1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Worse than DU

Discussion in 'Legal' started by bobs1066, Nov 17, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bobs1066

    bobs1066 Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    Houston, TX
    This is the worst example of whiny-@ss baloney I believe I've even seen. :barf:
    To read the whole thing, go here:

    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

    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


    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:
  2. Correia

    Correia Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 19, 2002
    Wait, so let me get this right... They are basically saying that they are going to leave us alone?


  3. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 26, 2002
    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.
  4. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Dec 30, 2002
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    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.
  5. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Dec 30, 2002
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    No. They want to impose their views on entire blue states, even if it is only one city that turned the state blue.
  6. JPL

    JPL Member

    Apr 3, 2004
    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?
  7. Werewolf

    Werewolf Member

    Sep 12, 2003
    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.
  8. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Member

    Aug 18, 2004
    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.
  9. Sippenhaft

    Sippenhaft Member

    Nov 24, 2003
    Cleveland, Ohio; Home of the Great Lakes Brewery
    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.
  10. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Dec 20, 2002
    Louisiana, USA
    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...

  11. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Member

    Aug 18, 2004
    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.
  12. auschip

    auschip Member

    Jul 25, 2003
    Austin, TX
    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.
  13. Rebar

    Rebar member

    Feb 20, 2003
    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.
  14. pax

    pax Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Washington state
    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.


    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
  15. Archangel

    Archangel Member

    May 27, 2003
    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.

    Then what are you going to eat, moron? (ok, so maybe I am calling people names. But they deserve it. ;) )

    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?
  16. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Aug 11, 2004
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    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.
  17. Archangel

    Archangel Member

    May 27, 2003
    Ooh, and I missed this gem...

    Great! So when the starving city-folk revolt and try to come after our food, we'll be armed and they won't! :evil:
  18. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Member

    Aug 10, 2004

    Thats pretty much what Zell Miller said after the elections.
  19. hillbilly

    hillbilly Member

    Jul 10, 2003
    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. "

  20. Cool Hand Luke 22:36

    Cool Hand Luke 22:36 member

    Oct 19, 2003
    Arlington, VA

    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.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2004
  21. RandyB

    RandyB Member

    May 1, 2003

    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".
  22. squadfounder

    squadfounder Member

    Nov 16, 2004
    Fort Bragg, NC
    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.
  23. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    Richmond, Virginia
    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
  24. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Nov 19, 2003
    proud to be in AZ
    "Escape to New York"?
  25. petrel800

    petrel800 Member

    Aug 27, 2004
    "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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page