Worse than DU


PDA






bobs1066
November 17, 2004, 02:01 PM
This is the worst example of whiny-@ss baloney I believe I've even seen. :barf:
To read the whole thing, go here:
http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html

THE URBAN ARCHIPELAGO
by The Editors of The Stranger

It's time to state something that we've felt for a long time but have been
too polite to say out loud: Liberals, progressives, and Democrats do not
live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from
Canada to Mexico. We live on a chain of islands. We are citizens of the
Urban Archipelago, the United Cities of America. We live on islands of
sanity, liberalism, and compassion--New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia,
Seattle, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and on and on. And we live
on islands in red states too--a fact obscured by that state-by-state map.
Denver and Boulder are our islands in Colorado; Austin is our island in
Texas; Las Vegas is our island in Nevada; Miami and Fort Lauderdale are
our islands in Florida. Citizens of the Urban Archipelago reject heartland
"values" like xenophobia, sexism, racism, and homophobia, as well as the
more intolerant strains of Christianity that have taken root in this
country.

And we are the real Americans. They--rural, red-state voters, the denizens
of the exurbs--are not real Americans. They are fools and hate-mongers.
Red Virginia prohibits any contract between same-sex couples.
Compassionate? Texas allows the death penalty to be applied to teenaged
criminals and has historically executed the mentally retarded. Dumb? The
Sierra Club has reported that Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama,
and Tennessee squander over half of their federal transportation money
on building new roads rather than public transit.

If Democrats and urban residents want to combat the rising tide of red
that threatens to swamp and ruin this country, we need a new identity
politics, an urban identity politics, one that argues for the cities, uses a
rhetoric of urban values, and creates a tribal identity for liberals that's as
powerful and attractive as the tribal identity Republicans have created for
their constituents. John Kerry won among the highly educated, Jews,
young people, gays and lesbians, and non-whites. What do all these
groups have in common? They choose to live in cities. An overwhelming
majority of the American popuation chooses to live in cities. And John
Kerry won every city with a population above 500,000. He took half the
cities with populations between 50,000 and 500,000. The future success
of liberalism is tied to winning the cities. An urbanist agenda may not be a
recipe for winning the next presidential election--but it may win the
Democrats the presidential election in 2012 and create a new Democratic
majority.


*

In cities all over America, distressed liberals are talking about fleeing to
Canada or, better yet, seceding from the Union. We can't literally secede
and, let's admit it, we don't really want to live in Canada. It's too cold up
there and in our heart-of-hearts we hate hockey. We can secede
emotionally, however, by turning our backs on the heartland. We can
focus on our issues, our urban issues, and promote our shared urban
values. We can create a new identity politics, one that transcends class,
race, sexual orientation, and religion, one that unites people living in cities
with each other and with other urbanites in other cities. The Republicans
have the federal government--for now. But we've got Seattle, Portland,
San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, New York City
(Bloomberg is a Republican in name only), and every college town in the
country. We're everywhere any sane person wants to be.

*

To all those progressives, liberals, and Democrats who live in cities, we
say take heart. Clearly we can't control national politics right now--we can
barely get a hearing. We can, however, stay engaged in our cities, and
make our voices heard in the urban areas we dominate, and make each
and every one, to quote Ronald Reagan (and John Winthrop, the 17th-
century Puritan Reagan was parroting), "a city on a hill." This is not a
retreat; it is a long-term strategy for the Democratic Party to cater to
and build on its base.

To red-state voters, to the rural voters, residents of small, dying towns,
and soulless sprawling exburbs, we say this: Your issues are no
longer our issues. We're going to battle our bleeding-heart instincts and
ignore pangs of misplaced empathy. We will no longer concern ourselves
with a health care crisis that disproportionately impacts rural areas.
Instead we will work toward winning health care one blue state at a time.

When it comes to the environment, our new policy is this: Let the
heartland live with the consequences of handing the national government
to the rape-and-pillage party. The only time urbanists should concern
themselves with the environment is when we are impacted--directly, not
spiritually (the depressing awareness that there is no unspoiled wilderness
out there doesn't count). Air pollution, for instance: We should be
aggressive. If coal is to be burned, it has to be burned as cleanly as
possible so as not to foul the air we all have to breathe. But if West
Virginia wants to elect politicians who allow mining companies to lop off
the tops off mountains and dump the waste into valleys and streams,
thus causing floods that destroy the homes of the yokels who vote for
those politicians, it no longer matters to us. ???? the mountains in West
Virginia--send us the power generated by cleanly burned coal, you rubes,
and be sure to wear lifejackets to bed.

Wal-Mart is a rapacious corporation that pays sub-poverty-level wages,
offers health benefits to its employees that are so expensive few can
afford them, and destroys small towns and rural jobs. Liberals in big cities
who have never seen the inside of a Wal-Mart spend a lot of time worrying
about the impact Wal-Mart is having on the heartland. No more. We will
do what we can to keep Wal-Mart out of our cities and, if at all possible,
out of our states. We will pass laws mandating a living wage for full-time
work, upping the minimum wage for part-time work, and requiring large
corporations to either offer health benefits or pay into state- or city-run
funds to provide health care for uninsured workers. That will reform Wal-
Mart in our blue cities and states or, better yet, keep Wal-Mart out
entirely. And when we see something on the front page of the national
section of the New York Times about the damage Wal-Mart is doing to the
heartland, we will turn the page. Wal-Mart is not an urban issue.

We won't demand that the federal government impose reasonable fuel-
efficiency standards on all cars sold in the United States. We will,
however, strive to pass state laws, as California has done, imposing fuel-
efficiency standards on cars sold in our states.

We officially no longer care when family farms fail. Fewer family
farms equal fewer rural voters. We will, however, continue to support
small faggy organic farms, as we are willing to pay more for free-range
chicken and beef from non-cannibal cows.

We won't concern ourselves if red states restrict choice. We'll just make
sure that abortion remains safe and legal in the cities where we live, and
the states we control, and when your daughter or sister or mother dies in
a botched abortion, we'll try not to feel too awful about it.

*

The truth is that rural states--the same red states that vote reflexively
Republican in national elections--are welfare states. While red-state voters
like to complain about "tax-and-spend liberals," red states are hopelessly
dependent on the largess of the federal government to prop up their
dwindling rural population. Red states like North Dakota, New Mexico,
Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, and
Arkansas top the list of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid.
And who's paying the most? Blue states. Cities--and states dominated by
their cities. Welfare states, in contrast, demand federal money to fund
wasteful roads to nowhere. Welfare states guzzle barrel upon barrel of oil
so their rural residents can sputter along on ribbons of asphalt.

Take a state like Wyoming, the arid, under-populated home of our
glowering vice president Dick Cheney. Wyoming receives the second-
highest amount of federal aid in the nation per capita (Alaska, another red
state, is number one), and it ranks second lowest in federal taxes paid
(behind only South Dakota). Overall, the federal government spent about
$2,413 per capita in Wyoming for the fiscal year 2002 (the last year for
which data is available), compared with almost exactly half that amount,
or $1,205 per capita, for Washington State. This ridiculous disparity
extends even to Homeland Security funds, which ought to be targeted
toward the most vulnerable areas--coastlines, big city landmarks, porous
borders. But landlocked Wyoming, with exactly zero important strategic
targets, merits $38.31 per capita in Homeland Security funds. New York
state residents get a measly $5.47. An urban agenda would argue for
kicking Wyoming off the federal dole. States should pay their own way,
not come to cities begging for handouts.

*

You've made your choice, red America, and we urban Americans are going
to make a different choice. We are going to make Seattle--and New York,
Chicago, and the rest--a great place to live, a progressive place. Again,
we'll quote Ronald Reagan: We will make each of our cities--each and
every one--a shining city on a hill.


Read the rest of this piece here:
http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Worse than DU" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Correia
November 17, 2004, 02:12 PM
Wait, so let me get this right... They are basically saying that they are going to leave us alone?


:D

Finally!

Bartholomew Roberts
November 17, 2004, 02:13 PM
And John
Kerry won every city with a population above 500,000.

Factually incorrect. There are numerous cities with populations exceeding 500,000 that John Kerry lost. Off the top of my head, I can think of Houston, Dallas, and Ft. Worth.

Henry Bowman
November 17, 2004, 02:17 PM
Bring it on!

I've said for years (decades, really) that it is a urban vs. rural thing. It would be so easy to use his/her format to make the same points with conclusions that are 180 degrees opposite. :rolleyes: It's funny really.

Henry Bowman
November 17, 2004, 02:18 PM
Wait, so let me get this right... They are basically saying that they are going to leave us alone?

No. They want to impose their views on entire blue states, even if it is only one city that turned the state blue.

JPL
November 17, 2004, 02:19 PM
You know, when I think about about the many years I spent as a Democrat, I'm proud of the caliber of people who carried that banner.

In the years since, my politics have changed, obviously, and I've drifted farther and farther from the Democratic fold, to the point where I now consider myself to be very close to Republican.

It both shocks me and saddens me when I realize that the successors to men such as Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson are nothing more than a pack of whining, moaning imbeciles.

At one time the Democrats knew the pulse of this nation, and were unafraid to do great and important things.

Now all they can do is rest on their laurels and wonder why people have deserted them.

Which leads me to ask...

Who has deserted whom?

Werewolf
November 17, 2004, 02:22 PM
So city folk don't need rural folk. I wonder if they'll believe that when the only thing they have to eat after the divorce is their so called superior values.

RavenVT100
November 17, 2004, 02:24 PM
I stopped reading right here:

"And we are the real Americans. They--rural, red-state voters, the denizens
of the exurbs--are not real Americans. They are fools and hate-mongers."

Utter Garbage. I think what the author is really trying to say is that those who do not think and act like he does aren't "real Americans." I'm sorry he has to live in a country where not everyone thinks and acts like him. Maybe he should get a grip.

Sippenhaft
November 17, 2004, 02:28 PM
Suddenly Wickard v. Filburn and its progeny aren't looking so hot, are they? Damn hypocrits, suddenly they aren't calling the shots and now states' rights is no longer to be maligned as a code word for racists.

And personally, this claim about disparity of spending is really starting to annoy me- its about as truthful as Kerry's claim that the average family has lost $9,000 in ioncome power since Bush took office; it doesn't pass muster once you actually think about it. Of course Wyoming is going to have more per capita when a lot of spending (on parks, on highways that benefit the nation, even a minimum level of effective security) is probably done regardless of population.

You can blast Bush for a lot of stuff, so stick to that. Don't make what few good points you might have get lost in your erroneous desire to to go for the political SUPER SLAM of angst and pissy-ness.

Preacherman
November 17, 2004, 02:37 PM
You know, I think this is a very, very important article. It shows very clearly just how the Liberal "elite" ( :barf: ) are thinking. I think every member of THR should read this article in full, and forward it to their friends. The more it is circulated, the more America will realize how dangerous such people can be.

Go to the linked article, and read all three pages of it. It's time well spent! "Know Your Enemy" remains a very valid rule of life...

:mad:

RavenVT100
November 17, 2004, 02:43 PM
I don't think this is indicative of your average left-leaning citizen. What it is indicative of is the fact that the left has its fair share of dogma-engulfed idealogues. It's a myth that the entire left is comprised of scientifically-thinking, rational individuals, just as it is a myth that the right is comprised entirely of religious radicals who eschew rational thought and embrace dogma entirely.

The only clear difference is that on the left, dogma is not always overtly religious.

auschip
November 17, 2004, 02:45 PM
So where are they going to get their food from? What are they going to do with the garbage they produce? Does that mean people will no longer be leaving the city to get some fresh air? Enquiring minds want to know.

Rebar
November 17, 2004, 02:59 PM
We should negotiate with Canada to speed up the immigration process. Then they can get the hell out if they don't like democracy.

Hell, they should all move to Cuba, no election suprises there, that's for sure.

pax
November 17, 2004, 03:02 PM
Dumb? The Sierra Club has reported that Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Tennessee squander over half of their federal transportation money on building new roads rather than public transit.
No, honey. "Dumb" would be putting mass transit in places where the population is so spread out that private vehicles are the only sensible transportation solution.

pax

The fact that nobody asks you to sing is not an indication that you should sing louder. This sounds obvious until it's applied to matters like mass transportation. There are virtually no private mass transit companies. This does not represent the failure of the market to provide a needed service, it represents the failure of an unneeded service to go away! -- L. Neil Smith

Archangel
November 17, 2004, 03:36 PM
They are fools and hate-mongers.
I'm a hate monger? I'm not the one calling people names, constantly calling the President an idiot, or threatening to forget about the entire rest of the country just because they have a different opinion.

We officially no longer care when family farms fail.
Then what are you going to eat, moron? (ok, so maybe I am calling people names. But they deserve it. ;) )

But landlocked Wyoming, with exactly zero important strategic targets
So, Warren Air Force Base isn't considered a strategic target? All those nuclear missle silos? And I don't suppose any of that federal spending went towards Yellowstone National Park. Aren't you liberals always whining about saving the environment?

Old Dog
November 17, 2004, 03:39 PM
What cracks me up is the line, "These people choose to live in cities." As though people who live in cities are superior to those who live in the country ... Yet, those who can afford to live the cities when they retire inevitably leave for country living. Let's all hope that these liberal city folks never find out just how much better the quality of life is in the country or more rural, less-congested and less-populated areas.

Archangel
November 17, 2004, 03:40 PM
Ooh, and I missed this gem...

Neither is gun control. Our new position: We'll fight to keep guns off the streets of our cities, but the more guns lying around out there in the heartland, the better.

Great! So when the starving city-folk revolt and try to come after our food, we'll be armed and they won't! :evil:

Gunstar1
November 17, 2004, 04:02 PM
You know, when I think about about the many years I spent as a Democrat, I'm proud of the caliber of people who carried that banner.

In the years since, my politics have changed, obviously, and I've drifted farther and farther from the Democratic fold, to the point where I now consider myself to be very close to Republican.

It both shocks me and saddens me when I realize that the successors to men such as Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson are nothing more than a pack of whining, moaning imbeciles.

At one time the Democrats knew the pulse of this nation, and were unafraid to do great and important things.

Now all they can do is rest on their laurels and wonder why people have deserted them.

Which leads me to ask...

Who has deserted whom?


Thats pretty much what Zell Miller said after the elections.

hillbilly
November 17, 2004, 04:16 PM
What do you expect when blue-state liberals get their hands on a computer without any adult supervision?

But really, it is instructive to get a mainline dose of the pure, unadulterated, actual stuff to remind us all just what these folks are really like.

I think this passage is the most telling:


"But why should liberals in cities fund organizations that attempt, to take one example, to get trigger locks onto the handguns of NRA members out there in red states? If red-state dads aren't concerned enough about their own children to put trigger locks on their own guns, it's not our problem. If a kid in a red state finds his daddy's handgun and blows his head off, we'll feel terrible (we're like that), but we'll try to look on the bright side: At least he won't grow up to vote like his dad. "



hillbilly

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 17, 2004, 04:16 PM
Citizens of the Urban Archipelago reject heartland
"values" like xenophobia, sexism, racism, and homophobia, as well as the
more intolerant strains of Christianity that have taken root in this
country.


Not to mention rejecting degenerate "heartland" concepts like; personal responsibility, self defense, sexual morality, freedom, patriotism, hard work, private property, fair competition, a color blind society, reverence, and simple common sense.

RandyB
November 17, 2004, 04:22 PM
I stopped reading right here:

Utter Garbage. I think what the author is really trying to say is that those who do not think and act like he does aren't "real Americans." I'm sorry he has to live in a country where not everyone thinks and acts like him. Maybe he should get a grip.


Amen Brother! What a load of fecal matter. :fire: :banghead: :cuss: Its a shame we can't just move all of "Them" into one large city/state and leave the rest of the USA to "Us".

squadfounder
November 17, 2004, 04:24 PM
The democratic party continues its slide into communism...

I was talking to the owner of the business I work for (a gent of 72 years) and I was treated to a history of how the democrats lost their way. This man is now an avid republican, simply because the ideals of his previous party have drifted so far from what they were. There is something to be said with adapting to the times, but in this case its not evolution, but regression into socialism. Sad.

-What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?---The puppy stops whining when it grows up.

JohnBT
November 17, 2004, 04:26 PM
Anybody registered for the Personal ads yet? JBT
______________________

Browse Ads
Ads from Women Seeking Men

Ads from Men Seeking Women

Ads from Men Seeking Men

Ads from Women Seeking Women

Ads from Men Seeking ?

Ads from Women Seeking ?

Ads from Couple (man and woman)

Ads from Couple (man and man)

Ads from Couple (woman and woman)

Ads from Groups

Ads from Transvestites

Ads from Transsexuals

Advanced Search

armoredman
November 17, 2004, 04:29 PM
Amen Brother! What a load of fecal matter. :fire: :banghead: :cuss: Its a shame we can't just move all of "Them" into one large city/state and leave the rest of the USA to "Us".
"Escape to New York"?

petrel800
November 17, 2004, 04:42 PM
"The future success of liberalism is tied to winning the cities. An urbanist agenda may not be a recipe for winning the next presidential election--but it may win the Democrats the presidential election in 2012 and create a new Democratic majority."

Is this guy under the impression that the presidency is won through the popular vote. 2012 is going to be a very big year for the south. After the 2010 census, the south will gain even more electoral votes due to the massive increases in population we have seen. Or maybe the author doesn't realize that there will even be a census. Maybe the author is one of them ignorant types that thinks the national popular vote matters.

Grump
November 17, 2004, 05:01 PM
We can secede emotionally, however, by turning our backs on the heartland.
Wow. Such an act of unintended compassion!

The Republicans have the federal government--for now. But we've got Seattle, Portland,
San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, New York City (Bloomberg is a Republican in name only), and every college town in the country. We're everywhere any sane person wants to be.

So economic necessity and following the jobs and being locked into a ghetto because of the "lack of opportunity" the liberal injustice industry perpetuates is now all evidence of sanity?

Sour grapes in the extreme. I observed way back in high school that libs, conservatives, libertarians and anarchists all seem to love democracy when they are in the majority, but long for "statesmanship" when they are in the minority on a particular issue.

The concepts of limiting government to protect not only minority rights but to protect against the tyrrany of the majority ("mobocracy" such as the votes that ligitimized Germany's National Socialist Party and its fundamentally unjust treatment of Jews, etc)....well, they are just lost on too many people who are willing to trade just a little essential Liberty for a small bit of temporary security.

We may yet vote our Republic out of existence. So sad.

flatrock
November 17, 2004, 05:05 PM
These people really need to open their eyes and quit deluding themselves.

A basic grasp of economics they should have learned in high school would tell them that if they raise the minimum wage and require businesses to provide health care benefits to all their employees, they'll drive inflation through the roof.

No one will be able to produce anything in those urban areas because of the costs, and the jobs will go elsewhere.

They also need to look at the facts on the environment. Air quality is up. Bush pushed for stronger regulations on Arsenic in the water supplies.

Bush has pushed for good environmental legislation based on real scientific facts. He's opposed the obstructionists who make up facts and use junk science to try and make it so the environment is protected from us lesser people living in it.

They say they want to help people, but attack the companies that can provide jobs to employ them and allow them to help themselves.

The constantly attempt to do things which will harm the economy, which means not onely do hard working people end up out of work, the tax base that the government gets it's money from is destroyed.

These are the same kind of people who fought BUsh's perscription drug plan because it didn't do enough, and then complained about the cost.

They claim to be people of tolerance, yet even as they say that you can tell they feel that they are somehow morrally surperior and the rest of us should bow down to their greater wisdom.

These people also seem to miss the fact that the blue areas are the areas with the highest crime rates. The areas with the highest amounts of drug usage.

These people complain when soldiers are killed in Iraq, but ignore the fact that people are being killed in their own cities on a regular basis due to their failed crime policies.

They consider it compassionate to pass a student in public school that has learned nothing and goes out into the world after graduation without the basic skills needed to find a decent job, or to be able to effectively continue their education.

They're too busy patting themselves on the backs for being so tolerant and compassionate to realize what they are doing to society.

I would be happy to see them join together and seperate themselves from the rest United States. They can be the latest in a log series of socialist / communist experiments that fail. They've apparently learned nothing about history. You'd think they would have at least learned history from their liberal arts education.

Justin
November 17, 2004, 05:22 PM
Wait, so let me get this right... They are basically saying that they are going to leave us alone?


:D

Finally!


Hope springs eternal.

duckslayer
November 17, 2004, 05:29 PM
They are basically saying that they are going to leave us alone?

I suppose if you are gonna dream...dream big! But they can't leave us alone, it is for our own good :rolleyes:

Hkmp5sd
November 17, 2004, 05:48 PM
They shouldn't tease us like this. I'm all for it.
Neither is gun control. Our new position: We'll fight to keep guns off the streets of our cities, but the more guns lying around out there in the heartland, the better. Most cities have strong gun-control laws--laws that are, of course, undermined by the fact that our cities aren't walled.

In fact, just to show how thoughtful we are, we'll build them that wall. Using the idea from Escape From New York, we'll build them a wall around their cities to ensure no firearms can get in. We will also ensure that Republicans cannot secretly enter the city to cause disruptions and then sneak back out, we'll also adopt another idea from the movie, once someone goes in, they can never come back out.

GSB
November 17, 2004, 06:19 PM
Our new position: We'll fight to keep guns off the streets of our cities, but the more guns lying around out there in the heartland, the better.

It's a deal! Can I get it in writing, notarized?

Standing Wolf
November 17, 2004, 06:33 PM
...we are the real Americans. They--rural, red-state voters, the denizens of the exurbs--are not real Americans. They are fools and hate-mongers.

Too much gin on the corn flakes again.

Silver Bullet
November 17, 2004, 07:04 PM
Why are there so many of these kinds of rants being published at the same time, all so similar ?

Clearly, this is not a coincidence; this is orchestrated. But why ?

Two possibilities:

1) The Socialists are frustrated about the results of the election, and this is the only thing they can think to do. But, if this were the reason, why have multiple postings at the same time ?

2) The Socialists are people of style, not substance; image, not character. They are so used to manipulating their people with their pretensions of superiority that they think this must also work on people of character, which they haven’t yet learned does not work; but that’s all they know. So, they are trying to goad middle America by saying “don’t you want to be cool and hip and oh-so-smart, like us ?” They can’t fathom that the middle class doesn’t want to be like them; the middle class wants to be who they already are: people of depth, character, integrity, courage, independence ... and just as smart.

I don’t know if my second explanation is the right one or not. I do believe that if we copy the Socialists’ rants and then publish them (local newspapers, mass emailings) prior to the next election, that the rants will serve as a motivator, just not the motivation the Socialists intended.

DRZinn
November 17, 2004, 07:07 PM
Utter filth. There's simply too much to refute point-by-point, and I'd go insane trying. I'll just deal with this one gem:

We're everywhere any sane person wants to be.
So all you Bush-voters out there, my idealogical cousins, not only are you stupid, hate-mongering, racist, fundamentalist, environment-destroying, prisoner-abusing, abortion-clinic-bombing, black-church-burning bigots - but you're insane, too!

carpettbaggerr
November 17, 2004, 07:45 PM
WY federal aid = 115,724,344 [based on pop 1995]

NY federal aid = 721,105,366 [based on pop. 2000]

Liberals forget some of us can do math. 7 times as much 'aid' and it's not enough? We're everywhere any sane person wants to be Stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic? Trapped in a SRO subway car? Breathing the crystal clear air of Los Angeles? Sane? Really?

Gordon Fink
November 17, 2004, 08:11 PM
Nice to see that hate is alive on both sides of the political aisle.

~G. Fink

Silver Bullet
November 17, 2004, 08:41 PM
What do you mean ? The Socialists like being exposed for the phonies they are.

How do I know ? Because if they didn't like it, they wouldn't ask for it.

SteelyDan
November 18, 2004, 12:57 AM
The elite liberals believe, and I mean really "believe," that it is their destiny to shape society in their own image for the benefit of the "greater good," as they narrowly perceive it. They just plain cannot accept the possibility that their way might not really be the best way for the majority of the country. And it is their certainty, close-mindedness, and intolerance that makes me so enjoy their current whinings.

Diggler
November 18, 2004, 07:03 AM
They shouldn't tease us like this. I'm all for it.


In fact, just to show how thoughtful we are, we'll build them that wall. Using the idea from Escape From New York, we'll build them a wall around their cities to ensure no firearms can get in. We will also ensure that Republicans cannot secretly enter the city to cause disruptions and then sneak back out, we'll also adopt another idea from the movie, once someone goes in, they can never come back out.
In the spirit of the oft-changed genie joke, can we then fill the wall with water??

:evil:

Intune
November 18, 2004, 08:12 AM
Gordon F- Nice to see that hate is alive on both sides of the political aisle.
Please expound. Calling someone on inacuracies & flawed stats = hate? :confused:

Werewolf
November 18, 2004, 10:58 AM
Gordon F-
Please expound. Calling someone on inacuracies & flawed stats = hate? :confused:LOL! It does if you are a liberal and the liberal is the one being called...

BeLikeTrey
November 18, 2004, 11:10 AM
"Liberals, progressives, and Democrats do not
live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from
Canada to Mexico. We live on a chain of islands. We are citizens of the
Urban Archipelago, the United Cities of America. We live on islands of
sanity, liberalism, and compassion.."

About compassion, lets go into an analogy on wealth redistribution. Lets apply the same rules on taxes and welfare to the school system and lets see your straight A child go to a low B while we redistribute said childs "excessive wealth" to a more "needy and downtrodden child" who is a victim of the sins of our fathers. Lets redistribute those grades to get that child from an F to a C. I bet the same Compassionate people would cry foul and say their child earned that grade and worked hard for it. That other child didn't. I'll sit back at that point and smile as that "ooops" look crawls across their face.

HankB
November 18, 2004, 11:27 AM
From the tone and content of the post at the beginning of this thread, it would seem that columnist Nicholas von Hoffman wrote a very accurate characterization of the Democratic Party in The Washington Post back in 1994:

"To its committed members the Democratic Party was still the party of heart, humanity, and justice, but to those removed a few paces it looked like Captain Hook's crew--ambulance-chasing lawyers, rapacious public policy grants persons, civil rights gamesmen, ditzy-brained movie stars, fat-assed civil servant desk squatters, recovering alcoholics, recovering wife-beaters, recovering child-buggers, and so forth and so on, a grotesque line-up of ill-mannered, self-pitying, caterwauling freeloaders banging their tin cups on the pavement demanding handouts."

Dirty Bob
November 18, 2004, 11:53 AM
The rest of the gun control comment:

But why should liberals in cities fund organizations that attempt, to take one example, to get trigger locks onto the handguns of NRA members out there in red states? If red-state dads aren't concerned enough about their own children to put trigger locks on their own guns, it's not our problem. If a kid in a red state finds his daddy's handgun and blows his head off, we'll feel terrible (we're like that), but we'll try to look on the bright side: At least he won't grow up to vote like his dad.

I'd say that false compassion and ill-concealed glee at the death of a child shows hatred.

Dirty Bob

Yowza
November 18, 2004, 12:05 PM
Well, I'm sure it's a waste of time researching to refute this tripe, but it was interesting nonetheless. So let's look at some numbers on voters in big cities.

LA County -- Bush won 36% of the votes with 954,764
San Diego -- Bush won this city with 439,242 votes
Miami-Dade County -- Bush got 46% of the votes with 329,339
Cook County (Illinois) -- 29% with 583,774
New York (5 burroughs combined) -- 25% with 544,379
Allegheny (Pittsburgh) -- 42% 268,367
Wayne (Detroit) -- 30% 257,267
Cuyahogo (Cleveland) -- 33% 215,624

I don't feel like looking up any more. To me, that really doesn't look like an inconsequential number of people in these extremely urban areas. Sure they're in the minority for the most part, but these opinion pieces all seem to imply that Bush/conservative voters simply do not exist in any quantity in urban areas.

Rick

Intune
November 18, 2004, 01:02 PM
I agree 100% Dirty Bob. I was asking him to point out the "hatred" from the other side of the aisle. Something like, the death of a Dem kid is a great start. No matter what the cause just in case he might vote like his ignorant daddy.

The amazing thing is that I don't think the author of this bag of horsefeathers would show the same sentiment towards the son of a known terrorist. Big Terr Daddy has been disenfranchised, he needs counseling, let's get beyond the terr label and try to understand him a little better. Grrr.

This guy hates half of our nation and embraces the death of children because his candidate lost. It may be beneficial that only criminals have guns in the big cities ‘cause they’re probably more compassionate than this guy and his ilk. Unfreaking believable. :barf:

gcook1
November 18, 2004, 01:18 PM
About compassion, lets go into an analogy on wealth redistribution. Lets apply the same rules on taxes and welfare to the school system and lets see your straight A child go to a low B while we redistribute said childs "excessive wealth" to a more "needy and downtrodden child" who is a victim of the sins of our fathers. Lets redistribute those grades to get that child from an F to a C. I bet the same Compassionate people would cry foul and say their child earned that grade and worked hard for it. That other child didn't. I'll sit back at that point and smile as that "ooops" look crawls across their face.

Your logic is flawed in a couple places. 1. These type of people don't HAVE hard working kids. The idea of "work" is totally foreign to them. So their kids would never BE the kids getting A's. 2. These are the kind of people who are doing their very best to force schools to make everything "equal". Grades are bad! The dumb kids might feel bad about themselves. No competitive games! Everyone knows there's no such thing as competition when we're grown up. 3. There's no way they'd EVER admit to being wrong. No way an "oops" look would happen.

Gordon Fink
November 18, 2004, 01:34 PM
What do you mean?

Please expound.

If you don’t already know, then I doubt I can make you understand, but you wouldn’t have to look very far. Try a search on the terms “DemocRATS” and “Demoncraps.”

At least the hate spewed in the cited article is somewhat more eloquent.

~G. Fink

juggler
November 18, 2004, 02:29 PM
Creepy...these people are really scary with the hate and violence they promote. :eek:

I don't understand all their talk about tolerance. They do not tolerate an alternate view at all, unless it's deviant behavior of one type or another.

Not that there's anything wrong with that :evil:

Langenator
November 18, 2004, 05:05 PM
We can secede emotionally, however, by turning our backs on the heartland.

I was under the impression that they had already done this.

Intune
November 18, 2004, 05:54 PM
Are you serious Gordon? Those are playground insults. Freeper, repukelican, shrub, Hitlery...

This manifesto dwarfs playground antics yet contains commonality with childish behavior. I didn't see any of this citizenship renouncement, secession, mass exodus or bunker mentality going on when prez Bush senior lost to prez Clinton. Did you? Could
it be because Dems got their way on that one, hmm? This stuff is over the top and it's everywhere following this election. I am beginning to think that it's not only a political standpoint if one is a Dem or Repub, it's choosing sides in some undercurrent war that's taking place with disregard to feelings, family/offspring or well-being of your opponent. And, if we lose and don’t get our way… BURN THE WITCH! What? Whoa, hang on here guys and put down the torches.

Why the disparity in manners/actions between the two parties? The Dems come off as churlish crybabies. Where are the days when one could be a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican and frothing at the mouth over politics or inferring that the death of a child as positive (merely to negate that potential opposing vote :eek: ) by either party would get you sent in for a rabies test? Am I seeing this all wrong Gordon?


At least the hate spewed in the cited article is somewhat more eloquent.
A discerning hate palate is so rare to encounter in this day and age. I am humbled.

Gordon Fink
November 18, 2004, 07:34 PM
Asked and answered.

~G. Fink

13A
November 18, 2004, 09:02 PM
From the article:

"The Sierra Club has reported that Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama,
and Tennessee squander over half of their federal transportation money
on building new roads rather than public transit."

I live in Lawton Oklahoma. Where are those new roads The Sierra Club is talking about? Not around here!

A few years ago the city started public transit with 80% of the money coming from the feds. Now we have 30 passenger buses running 12 hours a day 6 days a week .... carrying one or two people - and frequently, NO ONE. Wonder what the Sierra Club would say about the extra pollution those buses are putting into the air carrying a handful of people? Oh yeah, good job Lawton!

Of course a city official said the program would pay for itself. Months later, when it was obvious that was a lie, the same city official said they never expected it to pay for itself. Looney lefties. They're everywhere.

Intune
November 19, 2004, 12:22 AM
Am I seeing this all wrong Gordon?
Apparently not.

natedog
November 19, 2004, 01:17 AM
New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia... Seattle, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Francisco all have higher levels of poverty, oppression, crime, and corruption .

Reads perfectly.

sigmaman
November 19, 2004, 01:26 AM
Are you serious Gordon? Those are playground insults. Freeper, repukelican, shrub, Hitlery...

This manifesto dwarfs playground antics yet contains commonality with childish behavior. I didn't see any of this citizenship renouncement, secession, mass exodus or bunker mentality going on when prez Bush senior lost to prez Clinton. Did you? .

i did i used to watch the rush limbaugh television show
every day he would add another number to his america held hostage banner
this was put up because clinton did not receive a 51% majority in the election
remember it was a 3 way race between perot bush and clinton
and the same vile the democrats felt for nader was teh same vile republicans have for perot

Limbaugh daily counts down the days of the Clinton presidency, the days of ``America being held hostage,'' as Rush puts it.


im glad im not affiliated with any party and i get to make choices based on candidates stands on issues this was fun for a while but i dont see how some of you put a good face to be gun owners

disclaimer i voted kerry i won guns with a republican congress was i worried about gun control... nope
i am worried about what bush is going to do

c_yeager
November 19, 2004, 04:02 AM
I think that some of the people here are giving a BIT too much credit to a newspaper that is distributed free-of-charge on streetcorners in seattle. The "personals section" can provide endless entertainment to a person awaiting the arrival of a friend at a coffeehouse but, beyond that even your more hardcore liberals pay the rag little mind.

Gordon Fink
November 19, 2004, 12:02 PM
“The Sierra Club has reported that Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Tennessee squander over half of their federal transportation money on building new roads rather than public transit.” [Emphasis added.]

Whether or not the roads were actually built, the choice of vocabulary speaks volumes. However, I also think Mr. Yeager’s assessment is correct.

~G. Fink

Gunstar1
November 19, 2004, 12:24 PM
“The Sierra Club has reported that Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Tennessee squander over half of their federal transportation money on building new roads rather than public transit.”

I have to travel to Alabama often for work and I can say of the money "squander" KEEP IT UP!! I would rather drive on paved roads than dirt/gravel roads.
Also, my sister recently moved to New Orleans, Louisiana and I must say to them, REPAVE YOUR ROADS!!!!!! The roads downtown, riverfront, and the french quarter are worse than the dirt/gravel roads in Alabama. New Orleans is the only city I have been to where the stop signs are more often used to warn pedestrian traffic than they are to actually stop cars on the road.

New Orleans does have street cars or trolly's for public transportation, (the kind that rides on tracks with the electric cable over head) however I do have one question about them, why do they need a "How's my driving" bumper stickers when they are on rails? :confused:

Cactus
November 19, 2004, 03:50 PM
The Stranger is typical of the leftists that infest Seattle.

The former Seattle City Attorney said it best: Seattle is 45 square miles of beautiful scenery surrounded by reality!

Turkey Creek
November 19, 2004, 08:41 PM
This guy and the misguided souls on DU are just too whacko- I read this stuff and I keep thinking I'm in some kind of weird surrealistic dream- what possesses these people?- hmmmmm, possession- a question for those of the Catholic Faith, does exorcisism really work, and if so, hadn't somebody better notify the Vatican?- I'm not kidding, these demons need to be cast out pronto-

Intune
November 19, 2004, 10:08 PM
Heck, if the folks who said they would move to another country if the Pres won would just keep their not-worth-spit word we wouldn't have to cast anyone out. And, as a bonus, it would leave more food for Linda help-me-I'm-choking-on-a-whole-chicken Ronstadt who just came out with another Bush=Hitler reference. Also heard that Mikey Moore was a nominee for the Man of the Year award. Perhaps I need to perfect the art of the lie to get ahead? Nah, not worth it. Bad juju bwanna.

The_Antibubba
November 21, 2004, 04:19 AM
Does this guy realize that 95% of Alaska is federally owned and run? If they'd free up some of that land...

If you enjoyed reading about "Worse than DU" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!