Maybe now we can upgrade our antiquated gas refineries and put up some oil derricks in California. Industrial unions are tied to profit and loss. The Democrats sold out to special interest and government unions. "Check".

You think the Unions are bad now? Just wait, it'll be REAL fun now.

I've never liked unions. I belong to one. One JFK set in motion to exist. A government union with out of control spending habits. However, industrial unions can't survive if the corporations they collective bargain with operate at a loss so they are tethered to the corporations. So yeah, we go back to the days before JFK with the fading industrial unions, which allied with the Democratic Party at that time. But the Democrats traded in their post Vietnam era values and handed them to the GOP and I don't see industrial unions thriving under the GOP. You do realize that Obama is the only Democrat from a blue state that has been elected president since JFK? Democrats have been depending on southern hicks nobody heard of to fill that role. You also do realize that these states on the coasts and the north are "blue" because that is the color of government unions. Just check it out; all the blue state candidates failed like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, etc. Obama is not setting a very good standard. Government unions are always as broke as the governments they bargain with. Industrial unions are not going to bite the hand that feeds. What we are witnessing is the invisible hand of supply and demand taking care of itself. The only thing the current president and congress has done is disrupt that process as fast as they can and as quickly as they can. I couldn't agree more with the Supreme Court's decision today. Like I stated earlier, look for new refineries to replace the old obsolete ones that haven't been built for 40 years. Look for oil derricks in California again. All that new easy to earn revenue going into the government's pocket.

I am of the impression that the unconstitutional previous law was a lot like the old parable of the two wolves and the lamb discussing lunch. The law used to allow the folk with plans of looting a company or attacking a right to attack the company or right with impunity but the folk supporting the company or right were prohibited from defending themselves...

Besides, the Constitution does not encourage speech from one side and not another.

Hey- I'm really happy for you. It's great you think multi-billion dollar corporations, many which are now partly owned and financed by foreign entities, can be your voice from now on.

You actually think they ever read or care about something so trivial as the US Constitution? Not likely. Wake up man- your so-called cherished "rights" you seem so concerned about just got put on the market for anyone and everyone who wants to pay. And guess what- they AREN'T going to sell them back to you! Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Of course, us arguing about it is just a game. The REAL discussion is henceforth only taking place for those who can pay Super Bowl air-time fees.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if liberals and a lower federal judge had left some obscure 90 minute documentary about Hillary Clinton alone. They stated it sounded like a political ad. That decision brought it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Just like the Washington D.C. security guard that got his pistol taken away from him. If liberals would leave people alone they wouldn't be taking hits like this in the Supreme Court.

In grade 9 English class, the school system in Canada at the time, had us reading a sci-fi novel called 'The space merchants'. One of the classic novels that clearly show the horrors that await man when the corporations are given free reign in public life. The result is stupefied cattle subjected to 'clockwork orange-like' indoctrination of corporate shit that is enough to crash any idea of a working society.

I told the teacher I had a hard time reading it,as I had read it three times before, already.

'The Space Merchants':

In a vastly overpopulated world, businesses have taken the place of governments and now hold all political power. States exist merely to ensure the survival of huge trans-national corporations. Advertising has become hugely aggressive and by far the best-paid profession. Through advertising, the public is constantly deluded into thinking that the quality of life is improved by all the products placed on the market. However, the most basic elements are incredibly scarce, including water and fuel. The planet Venus has just been visited and judged fit for human settlement, despite its inhospitable surface and climate; the colonists would have to endure a harsh climate for many generations until the planet could be terraformed.

The protagonist, Mitch Courtenay, is a star-class copywriter in the Fowler Schocken advertising agency who has been assigned the ad campaign which would attract colonists to Venus. But a lot more is happening than he knows about. It soon becomes a tale of mystery and intrigue, in which many of the characters are not what they seem, and Mitch's loyalties and opinions change drastically over the course of the narrative.

As I said in the other post -- not long now.

I'm getting the odd email from people I know in the states who are wishing they could move anywhere, anywhere but the US, as they see what's coming.

When serial killers go public and talk about their evil like it is the weather then you know that society in the US is - fucked.

Similarly, when government appointees, with their corporate sponsors running them in the first place, replace supreme court judges with their own appointees, and then the corporate shit begins to be very overtly forced into 'law', so that fascism can operate openly, then the end is not far. Am I somehow equating corporations, at the level who would be involved in overturning these situations of reasonable law, am I equating them and their controllers with -- serial killers? You bet I am.

This reverses, in the US political and social/cultural fabric sense.... over 100 years of work toward making a country that is responsible to the people.

It's a little known fact that "Robocop" was actually a documentary filmed in the future and then brought back in time and marketed as "fiction."

Same with the original version of "Rollerball," who's director also travelled back in time to give the sheet music for the soundtrack to Bach.

Quote:
Hey- I'm really happy for you. It's great you think multi-billion dollar corporations, many which are now partly owned and financed by foreign entities, can be your voice from now on.

You actually think they ever read or care about something so trivial as the US Constitution? Not likely. Wake up man- your so-called cherished "rights" you seem so concerned about just got put on the market for anyone and everyone who wants to pay. And guess what- they AREN'T going to sell them back to you! Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Of course, us arguing about it is just a game. The REAL discussion is henceforth only taking place for those who can pay Super Bowl air-time fees.

Here is the applicable section for your review or discovery

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

I have tried to highlight the important bits that you seem not to understand.

As much as I dislike the way that people like Faux Noise have dominated the political discussion with outright lies, willful scare tactics, with what appears to be a clear intent to destroy the USA (is that Rupert's actual goal, I wonder?), muzzling people and encroaching on the subject of political speech is even worse.

I think this one came down the right way, and it's disturbing that the margin is so thin.

Now you sound like a nut.

I agree about the margin...It should have been a no brainer. The Constitution says what it says...

And I think that there may be a possibility that JIMV suffers from a genetic origin that is a bit low on the components that allowed a successful social fabric to emerge in a way that made humanity successful..and that is a proper or even minimal level of capacity for identification with the feelings of others. That little thing called empathy, which is so vital for mankind to be a workable item. Simple things, JIMV, like love being stronger than fear and anger. mmmk? Your interpretations seem to be centered quite far over into the me, me, I, I camp.

Can you answer to that assessment? Do you even know how?

I know I'm delivering a fairly strong barb here, dude. but I don't think that corporations deserve to be able to openly and directly interfere with the social fabric to the point that they co-op it for selfish and inhumane reasons.

JJ, I hope you are not coming down on the corporate side.

This is a very critical line in the sand here, that has been crossed. A vital one, in fact. Time will show this to be true, as it has in 100 other similar instances in history.

That's the part that so many people fail to understand. The role of the Court isn't to determine the wisdom of any particular legislation, but simply to determine the Constitutionality.

And in Canada it is a strictly controlled limit, and it has to be money raised by the party itself and there are strictly limits for individual or corporate involvement. There are ways around it but the limits set are pretty damn strong, and strong for the reason of disallowing one voice with more money behind it...from overpowering and overwhelming the voice of others. This is to keep banks, corporations, etc from becoming the defacto political force via corporate or financial involvement. It is in place (that door is closed) to prevent corruption from pouring in through that avenue or doorway. It is in place to prevent democracy from being corrupted via an allowance of the eruption of fascism. That is the specific and direct reason for campaign/election financing controls, in Canada.

Quote:
And I think that there may be a possibility that JIMV suffers from a genetic origin that is a bit low on the components that allowed a successful social fabric to emerge in a way that made humanity successful..and that is a proper or even minimal level of capacity for identification with the feelings of others. That little thing called empathy, which is so vital for mankind to be a workable item. Simple things, JIMV, like love being stronger than fear and anger. mmmk? Your interpretations seem to be centered quite far over into the me, me, I, I camp.

Can you answer to that assessment? Do you even know how?

I know I'm delivering a fairly strong barb here, dude. but I don't think that corporations deserve to be able to openly and directly interfere with the social fabric to the point that they co-op it for selfish and inhumane reasons.

I have no problem with folk confusing emotion and wishful thinking with Constitutional law as long as they do not expect a real court to go with the emotion and not the law.

My comments are on the legal. If others want to create a legal structure for "a successful social fabric to emerge in a way that made humanity successful" then by all means go for it...For info, this is the process

Quote:
The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798])

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process

It still strikes me as odd anyone would defend the letter of the law only to have the application effectively taken away (or in this case rendered meaningless without huge sums of money and political connection).

BTW- Given your most passionate defense of all things Constitutional, I assume you are a staunch advocate for freely accessible abortions and are appalled at all the legal maneuvering that's been used to limit these rights (13th Amendment)?

You're not one to use diversion.

Quote:
You're not one to use diversion.

Just stirring the pot Lamont. Actually I AM genuinely curious about this one. I hear quite a few Tea Party, self-proclaimed Constitutionalists who also seem strangely amnesiac when it comes to settled amendments they disagree with.

And to all those anti-taxation peeps, here's a little history for you: at the height of WWII, there was a 97% tax bracket for the very wealthy. You read that right. I'd say if we applied that to the top 100 billionaires in the country we'd be back in the black REAL quick. So how about it folks? We are running TWO wars now; where is the support for stepping up and doing the right thing for the country?

Partial History of
U.S. Federal Marginal Income Tax Rates
Since 1913

Applicable Year Income brackets First bracket Top
Low values to High Values

1913-1915 - 1% 7% IRS
1916 - 2% 15% IRS
1917 - 2% 67% IRS
1918 - 6% 77% IRS
1919-1920 - 4% 73% IRS
1921 - 4% 73% IRS
1922 - 4% 56% IRS
1923 - 3% 56% IRS
1924 - 1.5% 46% IRS
1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% IRS
1929 - 0.375% 24% IRS
1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% IRS
1932-1933 - 4% 63% IRS
1934-1935 - 4% 63% IRS
1936-1939 - 4% 79% IRS
1940 - 4.4% 81.1% IRS
1941 - 10% 81% IRS
1942-1943 - 19% 88% IRS
1944-1945 - 23% 94% IRS
1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% IRS
1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% IRS
1950 - 17.4% 84.36% IRS
1951 - 20.4% 91% IRS
1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% IRS
1954-1963 - 20% 91% IRS
1964 - 16% 77% IRS
1965-1967 - 14% 70% IRS
1968 - 14% 75.25% IRS
1969 - 14% 77% IRS
1970 - 14% 71.75% IRS
1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS
1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 28% IRS
1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS
1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS
2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
2003-2009 6 brackets 10% 35% Tax Foundation

Quote:
It still strikes me as odd anyone would defend the letter of the law only to have the application effectively taken away (or in this case rendered meaningless without huge sums of money and political connection).

I do not understand your argument here. The Constitution protects free speech...seems simple.

Quote:
BTW- Given your most passionate defense of all things Constitutional, I assume you are a staunch advocate for freely accessible abortions and are appalled at all the legal maneuvering that's been used to limit these rights (13th Amendment)?

The 13th Amendment has to do with slavery, not abortion. Abortion is not in the Constitution but was invented by the court.

Quote:
Just stirring the pot Lamont. Actually I AM genuinely curious about this one. I hear quite a few Tea Party, self-proclaimed Constitutionalists who also seem strangely amnesiac when it comes to settled amendments they disagree with.

What amendments...I am against the 16th and 17th but only because of the damage they have done. The rest of your post has nothing to do with the court decision in question???

Quote:
And to all those anti-taxation peeps, here's a little history for you: at the height of WWII, there was a 97% tax bracket for the very wealthy. You read that right. I'd say if we applied that to the top 100 billionaires in the country we'd be back in the black REAL quick. So how about it folks? We are running TWO wars now; where is the support for stepping up and doing the right thing for the country?

That was the pre JFK days before government unions that led to red states and blue states. Yes, I agree the wealthy should pay a higher tax rate at this time. This is what Obama should have been pushing for his first year. His 'people' erroneously advised him that he can be a great progressive president. As you can see the end of 1963 was the end of taxing the rich at a rich rate. Obama can still be a great effective president. He just needs to understand economics 101, which he does, and knock off this house on a hill and it takes a village bullshit. He is not acting like a leader. He is acting exactly like a manager for an NGO, which is the foundation of his prior experience. First thing he should do is fire all those dumb motherfuckers with no experience in the White House. Starting with that clown from "House" and work his way up.

And I purposely wove the income tax on the rich and Obama as a current event throughout the paragraph.

Quote:
I am against the 16th and 17th but only because of the damage they have done.

This is the kind of mentality that leads to extremism. Can you explain what damage these two amendments has caused this country? Please avoid citing archaic and moot laws quoted out-of-context prior to these amendments so as not to sound like a resister. Try to make your case as if you have a chance to overturn these amendments, which leaves you naked with nothing but facts to rely upon.

The 16th Amendment was the income tax, a mess to this day, creator of the IRS and the tax code, loved by one and all. The 17th was the direct election of Senators, which killed federalism, and introduced the possibility of the unfunded mandate...

The IRS code was followed by the amendment. It isn't the amendment you don't like. It's the IRC.

If our founders truly wanted federalism than they would have named it the Federation States of America. Other things like, "One federation for which it stands", and blah blah blah. The states came before the Constitution; thus, you don't see reference to federalism in the Constitution. That doesn't mean the concept never existed. But even the Federalist Party ceased to exist during the 1820s. The European Union and several European nations are based on federalism. India is a federalist country. So is Brazil. Not the United States. The 17th Amendment did nothing to destroy federalism. The very concept of federalism died nearly a century before the 17th Amendment. Our country is and always has been a form of republic called a presidential republic. Didn't you take government in high school?

Personally, I think you have drawn a line in the sand and erroneously believe that anyone that doesn't stand on your side is wrong on everything. This causes you to carelessly pick and choose the wrong fights. You rarely have your facts in order. If you want to be a political Internet troll than that is your choice. But you make yourself appear self-centered and one-sided rather than the one tin soldier you think of yourself. You're not helping your side no matter how little all this matters in the overall plot of the play. In other words, you have no role. You want a part but you failed the audition a very long time ago. You don't know the differences between The Valley People and The Mountain People.

The lowlanders got raped a lot by the dutch invaders and thus we have blonde-haired blue-eyed Scots.

The hill people are still fighting. Themselves, anyone, etc.

So I bug my friend, Mr Roddick, and tell him his ancestors were too flat-footed to run away and now he's just some leftover toy bits from some over-adventurous dyke plug. I buy him bottles of 'lowlander' scotch for Christmas.

Then he calls me a hook-nosed shemite.

On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

But you see Lamont, I DO believe the world is divided into folk with good ideas and folks who embrace the bad..

The 17th Amendment turned Senators who were designed to work for the state legislature in the states interest into simple panderers for mass votes. The result was the unfunded mandate, an idea that did not exist before the 17th and congressional pork on an Olympic scale.

As to the 16th Amendment, how could the government set up the IRS before they had the authority under law to collect income taxes?

I do not believe everyone who does not stand with me is wrong on everything. I believe most folk are clueless as to politics, civics, the Constitution and the law and as such, have no positions based on anything beyond propaganda or social network. As such, they are not venally wrong but simply ignorant. The folk who know what they do and still pick the wrong side of our history, traditions or law, are those I believe wrong in a harmful way.

I try to pick my political fights in areas I understand, though I admit to the occasional cheap shot, like this:

He is talking to a class of 6th graders at a Falls Church VA school...

Teleprompters...6th grade! Can this fellow not think for himself ever!!!

Simply too easy.

"I do not believe everyone who does not stand with me is wrong on everything. I believe most folk are clueless as to politics, civics, the Constitution and the law and as such"

Maybe, but I'd counter you probably have no idea about how macro-econonmics work whatsoever. Take a look again at that tax chart I posted. Notice anything? How about that the times when the taxes were the highest the country was also acheiving the most, whether defending the free world in WWII, or in the 50-60s when we had the most infrastructure upgrades and money plowed into research and industry. The common guy, Joe the plumber to you, actually did more than OK. He had a nice house, a big gas guzzler to cruise in, 2-4 kids who had good public schools, and a decent pension at the end of it all.

So take today when we have the lowest taxes in 75 years- we don't have jack to count on from ANYONE. Not the gov., sure as hell not business, and younger families can't afford to take care of their older parents. Over time the whole country has drifted to a severe upward shift in come disparity with far less well-off people owning more and more and rest are left out in the cold. My wife and I pay pretty damn high taxes, probably what many a Joe the plumber makes as his salary, and we will never be complaining because we understand that besides being hard workers, we are also just plain lucky. For our decent family and geographic backgrounds, education levels, and any number of other things that just worked our way. And no, not everyone is going to do well even with those things, but without them, it's almost impossible to make it work.

You can structure a society around hard work, and I'm no wellfare lover, or union supporter, or socialist sympathizer, but I know an unfair system when I see it. When you have no safety nets, and a hugely lopsided playing field you are headed for failure. We ALMOST did just last year and yet the guys that should be in jail for almost running the whole train off the rails are still getting multi-million dollar bonuses this year.

And so back to the original topic: I wholey support Free Speech AS IT WAS INTENDED: For me and you, and anyone else, to argue, fight, discuss over tea or beer, or with picket signs or raised middle finger, to state what we believe and stand for. But it was not ever intended for corporations to buy and sell votes and influence policy. Do you have any idea of how much nation-wide corruption we had a 100 years ago? All through the late 1800's there was fight after fight to keep business from running our government. Finally they made some progress, though obviously it's far from perfect.

For a 100 years every branch of the government, the Supreme Court especially has ruled that companies are NOT "people" and don't have the same rights. What if Exxon, or Microsoft, or Kraft foods, or Wal-Mart started it's own political party? Who could outspend them? Not either major party that's for sure, and for damn sure not an independent. Bill Gates is a person entitled to free speech. And he has a lot of money to spend too. But his company is NOT a person with "rights" of an individual. It's a company. How is that so hard to understand?

Quote:
Maybe, but I'd counter you probably have no idea about how macro-econonmics work whatsoever. Take a look again at that tax chart I posted. Notice anything? How about that the times when the taxes were the highest the country was also acheiving the most, whether defending the free world in WWII, or in the 50-60s when we had the most infrastructure upgrades and money plowed into research and industry. The common guy, Joe the plumber to you, actually did more than OK. He had a nice house, a big gas guzzler to cruise in, 2-4 kids who had good public schools, and a decent pension at the end of it all.

The rest of the world was destroyed in WWII...their infrastructure was new, ours dated. We rode or previous accomplishments and spent our accumulated wealth on programs we could not afford forever. The world has changed and the bill is due. We cannot grow government and regulation not to mention taxes enough to keep the bloat going. There is no free lunch.

Quote:
So take today when we have the lowest taxes in 75 years-

That is not exactly right..while the rates may be lower, we have grown the cost of regulation and added fees to the point that the average citizen pays 45-50% of his total income in federal, state and local taxes. We have never in our history had such a regulatory burden on out business..

Heck, there is not a thing you or I can do that is not taxed, regulated or controlled by government...That has a vast unseen cost on our economy. You are right when you say I know little of macro economics, but I am aware enough to know we are in deep trouble and government is not the answer, freedom is.

Quote:
I know an unfair system when I see it. When you have no safety nets, and a hugely lopsided playing field you are headed for failure.

We have massive safety nets, heck our safety nets from welfare to medicaid to SS are over half our budget...Folk have to take some responsibility for their own lives..there is simply not enough revenue to wrap everyone in a nice cocoon of government nannying.

Quote:
We ALMOST did just last year and yet the guys that should be in jail for almost running the whole train off the rails are still getting multi-million dollar bonuses this year.

But you forget the government regulators in Congress aided and abetted those evil banks and corporations in exchange for money or sweetheart deals...It does not good to punish evil rich folk while keeping the crooks who allowed and encouraged the greed to remain in Congress.

Quote:
I wholey support Free Speech AS IT WAS INTENDED: For me and you, and anyone else, to argue, fight, discuss over tea or beer, or with picket signs or raised middle finger, to state what we believe and stand for. But it was not ever intended for corporations to buy and sell votes and influence policy. Do you have any idea of how much nation-wide corruption we had a 100 years ago? All through the late 1800's there was fight after fight to keep business from running our government. Finally they made some progress, though obviously it's far from perfect.

We have always had corruption...what is new is the success of the crooked politicians, when caught, blaming the system and remaining in office. Protection to corporations and business comes from English common law and predates our Constitution by hundreds of years. Free speech was most assuredly designed to protect political speech and that includes the right of the folk who the politicians want to loot.

Quote:
For a 100 years every branch of the government, the Supreme Court especially has ruled that companies are NOT "people" and don't have the same rights. What if Exxon, or Microsoft, or Kraft foods, or Wal-Mart started it's own political party? Who could outspend them? Not either major party that's for sure, and for damn sure not an independent. Bill Gates is a person entitled to free speech. And he has a lot of money to spend too. But his company is NOT a person with "rights" of an individual. It's a company. How is that so hard to understand?

Do you have any legal sites for this view, as it contradicts my knowledge of the case law?

I'm a liberal up to 33% of my income, then I get more easily pissed off.

I'd agree with JIMV's estimate 45-50% - and that's without all the hidden taxes we pay.

Cali only gets back 79 cents of each federal dollar we send. Time to end state welfare and let the loser states start pulling their damn weight.

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply reduce your taxes to the 79 cents you get back...You know, keep some of your own money?

Quote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply reduce your taxes to the 79 cents you get back...You know, keep some of your own money?

But then who'd keep Idaho and the other social-parasite states alive?

I agree with you, but those red states keep sucking America dry.

It's worse in Nevada than Cali.

Nevada only gets back 65 cents on the dollar.

Look and see who the parasites are.

Quote:

Quote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply reduce your taxes to the 79 cents you get back...You know, keep some of your own money?

But then who'd keep Idaho and the other social-parasite states alive?

I agree with you, but those red states keep sucking America dry.

It's worse in Nevada than Cali.

Nevada only gets back 65 cents on the dollar.

Look and see who the parasites are.

Indeed, that's what I said a while ago, the people on medicare and medicaid, those people who are already supported by "socialized medicine" seem determined to deny this to the rest of us.

You have to wonder.

Quote:

Quote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply reduce your taxes to the 79 cents you get back...You know, keep some of your own money?

But then who'd keep Idaho and the other social-parasite states alive?

I agree with you, but those red states keep sucking America dry.

It's worse in Nevada than Cali.

Nevada only gets back 65 cents on the dollar.

Look and see who the parasites are.

Well, our revenues are down this year so, Idaho is cutting government and spending...what is your state doing?

Another flaw in the argument is that it assumes Blue voters in those blue states pay the taxes that leave the state...As the blue majority is a mix of victim groups, few known for their affluence (aside from Hollywood), perhaps it is the red voters in those states that send the money out of it...

Just a possibility.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply reduce your taxes to the 79 cents you get back...You know, keep some of your own money?

But then who'd keep Idaho and the other social-parasite states alive?

I agree with you, but those red states keep sucking America dry.

It's worse in Nevada than Cali.

Nevada only gets back 65 cents on the dollar.

Look and see who the parasites are.

Indeed, that's what I said a while ago, the people on medicare and medicaid, those people who are already supported by "socialized medicine" seem determined to deny this to the rest of us.

You have to wonder.

I note nothing is said about the minor inconvenience of that nice free health care for our happy parasites coming from the $500,000,000,000 in cuts to Medicare, to name only one program..gee, I wonder why they would object....

"As the blue majority is a mix of victim groups, few known for their affluence (aside from Hollywood), perhaps it is the red voters in those states that send the money out of it..."

Keep dreaming sir. Last national election we had the majority of voters with advanced degrees and incomes over $300k by a long shot. The guys who run the GOP might be part of big biz elite, but their base is on the low end of education and income. Ms. Palin herself has said repeatedly education and actual knowledge is highly over-rated. Good thing you got God on your side. HE doesn't need any of that elitist gotcha science stuff!

Quote:
Good thing you got God on your side.

Today ... is Christmas! There will be a magic show at zero-nine-thirty!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdytWbl9sh8

Hahahah! It's been a while since I saw that movie. Time for another viewing I think.

"God has a hard-on for Marines!" Just classic.

Quote:
"As the blue majority is a mix of victim groups, few known for their affluence (aside from Hollywood), perhaps it is the red voters in those states that send the money out of it..."

Keep dreaming sir. Last national election we had the majority of voters with advanced degrees and incomes over $300k by a long shot. The guys who run the GOP might be part of big biz elite, but their base is on the low end of education and income. Ms. Palin herself has said repeatedly education and actual knowledge is highly over-rated. Good thing you got God on your side. HE doesn't need any of that elitist gotcha science stuff!

Interesting, I ws not aware that the 92% black vote was so affluent, or the Hispanic vote....as I said, blue voters. There are some amazingly rich democrats BUT, the overwhelming majority of the voting population is not all that well off. The blue majority in those blue states are simply relatively poor and the blue minority with money is not large enough to make up for the sea of poor folk...

Quote:

He is talking to a class of 6th graders at a Falls Church VA school...

Teleprompters...6th grade! Can this fellow not think for himself ever!!!

Simply too easy.

Because he isn't just talking to a group of 6th graders as your posting of the picture so clearly shows. Thanks to the Internet he's speaking to the world and one slight misstatement and you and yours would be all over him.

Quote:

Because he isn't just talking to a group of 6th graders as your posting of the picture so clearly shows. Thanks to the Internet he's speaking to the world and one slight misstatement and you and yours would be all over him.

David, David, please, it's not what he says that matters, it's not what he wants to do that matters, all that matters is the "12 steps to defeat Obama's agenda".

You notice there is no mention at all of what his "agenda" is, the message from the head of the repugnican party is that NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, Obama has to be defeated.

Just more "win at all costs" rhetoric from the party supporting the current crusade in Iraq, and who supports enforcing religious restrictions like control of abortions, banning of homosexuality, etc, on all of us, in direct spite and utter hatred of the people who founded the USA.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/jo...-did-you-champ/

Very funny...

That picture was a fake?

Quote:
Cali only gets back 79 cents of each federal dollar we send. Time to end state welfare and let the loser states start pulling their damn weight.

Now you're talking. We can start with my own New Mexico. And Mississippi.

Check it out...

$50,000-$74,999
Democrat 48
Republican 49
Independent 2
$75,000-$99,999
Democrat 51
Republican 48
Independent 2 - -
$200,000 and over
Democrat 52
Republican 46
Independent 2
$100,000 and over
Democrat 49
Republican 49
Independent 2

and the original link:

2008 Presidential Exit Poll data

Lets look up a state...say California

[Quote]At the close of registration for the May 2009 special election, the number of voters registered as independent (

Exit polls are cool because they are usually not accurate. You seem to be stuck on how successful a person may be and their subsequent responsibility to bail us out.

Why are you trying to make the case the CA is indicative of the whole country? The numbers I posted were national, and speak for themselves. And look at all the huge assumptions you make. And even if you were right (which you're not), the whole Red/Blue divide gets down to what? Rich white guys in the GOP (the REAL Americans) who just want to be free to make more money marry a 1950's housewife, and "everyone else" being a bunch of underachieving colored folks and women who want to sponge the system? Seriously, you want to go there?

If you can't see BOTH parties as more than cartoons, you really don't have much to offer with your free speech.

California was 14% of the total vote and 17% of the total democrat vote...by far the biggest single sector of the vote. Maybe I should have surveyed Vermont...