roatry car racing (old datsuns) as well as modern evos/sti's and theres even a few lincolns down there.
Cars dont rust and the paint tends to stay in good shape since it rains alot, never goes past mid 90's and tons of shade from trees.
Rick Perry thinks it's a bad ideaand it will never fly.
We fought a Civil War over secession.
Republicans were decisively crushed fair and square under the rules.
Nobody was talking about secession when Bush "won" Florida by a few thousand votes.
And besides it's the older conservative voters who are expecting their entitlements to be paid by the younger generation which overwhelmingly rejected conservative values and asserted positions and voted of Obama.
If all these conservative southerners somehow secede the rest of the country will not pay for their upkeep and medical bills in retirement.
Now if they would give up their entitlements and get by in their older years without handouts from the government then we could talk
All Americans are in the top 1% (of the world)
Half the world has never made a phone call
and doesn't have running water and solid shelter.
Our poor people are eqivalent to the middle class in India and China.
Kidd
LVC Member
The cow and the ice cream
The COW AND THE ICE CREAM
ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
"We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream. 'The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching 3rd grade. The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.
I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections.
Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.
I had never seen Olivia's mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place.
He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now it was Olivia's turn to speak.
Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.
The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
She surely would say more. She did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They took her at her word.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She didn't know.
The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream...
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year old's. They want ice cream.
The other 48.6% percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else.
Did you vote for the ice cream?
THAT MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED...
BY THOSE WHO WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE! !
The COW AND THE ICE CREAM
ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
"We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream. 'The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching 3rd grade. The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.
I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections.
Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.
I had never seen Olivia's mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place.
He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now it was Olivia's turn to speak.
Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.
The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
She surely would say more. She did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They took her at her word.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She didn't know.
The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream...
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year old's. They want ice cream.
The other 48.6% percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else.
Did you vote for the ice cream?
THAT MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED...
BY THOSE WHO WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE! !
ONEBADMK8
Dedicated LVC Member
REPUBLIC OF TEXAS!! God Bless Them MORE, no ALL states should follow this LEAD!!
Obama got elected because there is no middle class and the country is tired of the rich getting more and more money.
I could guarantee if Obama were 100% white half of the **** that comes out of peoples mouth would stay in. The country is broke, and we keep spending more and more and money.
The deficit keeps going up, but with Romney it would have been worse. If you are a republican you're own party doesn't care about you unless you make over $100K a year.
And no i did not vote for either candidate. Everybody is all talk. Think you can do his job, run a campaign and try to get elected. Otherwise shut the hell up and go work your 9-5 job and be happy that we are better off than a majority of the world.
I could guarantee if Obama were 100% white half of the **** that comes out of peoples mouth would stay in. The country is broke, and we keep spending more and more and money.
The deficit keeps going up, but with Romney it would have been worse. If you are a republican you're own party doesn't care about you unless you make over $100K a year.
And no i did not vote for either candidate. Everybody is all talk. Think you can do his job, run a campaign and try to get elected. Otherwise shut the hell up and go work your 9-5 job and be happy that we are better off than a majority of the world.
We all want something for nothing if we can get away with it.
It's part of the human condition.
Democrats want more free money for poor people and over the top lavish pensions for life for sacred cow cops and firefighters like the one's bankrupting Stockton and other cities in California gorging themselves at the public troth, never mind the teachers and other government workers.
Republicans want a free superpower military (Obama's clinging to guns observation comes to mind) while slashing the government
elsewhere and telling everyone they are on their own.
You can't be a true conservative about managing money when you put military spending for stuff the Pentagon doesn't even want and military welfare made up job creation (for the worthy) off the table.
And in another contradiction the blue states pay more to the government and subsidize the red states when it comes to tax revenue.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
How Texas Could Mess With Us
Lone Star secessionists could (theoretically) get their wish.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...tar_state_could_mess_with_the_rest_of_us.html
[url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/11/texas_secession_how_the_lone_star_state_could_mess_with_the_rest_of_us.html[/URL]
Excerpt from article
A few years ago, while conducting research for a novel I was writing about Lone Star politics, I discovered a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution."
Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divide—unilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congress—has been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.
In 1930, a few years before he muscled his way into the White House as Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, House Minority Leader John Nance Garner led a crusade to divide the one state he represented into five, along regional lines. Together with their progenitor, the new states of North Texas, South Texas, East Texas and West Texas would, in Garner's words, "transfer the balance of political power from New England to the South and secure for the Southern States ... prestige and recognition." At a time when Texas was solidly Democratic, the threat of eight new Democratic senators in Washington would also, in his view, have the added benefit of chipping away significantly at the Republican majority's power.
Garner's plan died on the vine, as have all other attempts since then to split the state (including the one in 1969 proposed by state senator and San Antonio gambling kingpin V.E. "Red" Berry, who dreamed of creating within Texas a 51st state that would be a paradise of parimutuel betting). Still, despite these notable failures, the division clause remains on the books. Its legality has been discounted by some and defended by others, but the issue has never been put to rest in any authoritative, legally binding way.
Lone Star secessionists could (theoretically) get their wish.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...tar_state_could_mess_with_the_rest_of_us.html
[url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/11/texas_secession_how_the_lone_star_state_could_mess_with_the_rest_of_us.html[/URL]
Excerpt from article
A few years ago, while conducting research for a novel I was writing about Lone Star politics, I discovered a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution."
Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divide—unilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congress—has been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.
In 1930, a few years before he muscled his way into the White House as Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, House Minority Leader John Nance Garner led a crusade to divide the one state he represented into five, along regional lines. Together with their progenitor, the new states of North Texas, South Texas, East Texas and West Texas would, in Garner's words, "transfer the balance of political power from New England to the South and secure for the Southern States ... prestige and recognition." At a time when Texas was solidly Democratic, the threat of eight new Democratic senators in Washington would also, in his view, have the added benefit of chipping away significantly at the Republican majority's power.
Garner's plan died on the vine, as have all other attempts since then to split the state (including the one in 1969 proposed by state senator and San Antonio gambling kingpin V.E. "Red" Berry, who dreamed of creating within Texas a 51st state that would be a paradise of parimutuel betting). Still, despite these notable failures, the division clause remains on the books. Its legality has been discounted by some and defended by others, but the issue has never been put to rest in any authoritative, legally binding way.
texas? hell, there's petitions for all 50 states.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/
story
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...Rwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnM-;_ylv=3
although, this is hardly the first time.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/
story
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...Rwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnM-;_ylv=3
although, this is hardly the first time.
Interesting to note who the true "Moochers" are
Hard right conservatism and it's faith in nonsense produces an idiocracy with results contradictory to it's beliefs and assertions.
Obama Supporters Subsidize Romney Supporters With Their Taxes
Sept 18 2012
[URL="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/09/18/obama-supporters-subsidize-romney-supporters-with-their-taxes"][URL="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/09/18/obama-supporters-subsidize-romney-supporters-with-their-taxes"][url]http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/09/18/obama-supporters-subsidize-romney-supporters-with-their-taxes[/URL][/URL][/URL]
In a video posted yesterday, Mitt Romney slammed the people who support President Obama, saying they are most likely "dependent on government." Romney's comments were recorded as he spoke at to an exclusive group of donors at a private meeting. Obama's fans think of themselves as "victims," he said. They believe they are "entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it." He added, "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Many on both left and right have criticized Romney for his lack of empathy and rejection of the social contract. However, it's easy to understand why Romney might view America this way. After all, Republicans supposedly represent those with more money, and Democrats supposedly represent those with less—sometimes much less. It's plausible that Romney's supporters would pick up the tab (through their taxes) for social programs that benefit Obama's supporters. For the same reason, it's plausible that Red states would subsidize Blue states, and Red counties would subsidize Blue counties where the poor people live.
But, although it's plausible, it's completely wrong. When Romney says his job isn't to care about those who depend on government for healthcare, food, and housing, he's talking about his base. Across America, Obama's supporters actually subsidize Romney's supporters.
Blue States Subsidize Red States
Studies show that states that elect Democrats contribute the most in federal taxes relative to what they consume in government services. Conversely, many states that elect Republicans contribute the least in taxes relative to the services they consume. This is true even though many Democratic states contain large, poor, urban populations of color.
Here's the evidence: The 10 "Tax Producing States" listed below, left, contribute the most in tax revenues relative to the services they consume. They usually vote Democratic. The ten "Tax Dependent States" listed below consume the most in government services relative to the taxes they pay. And they usually vote Republican. (Each state's name is shown in blue if voters there lean toward Obama, and red if they lean toward Romney)
Why Red States Need Blue State's Tax Dollars
Why do people in Red states and counties resent government spending so passionately even as they need so much of it? The central problem is poverty. Many of the residents of these counties are poor. They are ill-prepared to make a decent living no matter how hard they tug on their own bootstraps. For example, in California's conservative Modoc county only 12 percent of adults over 25 have a bachelor's degree. Nearly 20 percent live below the poverty line. Many Modoc residents can't afford to send their children to college. They need government programs to survive, let alone improve their financial outlook.
Without government support it's hard to see a way to break the cycle of poverty and dependence. At least so far, the formula of small government, limited services, low investment, and low taxes that conservative states have implemented for themselves hasn't helped their economies much.
This situation would be funny if it weren't so tragic. When a tax protester yelled "Keep your goddamn government hands off my Medicare" many scoffed at that one person's ignorance. But most Americans who rail against taxes and the size of government are profoundly unaware that taxes they hate fund the programs they want and need. And they are unaware that the states and counties inhabited by "welfare queens" and "freeloading illegals" are actually sending them the money that keeps them fed, cared for, and educated.
Blue Counties Subsidize Red Counties
The same imbalance prevails within states, at the county level. The Blue counties contribute the most state taxes relative to the services they consume. The Red counties consume the most services relative to the taxes they pay. For example, a recent study documented the pattern in Washington state. King County, the solidly-Democratic county that surrounds Seattle, provides "nearly 42% of the state's tax revenues, yet receives only 25% of the money spend from Washington's general fund." Conversely, five counties that require the most in services relative to the taxes they pay are largely Republican.
California shows a similar pattern. Republican Modoc and Tulare Counties consume the most in taxpayer-funded services from the state on a per-capita basis. Says San Francisco Chronicle writer Kevin ***an: "The prevailing attitude among the right-wing ranchers and modern hippies who define Modoc County is of fierce self-reliance—but more people here than just about anywhere else depend on welfare checks of some kind to get by." In contrast, famously liberal San Francisco and Marin Counties generate the most tax revenues for the state on a per capita basis.
_______________________________________________________________
What Exactly Has Conservatism Accomplished Lately?
[URL="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-exactly-has-conservatism-accomplished-lately/"][URL="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-exactly-has-conservatism-accomplished-lately/"][url]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-exactly-has-conservatism-accomplished-lately/[/URL][/URL][/URL]
Moving on to the Bush Administration, we once again find ourselves with very little to point to that could be characterized as a conservative policy victory. Indeed, the two premier pieces of domestic legislation that marked the Bush Era, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D, are both massive expansions of Federal Government power that resulted in significant increases in Federal spending. Beyond that, I’m at a loss to point at a single thing that the Republican Congress accomplished that could fairly be called conservative during the time that it was in power up until the 2006 elections. The Bush Tax Cuts? Some would count those as a conservative, but what exactly is conservative about cutting taxes at the same time you’re passing two pieces of legislation that massively increase spending and engaging in two wars that ended up having an overall price tag of nearly $1 trillion? As someone who considers themselves a fiscal conservative, I’d have to say that there was absolutely nothing “conservative” about the spending record of Republicans during the Bush Era.
That brings us to the 112th Congress and the record of the House Republicans who won control of the House in 2010. To be fair in this evaluation, one must remember that controlling only one House of Congress while the White House is controlled by the opposing party makes it difficult for a majority to accomplish much of anything. However, it’s pretty unclear to me what they’ve done to advance conservative policy goals. Yes, they passed their bills to repeal Obamacare, thirty-three times actually, and they passed a number of bills that died in the Senate that they intended to be measures that would help stimulate job creation. However, because of the fact that the hardliners in the House GOP Caucus were utterly unwilling to compromise with the opposition, all of those bills died in the Senate rather than moving forward in a modified form. Instead of getting what might be a 70% victory, they ended up with a 100% loss. What that accomplished, especially in light of last week’s election results, is entirely beyond me.
My friends on the right might argue that I am missing something by not focusing on things at the state level, and they would have a point. Not everything important happens in Washington, D.C. In fact, we’d probably be a lot better off if fewer important things happened at the Federal level to begin with. Looking at the state level, one can find examples of policy advances for conservatism that have had a positive benefit on the states involved. When Jon Huntsman was Governor of Utah, for example, he shepherded into existence a market based health insurance program designed to cover people without insurance that didn’t rely on insurance mandates. There have been victories for school choice in many states around the country. Governor’s from Mitch Daniels to Scott Walker to Chris Christie have done their best to introduce a renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility that, if it continues, will inure to the benefit of their states in the years to come. On the the other side of the coin, one can point to recent “conservative” victories at the state level on issues such as abortion that are likely to harm the long term interests of the Republican Party as a whole. On balance, though, one can probably say that conservative legislators and Governors have been far more productive than their Federal counterparts.
Friedersdorf’s overall argument is that the conservative pundit class seems largely uninterested in actually accomplishing anything policy related, and more interested in continuing the rhetorical fights, often for self-interested reasons such as fundraising or, in the case of Fox News and the talk radio cabal, for ratings. Listening to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, et al one week after the election, one would hardly think that conservatism took the electoral drubbing that it actually did at the polls last week. They’re both acting as if there’s nothing to question about the strategy that they’ve been following for the past two decades or so, and the people who listen to them are likely eating it up as gospel. I’m sure the fundraising letters for all the appropriate groups have already been drafted and mailed and that, when received, they’ll result in another flood of checks into bank accounts that fund organizations that seem devoted to little more than touting their own press clippings. Meanwhile, the right continues to talk to itself and live inside its own media bubble. What that accomplishes baffles me but, judging by the past decade and a half, it’s been very little.
____________________________________________________________
Obviously Fox News viewers don't see that it is fictional make believe entertainment cloaked in a veneer of real news to give it credibility and that they are unscrupulously being played for money by the same network that gives us The Simpsons and Married with Children.
[URL="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-exactly-has-conservatism-accomplished-lately/"][URL="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-exactly-has-conservatism-accomplished-lately/"][url]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-exactly-has-conservatism-accomplished-lately/[/URL][/URL][/URL]
Conor Friedersdorf asks a question:
What has Fox News accomplished? What has the Tea Party accomplished? What has any movement institution accomplished in the last 15 years? Enough that the movement isn’t a failure? Is a successful entertainment channel and a short-lived protest movement enough for conservatives? Is winning the 2010 midterms enough if it doesn’t ultimately advance the agenda? If so, conservatives have chosen the right movement leaders. Think tank, talk radio and magazine pundits will keep getting paid and Fox profits will keep rolling in as Obama governs.
For them, the conservative movement is an end in itself.
When an ideological movement’s leaders stay fat and happy regardless of ideological advances, will things ever improve?
I have my doubts.
It’s a good question. Fifteen years back in time takes us to 1997 when the Republicans controlled Congress and Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office. By then, though, they’d pretty much accomplished most of the things that partnership was known for, such as welfare reform, balanced budgets that weren’t really balanced, and, unfortunately, the Defense of Marriage Act. By this time in `97, Republicans in the House were already marching down the road toward Impeachment which, in the end and quite predictably, ended up being a public relations disaster not for President Clinton but for Congressional Republicans. The remainder of the Clinton years weren’t marked by anything that I’d characterize as a conservative policy success either. For the most part, both parties just marked time until the 2000 election and the showdown between George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore.What has Fox News accomplished? What has the Tea Party accomplished? What has any movement institution accomplished in the last 15 years? Enough that the movement isn’t a failure? Is a successful entertainment channel and a short-lived protest movement enough for conservatives? Is winning the 2010 midterms enough if it doesn’t ultimately advance the agenda? If so, conservatives have chosen the right movement leaders. Think tank, talk radio and magazine pundits will keep getting paid and Fox profits will keep rolling in as Obama governs.
For them, the conservative movement is an end in itself.
When an ideological movement’s leaders stay fat and happy regardless of ideological advances, will things ever improve?
I have my doubts.
Moving on to the Bush Administration, we once again find ourselves with very little to point to that could be characterized as a conservative policy victory. Indeed, the two premier pieces of domestic legislation that marked the Bush Era, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D, are both massive expansions of Federal Government power that resulted in significant increases in Federal spending. Beyond that, I’m at a loss to point at a single thing that the Republican Congress accomplished that could fairly be called conservative during the time that it was in power up until the 2006 elections. The Bush Tax Cuts? Some would count those as a conservative, but what exactly is conservative about cutting taxes at the same time you’re passing two pieces of legislation that massively increase spending and engaging in two wars that ended up having an overall price tag of nearly $1 trillion? As someone who considers themselves a fiscal conservative, I’d have to say that there was absolutely nothing “conservative” about the spending record of Republicans during the Bush Era.
That brings us to the 112th Congress and the record of the House Republicans who won control of the House in 2010. To be fair in this evaluation, one must remember that controlling only one House of Congress while the White House is controlled by the opposing party makes it difficult for a majority to accomplish much of anything. However, it’s pretty unclear to me what they’ve done to advance conservative policy goals. Yes, they passed their bills to repeal Obamacare, thirty-three times actually, and they passed a number of bills that died in the Senate that they intended to be measures that would help stimulate job creation. However, because of the fact that the hardliners in the House GOP Caucus were utterly unwilling to compromise with the opposition, all of those bills died in the Senate rather than moving forward in a modified form. Instead of getting what might be a 70% victory, they ended up with a 100% loss. What that accomplished, especially in light of last week’s election results, is entirely beyond me.
My friends on the right might argue that I am missing something by not focusing on things at the state level, and they would have a point. Not everything important happens in Washington, D.C. In fact, we’d probably be a lot better off if fewer important things happened at the Federal level to begin with. Looking at the state level, one can find examples of policy advances for conservatism that have had a positive benefit on the states involved. When Jon Huntsman was Governor of Utah, for example, he shepherded into existence a market based health insurance program designed to cover people without insurance that didn’t rely on insurance mandates. There have been victories for school choice in many states around the country. Governor’s from Mitch Daniels to Scott Walker to Chris Christie have done their best to introduce a renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility that, if it continues, will inure to the benefit of their states in the years to come. On the the other side of the coin, one can point to recent “conservative” victories at the state level on issues such as abortion that are likely to harm the long term interests of the Republican Party as a whole. On balance, though, one can probably say that conservative legislators and Governors have been far more productive than their Federal counterparts.
Friedersdorf’s overall argument is that the conservative pundit class seems largely uninterested in actually accomplishing anything policy related, and more interested in continuing the rhetorical fights, often for self-interested reasons such as fundraising or, in the case of Fox News and the talk radio cabal, for ratings. Listening to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, et al one week after the election, one would hardly think that conservatism took the electoral drubbing that it actually did at the polls last week. They’re both acting as if there’s nothing to question about the strategy that they’ve been following for the past two decades or so, and the people who listen to them are likely eating it up as gospel. I’m sure the fundraising letters for all the appropriate groups have already been drafted and mailed and that, when received, they’ll result in another flood of checks into bank accounts that fund organizations that seem devoted to little more than touting their own press clippings. Meanwhile, the right continues to talk to itself and live inside its own media bubble. What that accomplishes baffles me but, judging by the past decade and a half, it’s been very little.
____________________________________________________________
Obviously Fox News viewers don't see that it is fictional make believe entertainment cloaked in a veneer of real news to give it credibility and that they are unscrupulously being played for money by the same network that gives us The Simpsons and Married with Children.
Omegaman
LVC Member
LOL... So how many times did you sign a online petition for secession? 300?
What a crock of.... As far as I am concerned buh bye! And good luck with Mexico when they take over Texas.
What a crock of.... As far as I am concerned buh bye! And good luck with Mexico when they take over Texas.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
With tongue in cheek
Conservative Principles:
People are bad if given the chance.
Sex for fun is bad.
Pleasure is usually a vice but tobacco and alcohol are good.
Supersized sugar drinks and junk food are good and people have a right to be fata$$ed diabetic sloths.
Women's sexuality is dangerous and they need to be controled and treated with suspicion.
Never let new facts undermine "faith"
Nonsense is an equivalent to scientific observation.
Religious freedom is exempt from and thus trumps hate laws.
Dim is good, creativity, intellect, critical thinking and art are dangerous and bad.(Michelle Bachman's opinion of Michelangelo and his David)
Democracy only works when your side wins otherwise it's sedition and treason.
The other side is mentally ill.
A Smith and Wesson ( now upgraded to an AR-15 Assault Rifle
) beats an intellectual as well as 4 Aces.Big powerful guns are vicarious extensions of our macho dicks
Military spending is exempt from the laws of economics (and that people are bad if given the chance, but contractors are true) and cannot be touched or even pointed to and called Military Welfare even though though it's a huge wasteful inefficient government run hole that sucks money (the F-35 debacle and boondoggle to name just the biggest money sucking off
the american taxpayer) away from real needs like social programs, schools and infrastructure, doesn't make a profit, hypocritically violates our conservative principles, and goes against the founding fathers displeasure about keeping standing armies.Some of these could apply to either side.
Perhaps someone could post some cutting liberal witticisms
I could think of a few.
It's a joke for fun, with some truth, tongue in cheek.
I thought you could take the challenge, be creative and come up with a few witticisms.
After all humor is part of the human condition and we could stand to laugh at ourselves every once in a while.
Here's a few liberal ones
People are always good if given the chance.
Religion is bad but we can trust the Muslims(!) (the militant Nazis of Religion)
Poor people are noble and deserving and have better morals than the rich.(they're no better just don't have the same opportunity or scale as the rich)
Single motherhood is a desirable lifestyle that doesn't usually disadvantage or harm the children.
The federal government is Jesus and can make free money.
(like the feeding story)
With contraception having sex is consequence free and everyone should do it.
Young girls and hot 20 somethings wearing short skirts are not saying "Look at my Vagina!"
Some of our nonsense is equivalent to and even trumps observed science and economics.
And my favorite most superlative liberal stereotype so far
"Where's my money?"
This is the first thing some relative said to my father when he went to visit his home country Ukraine about 20 years ago after the Soviet Union collapsed, so he got 1 dollar instead of a 10 or 20 dollar bill
I thought you could take the challenge, be creative and come up with a few witticisms.
After all humor is part of the human condition and we could stand to laugh at ourselves every once in a while.
Here's a few liberal ones
People are always good if given the chance.
Religion is bad but we can trust the Muslims(!)
(the militant Nazis of Religion)Poor people are noble and deserving and have better morals than the rich.(they're no better just don't have the same opportunity or scale as the rich)
Single motherhood is a desirable lifestyle that doesn't usually disadvantage or harm the children.
The federal government is Jesus and can make free money.
(like the feeding story)
With contraception having sex is consequence free and everyone should do it.
Young girls and hot 20 somethings wearing short skirts are not saying "Look at my Vagina!"
Some of our nonsense is equivalent to and even trumps observed science and economics.
And my favorite most superlative liberal stereotype so far
"Where's my money?"
This is the first thing some relative said to my father when he went to visit his home country Ukraine about 20 years ago after the Soviet Union collapsed, so he got 1 dollar instead of a 10 or 20 dollar bill