Blue State "Generosity", Red State Divorce Rate
Politics
| January 30, 2005
| Tim
Two popular leftist tropes...
First allegation: "Blue" states (Kerry-voting states) paid more taxes, "red" states received more of the benefits. Therefore, red states aren't the self-reliant people they claim to be.
Answer: If this is true, it shouldn't be hard to see why. Our tax system is "progressive", meaning that rich people pay a disproportion burden of the taxes. For example, the top 5% of income-earners paid 31% of the tax burden in 2002, the top 50% paid 86% of the taxes. [ref] So if one state has more wealthy people than another, it will pay in more than it receives. And yes, "blue" states on the whole are wealthier than "red" ones.
Further, less populous states have more federal lands and highways per citizen, which also probably contributes to this trend. Again, the salient factor here is a huge, expensive Federal government.
This protest is truly hypocritical, since it is liberals, not conservatives, who demanded this state of affairs. If liberals had any principles (and don't hold your breath) they would now abandon their beloved wealth redistribution schemes.
Finally, this protest, about alleged blue state "generosity", becomes even more laughable when you consider this:
What puzzles some researchers is not just the parsimony of the wealthy states, but also the pattern. The same Northeastern "blue" states - those labeled Democratic at election time - have appeared near the bottom of the list in every year since the index began keeping track in 1997. And the same "red" - or Republican - states are always near the top. So is there something about geography that influences both voting and giving patterns?
Actually, it may have more to do with culture, especially religious habits....
"They are tithing, evangelical Protestants, and they are giving in proportion to their income," he says. "Up here [in the Northeast], religion doesn't help our giving. I wouldn't say it hurts, but it doesn't help, either."
Second allegation: "Blue" states have a lower divorce rate, and thus are more moral, "red" states are hypocritical.
Answer: My, my! Now who's suddenly developed an overweaning, pharasiacal moralism? Interesting how righteous some of us get about traditional family values when we think the data flatters us!
Actually, it doesn't. "Divorce rate" is calculated as a percent of population, not as a percentage of marriages. So-called "blue" states have fewer marriages, and thus will have fewer divorces.
If we believed this was due to chastity, this might be an argument we could accept with a straight face. But if not, then it's laughable to argue that having more children out of wedlock or failing to "commit" demonstrates your allegedly higher commitment to traditional family values -- simply because those two practices don't (and can't) result in divorce.
Dear President Bush:
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals.
Actually, we're a bit ticked off here in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. Of course we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon,
Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast.
We spoke to God, and She agrees that this split will be
beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of
California. In fact, God is so excited about it, She's going to shift
the whole country at 4:30 PM EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone
know they need to be back in their states by then.
So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator (ewh!),
stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get
Kenneth Lay. (Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that.)
We get the Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, Yosemite, Maui, Kaui and the great Northwest. You get OpryLand and Dollywood.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Stanford, Harvard, MIT, USC and UCLA. You get Ole Miss.
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi have to offer.
We get about two-thirds of the entire US tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian coalition's, we
get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and
we know how much you like that.
Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs. Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts. And that's if they'll sell YOU any.
Guess you won't be seeing any Hollywood movies soon either. But you can show reruns of your innauguration every night.....it did costs nearly as much.
Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and
pro-family. ALL families. We'll let you figure out what that means.
We'll give you a hint though: "Civil unions" are crap. We're pro-marriage
all the way here.
Oh yeah, we're also anti-war, so we're going to want all the
Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask
your evangelical/zealot breeders. They crank out tons of kids they abuse, don't take care of and are willing to send to their deaths without questioning the cause. They don't even care if you don't show
pictures of their kids' caskets coming home because it might hurt your strategy.
Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope,
really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq one day. Seriously, because who knows how many other countries those kids will be dying in if you don't! Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.
Sincerely,
The United Blue States of California
(AKA: Canada, Jr.)
Last post was some "real"blue meat to chew on copied from a blue blog....
Oh yeah... some more "blue" meat to chew.. just don't gag! it's copied from blue blog again..
Hey that's cold!
Incendiary rhetorical fourishes aside, Opus1 raises some good points. I've had similar notions, though coming from the perspective of a Northeast (rather than California) liberal.
The idea of a "mutual secession" has merit. Maybe it's time to take a fresh look at things. A parting of company might make some sense. We're constantly hearing from those in the South and the Heartland that they don't want some (expletive deleted) Northern Liberal telling them what to do. Well... I wonder if it ever occured to them that we northeast liberals don't like some (expletive deleted) Southern Conservative telling us what to do!
I'm sure it could be an amicable split, each state could vote on which Federation they wanted to align themselves with, and there could be a period of dual citizenship during which people figured out where they felt most comfortable. After a while, things would settle down. Just think, the good folk of the Heartland could banish all those pesky "cultural elites" to New York and Los Angeles. Well - you kind of do that already, but imagine if you could make it official!
There would still be plenty of room for cooperation. We're all interested in making money, so there would, of course, be Free Trade. I'm sure there would be military cooperation - how about a "North American Defense Alliance" (though I would expect the blue states would probably pass on gratuitous invasions).
There would still be business travel, and educational travel, and tourism (unless the Heartlanders get scared off by their government's cautionary tales of The Despicable Ways of The Coastal Heathens).
But on the culturally divisive issues, we could all benefit from a greater degree of self-determination. It wouldn't have to be "one-size-fits-all". Instead of sniping at each other, we could watch as each side actually implements their ideas and we might even be able to learn from each other's experiences.
The liberal states could have a go at universal health care. The conservatives could have universal gun ownership.
The liberal states could have a strong environmentalist ethic. The conservative states could pave, drill and develop every square inch and count on God to provide clean air and water.
The liberal states could have freedom of religion and freedom of speech (provided you don't hurt anybody's feelings ) and the conservative states could establish a state religion and enforce a strict morality code. We could then really see which style of government is closer to the ideal of freedom and liberty - the "Nanny State" or "Big Brother".
The liberal states could have a progressive income tax, while the conservative ones could toss the whole idea and give a national sales tax a try. Heck, you could even try to abolish government all together and privatize the whole thing.
Abortion, death penalty... you do it your way, we'll do it ours. We can get together and compare notes down the road.
In short, we could all have the opportunity to take our ideas to their logical conclusion. We could enact our policy pronouncements to see what actually works, instead of using them as code words and shell games.
As for the names - I don't think United States of California would go over too well in the Northeast (nothing personal guys, just regional pride). I assume the conservative states might want to pick up the old moniker of the CSA - the Confederate States of America - as they've always wanted. That would seem to leave USA available for the Union, but that might be a bit presumptuous, so let's keep it open to suggestions for now.
_________________
Bruce B
Terry:
Why think for yourself? It's a cut-'n'-paste world out there. And you liberals imagine you're not the sheep of the political world?
Your argument is hilarious: It's basicly: "We control all the best stuff!" Even if it's true, it's hilarious for the hypocrisy it reveals. For years, you've claimed Republicans had all the best stuff, the wealth, the money, the power, and said they were "evil" and arrogant for that reason -- that their lorded power and their superiority over others.
But in just one slip, you tipped your hand, and let us see what you've got: You clearly think Republicans are like that because that is how you act when you think suddenly the tables are turned.
I've been wondering about this for years. Thanks for confirming it so clearly.
But regardless, it isn't so: Even in "blue" states, about 40% or more of the population were conservatives, including among the business community. Why is NYC not a sewer anymore? Thank a conservative. Who is attempting to clean up Gray Davis's fiscal mess? Again, don't thank liberals. And Wisconsin (which would have gone for Bush without Democratic vote fraud) has had a string of Republican govenors who also have fixed the problems created by the previous string of Democrats. And Minnesota also elected a Republican governor recently, after being disenfranchised with Democrats and Independents.
No, sorry, reality doesn't conform to your simplistic cartoon-like understanding of the world. Even the "blue states" have much to be grateful for from political conservatives.
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals.
Got news for you: About 25% of evangelicals supported Kerry. But it's an interesting admission on your part: In your mind, you think serious Christians would not support your policies. No wonder you continue to see a declining part of their vote.
Actually, we're a bit ticked off here in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country.
You're going to become Mexico Jr.?
If California is so great, then how come all your upper-class liberals are fleeing to the Midwest and Denver? We're up to our knees in ex-California liberals in places like Boulder. They've ruined one area and are now busy trying to ruin others...
A new report Wednesday fueled concerns that the high cost of doing business in Los Angeles and much of California puts the region at a serious disadvantage in trying to compete for high-tech businesses against less-expensive Western and Midwestern cities...
"The harsh reality is your state is suffering today not only from a corporate exodus but intellectual capacity (too). Some of your best and brightest college graduates cannot afford to live here; that's a huge problem," said John Boyd, whose company's report is based on information from corporate executives....
The study echoes warnings that were sounded last year by the California Business Roundtable, which found that nearly 40 percent of California companies planned to move jobs out of state.
At the same time, analysts at Bain & Co., a business consulting firm, found that 100 percent of the senior-level executives they interviewed said California's business climate was unfavorable.
You destroy everything you touch, and you blame everyone else for it. Then, when you've made your messes, you move away and find another area to infest.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that.
The allegation has already been rebutted in the article above -- you don't get "happy families" by refusing to get married in the first place. But thinking about facts you disagree with isn't part of your repertoire, is it?
Typical: "My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with the facts!"
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi have to offer.
You're going to become Canada Jr. and adopt their economic policies? Oh yes, that certainly shows you know a lot about being an entrepreneur!
You are hilarious: Democrats are in favor of business now? What an interesting about-face! Don't you even notice when you shift your stances like this? Doesn't it give you cognitive whiplash? (Oh wait, that assumes "cognition" (thinking) is even occuring.)
So many of you liberals come off as arrogant snobs no matter which part of the economic spectrum you thinks favors you: One minute Republicans are "the evil rich business owners" and you're "for the poor", the next minute Republicans are, in fact, poor slobs incapable of starting a business and you're the business elites who know better and sneer at the poor.
Is it any wonder you guys are having so much trouble winning an election? You manage to come off sounding arrogant no matter who you think you represent or are today.
Or tell me: Is this just a parody of liberal thought, or you do you guys never even listen to your own words and laugh at the contradictions?
Then there's this whopper....
Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and pro-family. ALL families. We'll let you figure out what that means. We'll give you a hint though: "Civil unions" are crap. We're pro-marriage all the way here.
How can you claim to be pro "marriage" when you don't even know what the word means? Marriage is a joining of opposites or complements. You marry, for example, "style and efficiency", or "form and function", not "style and style."
Of course, liberals like to try to win arguments by redefining words. It's the only strategy left when you're out of facts.
So why not support polygamy? Isn't that a form of marriage too? What about incestuous relations? Or were you just lying when you said you supported "ALL families"?
(A liberal, lie? Never!!!)
And of course, you just exposed your hypocrisy when you admitted you favored single-parent structures just as much as two-parent structures. You can't be "pro-marriage all the way" while saying marriage is no better than a lack of it.
But again, you're not really intersted in figuring out what to support, are you? It's just important to you that you appear to support "good" policies, even if it leads you to contradict yourself.
You fraud.
Science shows single-family structures are bad for children. Children raised in single-parent homes do much worse by all measurable outcomes -- mental health, drug use, unsafe sex, STDs, crime, poverty -- than traditional two-parent families. Study after study illustrates this, and if you cared even a whit about children, you'd look into it.
Do conservatives "favor" policies which encourage traditional two-parent families over one-parent families? Of course. Given what the research shows, you'd have to be pretty cold-hearted towards kids not to want what's best for them, even if it meant... gasp... a mom and a dad.
Liberals, in contrast, don't seem to believe that people make choices. Worse, they seem to believe it should be the government's job to make sure that single-parenthood is just as economically attractive as (if not more than) two-parent families. Often, they go further, even penalizing two-parent families via the "marriage tax", or supporing policies where a woman on welfare will be punished economically for getting married.
When you create economic incentives for single parenthood, what do you get? Yes, that's right, more single parents. A simple glance over the last thirty years of history bears this point out.
Of course, encouraging what's good for children isn't nearly as important as the smug feeling of self-satisifaction a liberal will receive for saying they "care" -- but care so little they apparently won't even study the research findings and act accordingly.
Guess you won't be seeing any Hollywood movies soon either.
Given the spiraling ticket receipts at theaters, I'm not sure we'd be missing much. :-)
Oh yeah, we're also anti-war, so we're going to want all the Blue States citizens back from Iraq.
Good enough. It's too bad your enemies aren't anti-war. Assuming they'd defeat us, what would do to defend yourself? Talk them into disarming? Or will you just compel your women to wear Burqas directly to keep the extremists from hurting you?
Or will you secretly hope we don't fail, so you can continue to have the freedom and security to bash us for protecting you?
It's easy to be "anti-war" or "anti-violence" when it's someone else who's getting the short end of the stick. A gang of thugs is beating up some kid at the back of the playground, and you sit there and snicker, in your pretended moral superiority, about how you'd never get involved because you're so much "better" than that.
Of course, you're not anti-war in the slightest, anyway. I've seen your rallies -- there are plenty of calls for violence and armed aggression, and lots of support for countries who do so. Your protestors lash out violently at anyone who dares disagree with them -- and then you, the individual liberals, forget your feigned passivism and justify it when I point this out.
Concerning the desired objects of your violence: your activists seem to view Democracy itself as the enemy: Signs flatter Castro, Hugo Chavez, Che Guevera -- brutal murderers all.
Leftist protestors consistently side with aggressors like Kim Il Sung (who has starved 2 million of his own people to death and is currently threatening Democracies around him with nuclear attack), Saddam, and mideast terrorist groups.
And all though the last year you've hoped things would go badly in Iraq -- Iraqi people be damned -- so you could score some petty political points! Reprehensible!
Meanwhile, you've got situations like the genocide in Darfur, and the UN, which you liberals portray as the ultimate moral authority, does what? Refuses to call it "genocide" or do anything about it. Puts the agressor -- Sudan! -- in a powerful position on the UN Human Rights Council!
You grant moral legitimacy to the same UN which looked the other way during the Rwanda massacre, fled during the massacre in Bosnai, and actively aided Saddam in denying food and medicine to Iraqis in order to line their own pockets -- and you portray any disagreement with the UN as immoral?
Your policies hurt people, socialism, which you favor, harms the poor, affirmative action, besides being blantantly racist, destroys the lives of the minorites you target with it, and your tax hikes and wasteful government programs damage the economy, as well as hurting those who are supposed to be helped.
Of course, you don't admit any of this is true; perhaps you've never even taken the time to look into any of this. Why? Because it was more important for you to feel moral that it is to actually help people.
Yes, I'm deeply impressed with your superiority. Now go feed some poor people yourself, rather than whining it should be the government's job, and I'll praise you for it.
Dar,
You, or at least someone you quoted, suggested this, which I will treat as your own words:
The liberal states could have freedom of religion and freedom of speech (provided you don't hurt anybody's feelings ) and the conservative states could establish a state religion and enforce a strict morality code. We could then really see which style of government is closer to the ideal of freedom and liberty - the "Nanny State" or "Big Brother".
At it's core, not a bad idea really.
Socially, you're way off base. You seem to imagine conservatives are trying to force their morals on others. What planet are you from? To me it appears liberals are the ones who favor "strict morality codes". Look at universities and see they way students are having their behavior regulated and right to speech denied.
Another illustration: the gay marriage issue wasn't about some conservatives trying to force liberals to do something. To the contrary, it was the opposite: it was about liberals trying to get "the state" -- that is, every one of us -- to admit that a homosexual relationship is just as much a "marriage" as a heterosexual one.
Given the huge differences in dynamics (average number of partners, sexual infidelity), there's simply no way most people can agree.
I won't stop two gay men (nor lesbians) from doing anything they want to, but that isn't enough. Nor is "civil unions", which would ensure they can have all the same benefits, enough. What you on the left demand is not tolerance, but complete agreement and endorsement.
In this, you reveal yourselves to be totalitarians.
Further, when you can't get democratic agreement, you believe the right thing to do is create law through the courts. Again, you show you don't believe in Democracy, you believe in getting your way by any means necessary.
It is not a co-incidence that George Orwell, when he warned about the dangers of totalitarianism, was talking about the political left. "Big Brother" was no conservative -- he was Joseph Stalin, a liberal's liberal.
It's sad to see how grossly ignorant of history you are. You will not learn its lessons before you inflict your ignorance on others.
I assume the conservative states might want to pick up the old moniker of the CSA - the Confederate States of America - as they've always wanted.
Why on earth would you assume that?
It was, after all, the Democrats who wanted to secede from the union. The name is rightfully yours, not ours. Lincoln was, if you recall, a Republican. (Or perhaps you were ignorant of that as well.)
And here we are in 2004, and once again, it is the Democrats who are talking again about how little they love their country so little they want to secede from the union when they don't get their own way. Exactly as Democrats did before.
You, my dears, are the secessionsists, not us. And, just as the south did, you again appeal to Europe for moral support.
During the civil war, it was, of course, racism which was the primary issue. Yet throughout the 20th century Democrats supported the KKK, euthenasia, and eugenics. When Hitler arose, he received hearty support from the American left, including the founder of Planned Parenthood. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, it was opposed by Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who has never renounced his Klan membership and still serves as Democratic leader.
And even today Democrats embrace racism, in the form of Planned Parenthood (which focuses disproportionately on aborting ethic minorities), affirmative action (which is racist, damages blacks and other minorites, and is based on the idea they are inferior cannot get ahead unless whites "help" them), and anti-semitism, which seems to also be making a resurgence in the left.
This has much more to do with ideology than geography, as you seem to assume. "The land" dosen't make people believe and do things -- political philosophies do. And the one you have embraced has a rather bloody, oppressive history.
But again, you don't seem to know that much about history, do you?
In short, we could all have the opportunity to take our ideas to their logical conclusion. We could enact our policy pronouncements to see what actually works, instead of using them as code words and shell games.
Once again, you parade your astounding ignorance of history. You imagine this -- comparing economic liberalism and small government (Republicans) to socialism (Democrats) -- hasn't been tried before. It has. Repeatedly. And your beliefs and policies kill people. Lots of them.
And you never admit you're wrong before trying it all over again.
It's amazing you have so little interest in learning from history: you insist on repeating it over and over again. At others' expense, of course.
You are, in short, arrogant fools.
Tim,
Thank you for posting your responce to my post so quickly. I do so want to add my two cents to what you have posted, but I am very busy and I am still evaluating/thinking about your response. I will post a responce soon though. Keep in mind,I work hard 24/7 and time does not allow me the luxuries of the internet. Also, I want you to know that the reason for my post was not to offend but to create dialoge. If we are to get beyond our disagreements, we can only start by talking about them. Do you not agree? I am sure there has to be some middle ground here.. If our great country is to succeed we need to come together. Do you not agree? Again, I only wish to create dialog. I am so sorry if I offended you.
Terry
Terry,
I'm glad to hear so say you're thinking about things. That's an important part of a dialog -- not just repeating someone else's arguments, while (apparently) not even thinking about the post you're supposedly responding to.
If you truly wanted a dialog, then you've got one. For my part, whether I agreed with you or not, I believe you can see I listened to what you said (or cut-'n'-pasted) and responded to each point. You're welcomed to demonstrate your sincerity on this point.
Would that be a lot for you to answer? Of course. That's what happens when you hurl a hundred accusations -- you get a hundred counter-charges to think about. It's very easy to make lots of cheap, hit-'n'-run points. But people don't learn from that -- it's just a way of throwing a rock and running away.
Are you just playing a "team sport", and trying to make sure your side appears to "win" no matter if it's best for everyone or not? Or are you instead really interested in doing what helps the most people, and avoiding things which hurt them?
If so, then a better ideas is to focus on one topic at a time and spend some time trying figure out what is right -- before switching to another topic. It would be fine with me if you wanted to just respond to one point. I'd rather have one quality statement showing some thought than a hundred lame one-liners.
If we are to get beyond our disagreements, we can only start by talking about them. Do you not agree?
Hint: (a) I started a semi-political blog with completely open comments, (b) I hope to bait liberals like yourself into coming here and responding, and (c) rather than delete your comments, I took what you cut-'n'-pasted seriously and tried to respond honestly to every point you raised.
So guess: Do I believe in talking with people who disagree with me? :-)
I am sure there has to be some middle ground here.. If our great country is to succeed we need to come together. Do you not agree?
Oh, you want "our great country" to "come together"? Sorry, I seem to have gotten the opposite impression somehow.
Should we "come together"? Depends what you mean by this. Certainly some areas should be no-brainers, such as national defense.
Let me give you an example of where I think we could "come together": A deeply and self-professing "anti-American" reporter is speeding towards a checkpoint. Her driver ends up dead. US soldiers say the car refused to stop despite many warnings. She says they're lying.
Until all the data comes in, regardless of whether we agree with the whole Iraq thing or not, who should we tentatively trust? Our own boys, or a publicly-avowed hater of our entire country?
I can see remaining neutral. I can also see taking our own boys' words over hers until the evidence comes in. (After all, she's already accused the US of using nuclear weapons in Iraq -- if that doesn't disqualify one's testimony, I'm not sure what would.) But I cannot see reflexively siding with our avowed enmies against our own country and citizens, as so many on the left do, and have again done in this incident.
This seems to me a symptom of a profound sickness among the left, in general.
But on the other hand, there are ways in which I have no interest in "coming together." You on the left typically adopt some position which is FAR left of center, then you DEMAND it be implemented. Then, appearing to be conciliatory, you (plural) say "let's compromise", which means that you move far to the left, and the rest of are still suppoesd to move left.
In general, we should be trying to choose the most helpful policy, not just blend two opposites. In elected office, we must compromise politically to get things done, of course, but in our personal ideals it is your job -- and mine -- to find out which policies work, not just blindly combine two positions.
Consider: If policy A kills 5000 people, and policy B saves 1000 lives, should you and I just agree to believe in some policy halfway between, which kills "only" 2000? No, each of us should try to be sure which policy helps, and which hurts.
The problem with so much of the left is that little tiny detail -- which helps and which hurts -- frequently seems utterly uninteresting to them. You're welcomed to demonstrate your exceptionality.
The study about the supposedly higher divorce rate in red states reminds me of a well-known study by Barna Research showing that atheists were less likely to divorce than were Christians (well, most Christians; Lutherans and Catholics had an equally low divorce rate). However, this study never said what percentage of atheists married in the first place, so it was impossible to tell whether their divorce rate as a percentage of their marriages was really lower. (Barna had a profile of the various religious factions it polled, and it seemed that atheists I tried contacting Barna, but they didn't respond. But both religious and secular websites grabbed onto this survey, the former with dismay, the latter with glee. But I'd like to see the figures of each group who did marry; I'm a Lutheran and I'm curious as to whether my group's low divorce rate is really an artifact of stabler marriage or of the fact that we don't marry that much!
"During the civil war, it was, of course, racism which was the primary issue. Yet throughout the 20th century Democrats supported the KKK, euthenasia, and eugenics."
The reversal of moral stance between republicans and democrats is well known. What do you support now? What percentage of republicans vs. democrats are KKK members now? Who are the signatories on the Partnership for a New American Millenium white paper advocating research into biological weapons which target specific genotypes (and hence advocating eugenics)? You're trying to hide republican jigoism behind a historical curiosity.
" When Hitler arose, he received hearty support from the American left, including the founder of Planned Parenthood. "
When Hitler arose, he was bankrolled by Prescot Bush, our glorious president's grandfather. Heil Bush!
"When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, it was opposed by Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who has never renounced his Klan membership and still serves as Democratic leader."
See above
Update on that Barna poll: in 2004 Barna conducted a poll asking only people who had been married whether they had ever been divorced. The divorce rate for atheists and agnostics was 38%, just below Protestants in general at 39% but above Catholics (at 25%). That is in contrast with the 1999 poll showing that only 21% of atheists and agnostics had been divorced. The discrepancy between the 1999 and 2004 polls is likely due to the fact that many of the 79% of atheists and agnostics who had not been divorced simply were never married in the first place. Hence the danger in asking about divorce without considering whether the respondent was married in the first place...
Now, listen to me for a second here guys, because I have an idea, and it is going to seem REALLY crazy at first.
I was reading the above article, and some of the posts, and I just started thinking to myself, "Self, wouldn't it be so much easier, when taking polls to determine divorce rates among certain groups or in certain locations, to have what I might term a "qualifier question"? Maybe, for example, while trying to determine the divorce rate among atheists, we could first determine if the respondents had ever been or currently are married. Maybe from there we could "seperate" the respondents who answered yes from the respondents who answered no. Perhaps from there we might decide to move on to "disqualifing" those who answered no, they have never been/are not currently, married, and then base our results, as crazy as it sounds, purely on those members of the atheist community who have been in a position to get a divorce. One day we might even want to publish this new, "honest", poll for public consumption. Now, I know Self, you're probably thinking this very moment what I myself was thinking not ten minutes ago when the idea first came to me. I have thought about it, and no, I have not been smoking anything out of the ordinary today. So Self, what do you think? Could it ever really work?"
Unfortunatly, Self was unable to give me a clear answer as to what he thinks. He said he needed to seriously mull it over for a few days, so I thought the next best thing would be to ask you guys. So, could my idea work? Could this new, "honest" poll ever exist in the near future? Or am I in need of proffessional help? Maybe the answer to both those questions is "yes"? Who knows? THE SHADOW KNOWS!!! HeHeHeHeHaHaHoHoHOOOOOO!
The reversal of moral stance between republicans and democrats is well known. What do you support now?
The Democrats claimed to have reversed their moral stance -- yet they still support treating people different on the basis of their race -- supporting "affirmative action" -- a policy which implies minorities are inherantly inferior to whites. They also receive tons of money from Planned Parenthood, whose clinics still target minories for abortion.
But the argument that Republicans changed seems to be baseless as best I can determine: apparently Democrats wnat charge their opponents with their own sins. Like I said, the only Klan member still in government is an honored Democrat.
And of course, for you, support for eugenics and nearly a century's coordinated action with the KKK is a mere mere "historical curiosity" -- showing how little the issue actually concerns you. "Oh we kept blacks down? Ach, don't get excited about that little thing."
What percentage of republicans vs. democrats are KKK members now?
As far as I know, the Klan is basicly dead. Five years ago, there were only about 20 Klan members in Chicago, and about 6 in St. Louis. That probably makes 100 people nationwide, tops. Once the Democratic party stopped sheltering and working with them, they basicly had no-where to go.
Of course, if you'd like to look into the modern US Nazi movement (nazi.org), you'll find they're very much in line with liberal ideas: they hate Jews and Christians, are deeply "green", hate capitalism, believe in a socialist-style government, etc. You'd get along just great!
Of course, those are all things Hitler felt too, so the left really hasn't changed all that much.
Who are the signatories on the Partnership for a New American Millenium white paper advocating research into biological weapons which target specific genotypes (and hence advocating eugenics)?
Yes, I did look into this: What a lie! How can you think you're associated with good people when you blindly quote such dishonesty! It didn't advocate making such weapons, it warned against them, warning that terrorist might design and use such weapons.
Don't the lies ever bother you? I'd guess not: when you're able to dismiss a century of direct collaboration with the KKK as a "historical curiosity", I guess you can convince yourself of anything.
When Hitler arose, he was bankrolled by Prescot Bush, our glorious president's grandfather. Heil Bush!
The Democratic party advocated the eugenic policies which inspired Hitler. Planned Parenthood, which launched a plan to sterilize blacks and the mentally retarded, is still a major donor to your party. Your party worked with the KKK, still honors a former Klan member who never renounced it, and still advocates racist policies which hurt blacks. Antisemitism is again popular on the left. And Joseph P. Kennedy, JFK and Teddy's father, was a notorious anti-semite and open supporter of the Nazis.
And you're worried one of Bush's grandparents once held one share of stock, and an unpaid position on the board of directors, in a company which did business with a Germany company???
Look, I personally don't blame people for what long-dead relatives did -- JFK, Teddy, nor Bush. If a friend's Dad was a murderer, it doesn't make him guilty. But, hey, since you think that way, why not look into your own attic? You've got living KKK members in there.
Bush has one questionable grandparent who looks like he might have been a bit greedy. Meanwhile, your entire party advocated the eugenics polices that Hitler put into practice. And they still treat blacks as inferiors.
That's not a real strong platform from which to be crowing about your righteousness.
Couple of updates:
(1) Robert Byrd has now finally said he regretted his Klan involvement. Gosh, most the rest of the Democrats took care of that in the 1960s -- what took him so long? Well, good that he did it anyway, good for him.
(2) If you want to read something hilarious, read the comments here from the girl who posted above! She said she wanted to start a "dialoge" but apparently that only meant that she was supposed to (1) cut and paste lots of baseless accusations written by someone else, and then (2) run away when they were actually -- gasp! -- answered.
Once I pasted your posts on this site, exactly what I anticipated did indeed happen. An entire tirade of absurdatities followed on his post. He states facts that I wonder if are not just coming out of no where.
Gosh, would hate to have to do some research to find out if what he was saying was actually true. How terribly inconvenient. Let's ask someone else to do it for us....
Nonetheless, I would like to see some kind of reasonable responce and help on this issue. Here is the site. I hope you will visit it and post some responses.... Again, I hope we cn just "all get along" Ha!
Terry -- and others who end up here from that post -- I'd love to have a nice, friendly debate with you, but you don't get one of those by starting out by throwing stones. And if you want to have a dialog, you'll have to, you know, respond.
And it's irresponsible to have other people do your thinking for you -- if you don't know politics, that's fine, but it's irresponsible to say (a) Help! I don't know what I'm doing! and (b) Now, everybody OBEY ME and do what I demand!!!
I'd like to point out that the rates of the divorce are fully 50+% higher in the so called "red" states. You would have to have a significantly higher rate of marriage in those states to make up the difference. It is a mute point though for those of us who are agnostic or atheist, because marriage is something that you do when you really want to spend the rest of your life with someone, not something you do when you can't keep it in you pants anymore and feel a moral obligation to be "married" before you have sex. The point is that those who are the most vocal about the deteriorating state of "marriage" in this country really should be exemplary and they are not.
Second, it is true that a certain number of funds need to be distributed to sparsely populated states to fund interstate highways. National lands are managed nationally and not by the individual states. If you want to use money earned as a sign of self sufficiency then, yes, those states which are wealthier are more self sufficient. The point is that it is frequently the far right that complains about the tax scheme, but it is everyday republicans who are barely making it by that benefit from the very scheme that they complain about. It is largely the republican elite businessmen in the "blue" states that benefit most from the most recent tax cuts. Bush is really a New Englander.
That brings up another issue. Liberal and conservative and very relative terms and difficult to pin down. Certainly you can not call our current republican leadership as conservative in the fiscal sense when you are refering to size of government. Yes, Bush has cut taxes, but at the same time government size has increased at a far greater rate than during the Clinton years. Currently 12+% off the national budget each year goes to interest payments on the debt. That percentage has been climbing the last several years, which means that our current government is willing to mortgage our future to continue maintaining our current lifestyle.
Tim-life is getting more complex by the day, I can see from your writing how easily you can become frustrated trying to figure things out. Keep working at it. Try a little more tolerance. If you really want to be mad about something, get mad about a lack of lobby reform, both parties have been bought and sold to someone, neither may be looking out for your interests. Above all, if you really want to see the political process a little more accurately try to reign in some of those biases you have.
Good luck.
For more on Red State generosity, you'd do well to read this.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Love Your Enemies? |
Front Page |
Page Two
| European Relations under Bush and the Neocons »
|
Dear President Bush:
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals.
Actually, we're a bit ticked off here in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. Of course we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon,
Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast.
We spoke to God, and She agrees that this split will be
beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of
California. In fact, God is so excited about it, She's going to shift
the whole country at 4:30 PM EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone
know they need to be back in their states by then.
So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator (ewh!),
stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get
Kenneth Lay. (Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that.)
We get the Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, Yosemite, Maui, Kaui and the great Northwest. You get OpryLand and Dollywood.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Stanford, Harvard, MIT, USC and UCLA. You get Ole Miss.
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi have to offer.
We get about two-thirds of the entire US tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian coalition's, we
get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and
we know how much you like that.
Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs. Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts. And that's if they'll sell YOU any.
Guess you won't be seeing any Hollywood movies soon either. But you can show reruns of your innauguration every night.....it did costs nearly as much.
Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and
pro-family. ALL families. We'll let you figure out what that means.
We'll give you a hint though: "Civil unions" are crap. We're pro-marriage
all the way here.
Oh yeah, we're also anti-war, so we're going to want all the
Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask
your evangelical/zealot breeders. They crank out tons of kids they abuse, don't take care of and are willing to send to their deaths without questioning the cause. They don't even care if you don't show
pictures of their kids' caskets coming home because it might hurt your strategy.
Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope,
really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq one day. Seriously, because who knows how many other countries those kids will be dying in if you don't! Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.
Sincerely,
The United Blue States of California
(AKA: Canada, Jr.)
Posted by: terry on March 6, 2005 01:07 AM