I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most vulnerable are feeling it first.
Subject: Re: I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most vulnerable are feeling it first.
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:00:28 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>> with Obama in office.
>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.
>> I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>> that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>> in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>> the President by their votes.
> You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
> entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
> all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
> were skewed.
>> It looked like a land slide up until
>> HurricaneSandy.
> God hates republicans? Or are you blaming global warming?
> >In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
> >look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
> >Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
> >umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
> >share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
> >The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
> >coherent and connected.
> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
> complaining about their taxes.
> > >> >Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
> > >> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
> > >> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r= > > >edblue-paradox
> > >In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
> > >look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
> > >Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
> > >umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
> > >share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
> > >The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
> > >coherent and connected.
> > What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
> > complaining about their taxes.
> as they should ... along with immigration control, welfare rolls, and
> socialist liberals
you would starve without us. yet you hate us.
Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
States Are the Parasites:Rand predicted rightly that parasites
invariably despise the producers they feed on:you should be
embarrassed that red state behavior bears her out so clearly
http://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/Ayn_Rand_Worshippers_Should_Fa...
AlterNet / By Sara Robinson
Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the
Providers, Red States Are the Parasites There's only one way to
demonstrate who America's producers and parasites really are. It's
time to go Galt. February 29, 2012 |
Last week, the New York Times published a widely discussed article
updating an argument that progressive bloggers noticed a very long
time ago. It's now well-understood that blue states generally export
money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.
TPM published a great map showing exactly how this redistribution
works:
(click for larger version) Progressives believe in the redistribution
of wealth, so we're not usually too upset by this state of affairs.
Thats what it means to be one country. E pluribus unum, and all
that. Were happy to help, because we think weve got a stake in
making sure kids in rural Alabama get educations and seniors in
Arizona get healthcare. Whats good for them is good for all of us.
We also like to think theyd help us out if our positions were
reversed. Its an investment in making America stronger, and we feel
fine about that.
But maybe it's time to admit that we're being played for chumps, and
that there are people in the rest of the country who are taking way
too much advantage of our good nature. After all: it's now a stone
fact that the blue states and cities are the country's real wealth
creators. That's why we pay more taxes, and are able to send that
money to the red states in the first place. We're working our butts
off, being economically productive, going to college, raising good
kids, supporting reality-based schools, keeping our marriages
together, tending to our busy and diverse cities, and generally
Playing By The Rules. And the fates have smiled on us in rough
proportion to the degree that weve invested in our own common good.
So we've got every right to get good and angry about the fact that,
by and large, the people who are getting our money are so damned
ungrateful -- not to mention so ridiculously eager to spend it on
stuff we don't approve of. We didn't ship them our hard-earned tax
dollars to see them squandered on worse-than-useless abstinence-only
education, textbooks that teach creationism, crisis-pregnancy
misinformation centers, subsidies for GMO crops and oil companies,
and so on. And we sure as hell didn't expect to be rewarded for our
productivity and generosity with a rising tide of spittle-flecked
insanity about how were just a bunch of immoral, godless, drug-
soaked, sex-crazed, evil America-hating traitors who cant wait to
hand the country over to the Islamists and the Communists.
Ironically, the conservative movement's favorite philosopher had some
very insightful things to say about this exact situation. Ayn Rand's
novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized
"producers" -- noble, intelligent Übermenschen whose faith in their
own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams
drives everything else in society. And she called out the evil of
"parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to
producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.
Conservatives love this story. They're eager to claim the gleaming
mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is
going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's
darkly implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do. If you
want to arouse their class and race resentments, there are few
narratives that can get them rolling like this producers-versus-
parasites tale.
But the NYT story and that map up there prove beyond arguing that the
conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees,
flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly
concentrated in the blue cities and states -- the regions full of
smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to
money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places
in the country to live.
Advertisement
And the real parasites are centered in red states (the only
exceptions being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and
Texas) -- the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a
fading past, rejected science, substituted superstition for sense,
and refused to invest in their own futures. It's not unfair to say
that those regions are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling
labor, and expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about
their wealth- destroying ways.
And we producers have had enough.
Progressives Go Galt!
If you're a conservative who thinks Ayn Rand called it true with this
producers/parasites thing, then by all means: let's go there. All the
way there and then some. But fair warning is in order: you may not
like where we end up. By way of a modest proposal, I hereby declare
the birth of a new Progressive Objectivism a frankly producerist
personal- responsibility crusade aimed at getting these whiny red
leeches off our collective blue hide. If they think they can get by
without us, lets not stand in their way. What these people need from
us, at minimum, is some tough talk the kind of stern, grown-up
verbal whoop- ass the conservatives wouldnt hesitate for a moment to
unload on us if the roles were reversed. The time has come for blue
America to go Galt. Our farewell rant long and epic, as Rand's
turgid writing style would have required might sound a bit like
this: First off, dear Red Staters: If your towns economy depends on
a nearby dam, canal, harbor, airport, military base, interstate
highway, national park or monument, or prison, just STFU. Because you
are, in every way possible, a parasite, living off something the rest
of us paid to build.
Second: If you are a homeowner who takes a mortgage interest
deduction which is how the rest of us subsidize your house, and
with it your status in the middle-class we dont want to hear
another word from you about how you made it all on your own. And that
goes for those of you who got your education via the GI Bill, or took
out an SBA loan, or went to well-funded public schools back when such
things existed. You are what you are because we believed in you, and
invested in you. And were deeply insulted that you refuse to even
acknowledge that fact. Third: Don't come crawling to us to support
those kids you couldn't afford to have, but refused to allow
contraception or abortions or actual fact-based sex education to
prevent. It's just that simple. Our blue-state babies are better off
in every way that matters because we plan our families. A failure to
plan on your part does not create an obligation on ours. Your
policies force women to have kids, even when they're patently not
ready to have them. Now (as youre so fond of telling women who find
themselves unhappily pregnant), you get to live with the consequences
of those choices.
Fourth: Don't ask us to pay to educate your kids if you're not
willing to have us teach them what we know about the world. We
believe in free, comprehensive, rigorous and reality-based public
education because its done more than any other government service to
make us rich, powerful and successful; and we want the same for you.
We realize some of you aren't too keen on public schools. It's great
that you want to take on more personal responsibility for educating
your own kids. Just be warned: if you don't teach them real science
and real history including evolution, climate change and the actual
contents of the US Constitution we're probably not going to hire
them. So we hope you're also ready to take responsibility for that,
too, which will probably mean supporting your grown kids in your
basement until you die.
Advertisement
Fifth: Between federal water
...
Discussion subject changed to "I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most vulnerable are feeling it first." by Nickname unavailable
Subject: Re: I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most vulnerable are feeling it first.
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 00:48:07 -0800, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> This is what passes for argument among the illiterate Fox-Hannity true
> believers.
> >Aiding Obama's win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote.
> >The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since
> >2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was
> >enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for
> >overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in
> >Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for
> >ballots since 2008.
> Gee it made it more difficult to vote, how? by allowing email, online
> and fax voting? That's really hard.
> A reduction in ballots might not have anything to do with the fact we
> have far less military folks overseas now, given we're essentially out
> of Iraq and greatly reduced in Afghanistan?
> See the bait and switch? The law made it easier for military personnel
> to register and vote. But there are less soldiers over seas and away
> from home, but we use the correlation of less votes to say the law
> suppressed it. Typical BS.
remember, in "THE CONSERVATIVE WORLD", day is night, and night is
day.
> > In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military
> >voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer
> >overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant
> >considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.
> On Nov 12, 3:16 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 3:11 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:31:32 -0800 (PST), plainolamerican
>>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> MEMO
>>>>>> Attn: =A0Blue States
>>>>>> Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
>>>>> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
>>>>> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r= >>>> edblue-paradox
>>>> In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
>>>> look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
>>>> Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>>>> umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>>>> share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>>>> The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>>>> coherent and connected.
>>> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
>>> complaining about their taxes.
>> as they should ... along with immigration control, welfare rolls, and
>> socialist liberals
> you would starve without us. yet you hate us.
It's only your fantasy but the irony in it is really funny.
Considering how much you hate BIG OIL and ROMNEY and BIG BANKS.....
And then you try to raise their taxes so you can get free health care
and free birth control and free abortions and free cell phones.
Discussion subject changed to "I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most vulnerable are feeling it first." by Gunner
Subject: Re: I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most vulnerable are feeling it first.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:20:58 -0800, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:00:28 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
><ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>> with Obama in office.
>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.
>>I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>>that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>>in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>>the President by their votes.
>You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
>entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
>all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
>were skewed.
Oh look at the Leftwinger coughing up Far Leftwing talking points from
his little haven in Blue Country. Of course..he is mentally ill and
delusional.
>> It looked like a land slide up until
>>HurricaneSandy.
>God hates republicans? Or are you blaming global warming?
Democrats hate Republicans..and they are hardly G-d
>>After Sandy it was a win but not a land slide... and after Obama won I
>>had the realization that our elections are being stolen. Democrats
>>won the contest in stealing the ballots.
>They won by voting - despite the GOP's efforts to stop them.
You mean despite the GOPs efforts to stop the voter fraud. Thank you
for that admission.
>I'm just wondering how long it will be before you go out to use your
>Obamacare benefits.
Hell...some of us have already gone on welfare because you fat cat
Establishment types are going to take good care of us.
Gunner
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be
reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and
controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced,
if the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt. People must again
learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
> "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message
> news:h6_ns.1584$tk4.1001@newsfe25.iad...
>> On 11/11/2012 5:43 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 12:58 pm, Steve from Colorado
>>> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
>>>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>>>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>>>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>>>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>>>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>>>>>> will look like soon.
>>>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
>>>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
>>>>> 2000s
>>>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
>>>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
>>>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
>>>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,
>>>>> suggesting California is no longer perceived by most Americans as the
>>>>> land where dreams come true.
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Just a couple of observations per the articles:
>>>> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
>>>> Latin America. Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
>>>> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
>>>> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
>>>> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
>>>> overturning of PROP 187.
>>>> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it
>>>> now
>>>> resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
>>>> Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
>>>> orange groves. Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
>>>> '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
>>>> of Southern California. Other than the warm weather, it has little
>>>> going for it.
>>> A letter from the Blue States
>>> Dear Red States:
>>> We're ticked off at the way you've treated the Blue States, and we've
>>> decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're
>>> taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that
>>> includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Minnesota, Wiscon...
>>> sin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.
>>> To sum up briefly:
>>> You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell
>>> research and the best beaches.
>>> We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Opry Land. We get Harvard; you
>>> get Ole' Miss.
>>> We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you
>>> get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the
>>> red states pay their fair share.
>>> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
>>> Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families; you get a
>>> bunch of single moms.
>>> Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's
>>> fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the
>>> nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve
>>> French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the
>>> high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living
>>> redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
>>> plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
>>> With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
>>> Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
>>> mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
>>> of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
>>> Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
>>> We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
>>> 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by
>>> a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death
>>> penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that
>>> Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you
>>> are people with higher morals than we lefties.
>>> We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow
>>> in Mexico.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Blue States
>> Promise you'll take the Federal Reserve and bureaucrats?
>> I admit your secession would be entertaining and beat anything on cable.
>> Great programing - no laugh track necessary!
>> Unfortunately we'll never see it. The combination of Blacks, Latinos,
>> perverts and the White politically correct couldn't figure out how to
>> pour
>> piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the sole.
>> But keep a good thought Blue Staters, once the economy crashes and
>> unemployment
>> reaches its tipping point, you will be rewarded.
>> "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message
>> news:h6_ns.1584$tk4.1001@newsfe25.iad...
>>> On 11/11/2012 5:43 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>> On Nov 11, 12:58 pm, Steve from Colorado
>>>> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
>>>>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>>>>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>>>>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>>>>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>>>>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>>>>>>> will look like soon.
>>>>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
>>>>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
>>>>>> 2000s
>>>>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
>>>>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
>>>>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
>>>>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,
>>>>>> suggesting California is no longer perceived by most Americans as the
>>>>>> land where dreams come true.
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Just a couple of observations per the articles:
>>>>> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
>>>>> Latin America. Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
>>>>> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
>>>>> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
>>>>> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
>>>>> overturning of PROP 187.
>>>>> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it
>>>>> now
>>>>> resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
>>>>> Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
>>>>> orange groves. Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
>>>>> '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
>>>>> of Southern California. Other than the warm weather, it has little
>>>>> going for it.
>>>> A letter from the Blue States
>>>> Dear Red States:
>>>> We're ticked off at the way you've treated the Blue States, and we've
>>>> decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're
>>>> taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that
>>>> includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Minnesota, Wiscon...
>>>> sin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.
>>>> To sum up briefly:
>>>> You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell
>>>> research and the best beaches.
>>>> We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Opry Land. We get Harvard; you
>>>> get Ole' Miss.
>>>> We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you
>>>> get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the
>>>> red states pay their fair share.
>>>> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
>>>> Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families; you get a
>>>> bunch of single moms.
>>>> Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's
>>>> fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the
>>>> nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve
>>>> French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the
>>>> high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living
>>>> redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
>>>> plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
>>>> With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
>>>> Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
>>>> mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
>>>> of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
>>>> Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
>>>> We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
>>>> 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by
>>>> a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death
>>>> penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that
>>>> Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you
>>>> are people with higher morals than we lefties.
>>>> We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow
>>>> in Mexico.
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Blue States
>>> Promise you'll take the Federal Reserve and bureaucrats?
>>> I admit your secession would be entertaining and beat anything on cable.
>>> Great programing - no laugh track necessary!
>>> Unfortunately we'll never see it. The combination of Blacks, Latinos,
>>> perverts and the White politically correct couldn't figure out how to
>>> pour
>>> piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the sole.
>>> But keep a good thought Blue Staters, once the economy crashes and
>>> unemployment
>>> reaches its tipping point, you will be rewarded.
>> Did you ever pledge "...one nation, UNITED..."?
>I took an oath to defend the Constitution.
against its enemies.."both foreign and domestic"
Gunner raises his hand as well
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be
reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and
controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced,
if the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt. People must again
learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
Discussion subject changed to "I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most vulnerable are feeling it first." by deep
Subject: Re: I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most vulnerable are feeling it first.
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 11/12/2012 9:20 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:00:28 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>>> with Obama in office.
>>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.
>>> I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>>> that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>>> in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>>> the President by their votes.
>> You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
>> entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
>> all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
>> were skewed.
>And they were all skewed in 2010.
>My only mistake was to think Democrats couldn't steal an election... I
>guess I under estimated the depths they could sink to.
>Polls are really useless and I told you the poll that would count would
>be the Nov 6, poll. So I'm right about some of it.
You are right about nothing. Nothing whatsover. All you know is hate
obsessed rants against things you can't understand.
Subject: Re: I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most vulnerable are feeling it first.
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:15:55 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 9:20 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:00:28 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>>>> with Obama in office.
>>>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.
>>>> I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>>>> that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>>>> in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>>>> the President by their votes.
>>> You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
>>> entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
>>> all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
>>> were skewed. >> And they were all skewed in 2010.
>> My only mistake was to think Democrats couldn't steal an election... I
>> guess I under estimated the depths they could sink to.
>> Polls are really useless and I told you the poll that would count would
>> be the Nov 6, poll. So I'm right about some of it.
> You are right about nothing. Nothing whatsover. All you know is hate
> obsessed rants against things you can't understand.
Actually I was absolutely correct about the economy being manipulated
and the fact Obama policies would create StagFlation.... because it's
here.
The fact I didn't consider the theft of ballots on a grand scale was my
mistake, there is no limit to the corruption of government in the USA. Obama can BUY Senate SEATS, and apparently he can buy an election if he
can afford to stuff the election boxes.
> > > >> >Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
> > > >> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
> > > >> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r= > > > >edblue-paradox
> > > >In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
> > > >look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
> > > >Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
> > > >umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
> > > >share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
> > > >The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
> > > >coherent and connected.
> > > What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
> > > complaining about their taxes.
> > as they should ... along with immigration control, welfare rolls, and
> > socialist liberals
> you would starve without us. yet you hate us.
> Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
> States Are the Parasites:Rand predicted rightly that parasites
> invariably despise the producers they feed on:you should be
> embarrassed that red state behavior bears her out so clearlyhttp://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/Ayn_Rand_Worshippers_Should_Fa...
> AlterNet / By Sara Robinson
> Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the
> Providers, Red States Are the Parasites There's only one way to
> demonstrate who America's producers and parasites really are. It's
> time to go Galt. February 29, 2012 |
> Last week, the New York Times published a widely discussed article
> updating an argument that progressive bloggers noticed a very long
> time ago. It's now well-understood that blue states generally export
> money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.
> TPM published a great map showing exactly how this redistribution
> works:
> (click for larger version) Progressives believe in the redistribution
> of wealth, so we're not usually too upset by this state of affairs.
> Thats what it means to be one country. E pluribus unum, and all
> that. Were happy to help, because we think weve got a stake in
> making sure kids in rural Alabama get educations and seniors in
> Arizona get healthcare. Whats good for them is good for all of us.
> We also like to think theyd help us out if our positions were
> reversed. Its an investment in making America stronger, and we feel
> fine about that.
> But maybe it's time to admit that we're being played for chumps, and
> that there are people in the rest of the country who are taking way
> too much advantage of our good nature. After all: it's now a stone
> fact that the blue states and cities are the country's real wealth
> creators. That's why we pay more taxes, and are able to send that
> money to the red states in the first place. We're working our butts
> off, being economically productive, going to college, raising good
> kids, supporting reality-based schools, keeping our marriages
> together, tending to our busy and diverse cities, and generally
> Playing By The Rules. And the fates have smiled on us in rough
> proportion to the degree that weve invested in our own common good.
> So we've got every right to get good and angry about the fact that,
> by and large, the people who are getting our money are so damned
> ungrateful -- not to mention so ridiculously eager to spend it on
> stuff we don't approve of. We didn't ship them our hard-earned tax
> dollars to see them squandered on worse-than-useless abstinence-only
> education, textbooks that teach creationism, crisis-pregnancy
> misinformation centers, subsidies for GMO crops and oil companies,
> and so on. And we sure as hell didn't expect to be rewarded for our
> productivity and generosity with a rising tide of spittle-flecked
> insanity about how were just a bunch of immoral, godless, drug-
> soaked, sex-crazed, evil America-hating traitors who cant wait to
> hand the country over to the Islamists and the Communists.
> Ironically, the conservative movement's favorite philosopher had some
> very insightful things to say about this exact situation. Ayn Rand's
> novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized
> "producers" -- noble, intelligent Übermenschen whose faith in their
> own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams
> drives everything else in society. And she called out the evil of
> "parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to
> producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.
> Conservatives love this story. They're eager to claim the gleaming
> mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is
> going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's
> darkly implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do. If you
> want to arouse their class and race resentments, there are few
> narratives that can get them rolling like this producers-versus-
> parasites tale.
> But the NYT story and that map up there prove beyond arguing that the
> conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees,
> flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly
> concentrated in the blue cities and states -- the regions full of
> smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to
> money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places
> in the country to live.
> Advertisement
> And the real parasites are centered in red states (the only
> exceptions being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and
> Texas) -- the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a
> fading past, rejected science, substituted superstition for sense,
> and refused to invest in their own futures. It's not unfair to say
> that those regions are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling
> labor, and expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about
> their wealth- destroying ways.
> And we producers have had enough.
> Progressives Go Galt!
> If you're a conservative who thinks Ayn Rand called it true with this
> producers/parasites thing, then by all means: let's go there. All the
> way there and then some. But fair warning is in order: you may not
> like where we end up. By way of a modest proposal, I hereby declare
> the birth of a new Progressive Objectivism a frankly producerist
> personal- responsibility crusade aimed at getting these whiny red
> leeches off our collective blue hide. If they think they can get by
> without us, lets not stand in their way. What these people need from
> us, at minimum, is some tough talk the kind of stern, grown-up
> verbal whoop- ass the conservatives wouldnt hesitate for a moment to
> unload on us if the roles were reversed. The time has come for blue
> America to go Galt. Our farewell rant long and epic, as Rand's
> turgid writing style would have required might sound a bit like
> this: First off, dear Red Staters: If your towns economy depends on
> a nearby dam, canal, harbor, airport, military base, interstate
> highway, national park or monument, or prison, just STFU. Because you
> are, in every way possible, a parasite, living off something the rest
> of us paid to build.
> Second: If you are a homeowner who takes a mortgage interest
> deduction which is how the rest of us subsidize your house, and
> with it your status in the middle-class we dont want to hear
> another word from you about how you made it all on your own. And that
> goes for those of you who got your education via the GI Bill, or took
> out an SBA loan, or went to well-funded public schools back when such
> things existed. You are what you are because we believed in you, and
> invested in you. And were deeply insulted that you refuse to even
> acknowledge that fact. Third: Don't come crawling to us to support
> those kids you couldn't afford to have, but refused to allow
> contraception or abortions or actual fact-based sex education to
> prevent. It's just that simple. Our blue-state babies are better off
> in every way that matters because we plan our families. A failure to
> plan on your part does not create an obligation on ours. Your
> policies force women to have kids, even when they're patently not
> ready to have them. Now (as youre so fond of telling women who find
> themselves unhappily pregnant), you get to live with the consequences
> of those choices.
> Fourth: Don't ask us to pay to educate your kids if you're not
> willing to have us teach them what we know about the world. We
> believe in free, comprehensive, rigorous and reality-based public
> education because its done more than any other government service to
> make us rich, powerful and successful; and we want the same for you.
> We realize some of you aren't too keen on public schools. It's great
> that you want to take on more personal responsibility for educating
> your own kids. Just be warned: if
On Nov 13, 10:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> you would starve without us
> ---
> speculation noted ... not shared
> that you even try to segregate Americans with red and blue colors says
> tons about your intellect.
i am not the one preaching hate.
gee maybe after decades of lying and hate directed at liberals and
civil society, a few "CONSERVATIVES" may be getting it: zero tolerance
with the terrible tone thats coming out of the talk radio universe
and some of our leaders in Congress who are serially disrespectful to
this fastest-growing demographic in the country.
Rush Limbaugh Slams GOP Blame Game: Apparently Im The Primary
Reason For Election Loss
audio
by Meenal Vamburkar | 10:41 pm, November 12th, 2012
On Mondays installment of his show, Rush Limbaugh hit back at those
attributing part of the Mitt Romneys election loss on, among other
things, talk radio. Criticizing the GOP ruling class, Limbaugh also
argued that the media and Democrats will ensure that Republicans are
not perceived as pro-Latino.
Just as I predicted, ladies and gentlemen, Limbaugh began, this
election was lost because of your host, Rush Limbaugh. I am the
primary reason.
There are others, but Im the primary reason the Republican Party
lost, he continued. And I am, by the way, the primary reason the
Republican Party will keep losing, until I am denounced by the
Republican Party.
He went on to talk about the ruling class of the Republican party.
We, the country class, are not in the ruling class, he said. Were
the problem.
As an example, he pointed to Steve Schmidts recent remarks, wherein
he said Republicans need zero tolerance with the terrible tone thats
coming out of the talk radio universe and some of our leaders in
Congress who are serially disrespectful to this fastest-growing
demographic in the country.
Additionally, he argued that Democrats arent exactly looking out for
the GOPs best interests when they offer up advice. To that point, he
asked Republicans a question: Do you really think that the Democrat
Party will ever allow you Republicans to be seen as pro-Latino and pro-
immigration? (Hint: no.)
All it takes is one person be it an elected official or a talk radio
host disagreeing with the direction the party is taking, and the
Democrats and the media will focus on that person and say, See? The
Republicans really are anti-immigrant!
The Democrats will always come up with a position that tests the
Republicans limit, Limbaugh said. Theyll always find some extreme
position that the Republicans just cant agree with in order to be
able to claim the Republicans are anti-female, anti-woman, anti-
abortion, anti-immigrant.
they just cannot shut the demagogues up can they: the hate, lying and
demagoguing is still going on: Bill OReilly Decries Secular
Progressives Who Are Bent On Destroying Traditional America(white)
Bill OReilly Decries Secular Progressives Who Are Bent On
Destroying Traditional America
by Meenal Vamburkar | 9:13 pm, November 12th, 2012
Is traditional America gone for good? Thats the question Bill
OReilly tackled during his Talking Points Memo on Monday night.
Criticizing secular progressives, OReilly called for the right kind
of politician who will help us confront the reality of our
situation.
Traditional America can come back, OReilly said, with the right
person to make it happen. Specifically, he pointed to Mitt Romneys
electoral loss among blacks, women and Latinos. It was an entitlement
election, he said.
The media would have you believing the election confirmed election
ideology. While thats not true, he said, secularism is eroding
traditional power.
On paper, the stats look hopeless for traditional Americans,
OReilly said. But they can be reversed. However, it will take a very
special politician to do that. By the way, Mitt Romney didnt even try
to marginalize secularism. He basically ignored it.
Secular progressives dont have the right approach, he argued, because
they dont want judgment on personal behavior. For examples, OReilly
pointed to the issues of out-of-wedlock births, abortion and
entitlements. Secular progressives dont want limitations on so-
called private behavior, he said.
The majority of Americans can be persuaded, OReilly said, that the
far-left is dangerous outfit, bent of destroying traditional America
and replacing it with a social free-fire zone that drives dependency
and poverty. We need to confront that, he added. But too many of our
politicians are too cowardly to do so.
> > On 11/11/2012 5:43 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >> On Nov 11, 12:58 pm, Steve from Colorado
> >> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
> >>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
> >>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> >>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> >>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> >>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> >>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> >>>>> will look like soon.
> >>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
> >>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
> >>>> 2000s
> >>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
> >>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
> >>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
> >>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,
> >>>> suggesting California is no longer perceived by most Americans as the
> >>>> land where dreams come true.
> >>> <snip>
> >>> Just a couple of observations per the articles:
> >>> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
> >>> Latin America. Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
> >>> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
> >>> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
> >>> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
> >>> overturning of PROP 187.
> >>> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it now
> >>> resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
> >>> Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
> >>> orange groves. Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
> >>> '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
> >>> of Southern California. Other than the warm weather, it has little
> >>> going for it.
> >> A letter from the Blue States
> >> Dear Red States:
> >> We're ticked off at the way you've treated the Blue States, and we've
> >> decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're
> >> taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that
> >> includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Minnesota, Wiscon...
> >> sin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.
> >> To sum up briefly:
> >> You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell
> >> research and the best beaches.
> >> We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Opry Land. We get Harvard; you
> >> get Ole' Miss.
> >> We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you
> >> get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the
> >> red states pay their fair share.
> >> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
> >> Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families; you get a
> >> bunch of single moms.
> >> Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's
> >> fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the
> >> nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve
> >> French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the
> >> high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living
> >> redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
> >> plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
> >> With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
> >> Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
> >> mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
> >> of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
> >> Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
> >> We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
> >> 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by
> >> a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death
> >> penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that
> >> Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you
> >> are people with higher morals than we lefties.
> >> We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow
> >> in Mexico.
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Blue States
> > Promise you'll take the Federal Reserve and bureaucrats?
> > I admit your secession would be entertaining and beat anything on cable.
> > Great programing - no laugh track necessary!
> > Unfortunately we'll never see it. The combination of Blacks, Latinos,
> > perverts and the White politically correct couldn't figure out how to pour
> > piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the sole.
> > But keep a good thought Blue Staters, once the economy crashes and
> > unemployment
> > reaches its tipping point, you will be rewarded.
> Did you ever pledge "...one nation, UNITED..."?
Did you ever pledge "...one nation, UNITED..."
---
as if minorities want to be united. They prefer to segregate
themselves on racial and ethnic lines.
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:42:43 -0500, Strabo <str...@flashlight.com>
> wrote:
> >On 11/11/2012 11:47 PM, Sid9 wrote:
> >> "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message
> >>news:h6_ns.1584$tk4.1001@newsfe25.iad...
> >>> On 11/11/2012 5:43 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 11, 12:58 pm, Steve from Colorado
> >>>> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
> >>>>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> >>>>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> >>>>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> >>>>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> >>>>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> >>>>>>> will look like soon.
> >>>>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
> >>>>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
> >>>>>> 2000s
> >>>>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
> >>>>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
> >>>>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
> >>>>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,
> >>>>>> suggesting California is no longer perceived by most Americans as the
> >>>>>> land where dreams come true.
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>> Just a couple of observations per the articles:
> >>>>> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
> >>>>> Latin America. Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
> >>>>> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
> >>>>> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
> >>>>> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
> >>>>> overturning of PROP 187.
> >>>>> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it
> >>>>> now
> >>>>> resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
> >>>>> Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
> >>>>> orange groves. Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
> >>>>> '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
> >>>>> of Southern California. Other than the warm weather, it has little
> >>>>> going for it.
> >>>> A letter from the Blue States
> >>>> Dear Red States:
> >>>> We're ticked off at the way you've treated the Blue States, and we've
> >>>> decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're
> >>>> taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that
> >>>> includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Minnesota, Wiscon...
> >>>> sin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.
> >>>> To sum up briefly:
> >>>> You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell
> >>>> research and the best beaches.
> >>>> We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Opry Land. We get Harvard; you
> >>>> get Ole' Miss.
> >>>> We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you
> >>>> get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the
> >>>> red states pay their fair share.
> >>>> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
> >>>> Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families; you get a
> >>>> bunch of single moms.
> >>>> Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's
> >>>> fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the
> >>>> nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve
> >>>> French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the
> >>>> high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living
> >>>> redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
> >>>> plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
> >>>> With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
> >>>> Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
> >>>> mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
> >>>> of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
> >>>> Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
> >>>> We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
> >>>> 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by
> >>>> a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death
> >>>> penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that
> >>>> Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you
> >>>> are people with higher morals than we lefties.
> >>>> We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow
> >>>> in Mexico.
> >>>> Sincerely,
> >>>> Blue States
> >>> Promise you'll take the Federal Reserve and bureaucrats?
> >>> I admit your secession would be entertaining and beat anything on cable.
> >>> Great programing - no laugh track necessary!
> >>> Unfortunately we'll never see it. The combination of Blacks, Latinos,
> >>> perverts and the White politically correct couldn't figure out how to
> >>> pour
> >>> piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the sole.
> >>> But keep a good thought Blue Staters, once the economy crashes and
> >>> unemployment
> >>> reaches its tipping point, you will be rewarded.
> >> Did you ever pledge "...one nation, UNITED..."?
> >I took an oath to defend the Constitution.
> against its enemies.."both foreign and domestic"
> Gunner raises his hand as well
> "The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be
> reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and
> controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced,
> if the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt. People must again
> learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
> (Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 B.C.)
Payments to foreign governments must be reduced
---
no ... eliminated. We owe them nothing.
<video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 12:30 pm, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> keep doubling down on what does not work "CONSERVATIVE", its the way
> your type does things.
> meanwhile, your policies of greed, selfishness, wealth worshiping,
> deregulation(which is nothing more than thievery), hatreds, etc. has
> turn offed tens of millions of people.
> california is now turning deep blue, even though its the birthplace
> of reaganomics, and nixon.
> but, arizona is turning blue, nevada is turning blue, new mexico is
> turning blue, colorado is turning blue. so your article is pure
> "CONSERVATIVE" crap as usual.
> California GOP Showing Worries Party Strategists
> By MICHAEL R. BLOOD 11/10/12 06:46 PM ET EST
> LOS ANGELES If the future happens first in California, the
> Republican Party has a problem.
> The nation's most populous state home to 1 in 8 Americans has
> entered a period of Democratic political control so far-reaching that
> the dwindling number of Republicans in the Legislature are in danger
> of becoming mere spectators at the statehouse.
> Democrats hold the governorship and every other statewide office. They
> gained even more ground in Tuesday's elections, picking up at least
> three congressional seats while votes continue to be counted in two
> other tight races in one upset, Democrat Raul Ruiz, a Harvard-
> educated physician who mobilized a district's growing swath of
> Hispanic voters, pushed out longtime Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack.
> The party also secured a supermajority in one, and possibly both,
> chambers in the Legislature.
> "Republican leaders should look at California and shudder," says Steve
> Schmidt, who managed John McCain's 2008 campaign and anchored former
> Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election team in 2006. "The
> two-party system has collapsed."
> Republican voter registration has dipped so low less than 30 percent
> that the party's future state candidates will be hobbled from the
> start.
> Republicans searching for a new direction after Mitt Romney's defeat
> will inevitably examine why President Barack Obama rolled up more than
> 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote, and 9 of 10 votes among
> blacks, essential ingredients in his victory. Women also supported
> Obama over Romney nationally and in California, where they broke for
> the president by 27 percentage points.
> There is no better place to witness how demographic shifts have shaped
> elections than in California, the home turf of Richard Nixon and
> Ronald Reagan that just a generation ago was a reliably Republican
> state in presidential contests.
> A surge in immigrants transformed the state, and its voting patterns.
> The number of Hispanics, blacks and Asians combined has outnumbered
> whites since 1998 in California, and by 2020 the Hispanic population
> alone is expected to top that of whites. With Latinos, for example,
> voter surveys show they've overwhelmingly favored Democratic
> presidential candidates for decades. Similar shifts are taking place
> across the nation.
> "There are demographic changes in the American electorate that we saw
> significantly, first, here in California and Republicans nationally
> are not reacting to them," said Jim Brulte, a former Republican leader
> in the California Senate.
> "Romney overwhelmingly carried the white vote 20 years ago, that
> would have meant an electoral landslide. Instead, he lost by 2 million
> votes" in the state, Brulte said.
> Perhaps no part of the state better illustrates how Republicans
> surrendered ground than in Orange County, once a largely white, GOP
> bastion where Nixon's seaside home became known as the Western White
> House.
> Today, whites make up a little more than 40 percent of the population,
> while 2 in 10 residents are Asian and about 1 in 3 is Hispanic,
> according to the census.
> In 1980, Jimmy Carter managed to collect about a quarter of the vote
> against Reagan in the county. But by 1996, with the county
> diversifying, Bill Clinton grabbed 38 percent of the vote, and Al Gore
> boosted that to 40 percent in 2000. This year, Obama won 44 percent of
> the vote in Orange County, according to preliminary returns.
> Romney "implemented a winning election strategy for 1980," University
> of Southern California professor Patrick James said in a statement
> issued by the school. "If you look at the demographics and voting
> proportions, the Reagan coalition would not win a majority today."
> Celeste Greig, president of the conservative California Republican
> Assembly, said in an email to supporters Friday that the party was in
> need of a makeover, emphasizing Main Street over Wall Street.
> "We have to admit that as a party in California, we're just plain
> disorganized," she wrote.
> Romney bypassed California this year, waging his fight in
> battlegrounds such as Ohio and Florida. In claiming the biggest
> electoral prize in America, California's 55 electoral votes, Obama
> rolled up a nearly 21 percent margin. Voters also returned Democratic
> Sen. Dianne Feinstein to Washington in a landslide, after Republicans
> put up a virtually unknown candidate, Elizabeth Emken, an autism
> activist who had never held elected office.
> Independents now outnumber Republicans in 13 congressional districts
> in California, a trend analysts predict will continue.
> California counted more registered Republicans in 1988 than it does
> today, although the population has grown by about 10 million over that
> time. You'd have to go back to that year to find a Republican
> presidential candidate who carried the state, George H.W. Bush.
> Surprisingly, Democrats continued to make gains in the state even at a
> time of double-digit unemployment, with polls showing that voters are
> unhappy with Sacramento and Washington. And it could get worse for the
> GOP. Republicans are trailing in two other House races in which the
> vote counting continues.
> It remains unclear what direction Democrats, who have close ties to
> public employee unions, will take with their additional clout. If they
> achieve the supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, Democrats
> can pass tax increases and override gubernatorial vetoes without any
> Republican support.
> The state is saddled with a litany of problems, including a long-
> running budget crisis, massive, unfunded public pension obligations,
> tuition increases at California universities and growing demands for
> water, affordable housing and energy.
> Gov. Jerry Brown sounded a cautionary note this week, saying he
> intended to avoid spending binges.
> Still, Democrats believe they have the state's demographics on their
> side with a message that appeals to a younger, more diverse
> population.
> More than half the young voters in the state, ages 18 to 39, are
> Hispanic, according to the independent Field Poll. Thirty-five percent
> are Asian. If you look into a classroom in the Los Angeles area
> tomorrow's voters 3 of 4 kids are Hispanic.
> The GOP retains pockets of influence regionally, including rural,
> inland areas.
> Republican National Committee member Shawn Steel has been pushing the
> party to become more aggressive about recruiting Asians.
> "It's not just all about the Latinos," he says.
> Schmidt traces GOP troubles with Hispanics to 1994, when voters with
> encouragement from Republican Gov. Pete Wilson enacted Proposition
> 187, which prohibited illegal immigrants from using health care,
> education or other social services.
> The law eventually was overturned, but it left lingering resentment
> with many Hispanics at a time when the Latino population was growing
> swiftly and becoming increasingly important in elections.
> California "is not just a large state, population-wise, it's a trend-
> setting state," said Schmidt, a public relations strategist. "It could
> be a glimpse of the future."
california is now turning deep blue, even though its the birthplace
of reaganomics, and nixon.
but, arizona is turning blue, nevada is turning blue, new mexico is
turning blue, colorado is turning blue.
---
they need to breath.
dividing America by red and blue is insanity.
> On Nov 13, 10:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> you would starve without us
>> ---
>> speculation noted ... not shared
>> that you even try to segregate Americans with red and blue colors says
>> tons about your intellect.
> i am not the one preaching hate.
> gee maybe after decades of lying and hate directed at liberals and
> civil society, a few "CONSERVATIVES" may be getting it: zero tolerance
> with the terrible tone thats coming out of the talk radio universe
> and some of our leaders in Congress who are serially disrespectful to
> this fastest-growing demographic in the country.
> Rush Limbaugh Slams GOP Blame Game: Apparently Im The Primary
> Reason For Election Loss
> audio
> by Meenal Vamburkar | 10:41 pm, November 12th, 2012
> On Mondays installment of his show, Rush Limbaugh hit back at those
> attributing part of the Mitt Romneys election loss on, among other
> things, talk radio. Criticizing the GOP ruling class, Limbaugh also
> argued that the media and Democrats will ensure that Republicans are
> not perceived as pro-Latino.
> Just as I predicted, ladies and gentlemen, Limbaugh began, this
> election was lost because of your host, Rush Limbaugh. I am the
> primary reason.
> There are others, but Im the primary reason the Republican Party
> lost, he continued. And I am, by the way, the primary reason the
> Republican Party will keep losing, until I am denounced by the
> Republican Party.
> He went on to talk about the ruling class of the Republican party.
> We, the country class, are not in the ruling class, he said. Were
> the problem.
> As an example, he pointed to Steve Schmidts recent remarks, wherein
> he said Republicans need zero tolerance with the terrible tone thats
> coming out of the talk radio universe and some of our leaders in
> Congress who are serially disrespectful to this fastest-growing
> demographic in the country.
> Additionally, he argued that Democrats arent exactly looking out for
> the GOPs best interests when they offer up advice. To that point, he
> asked Republicans a question: Do you really think that the Democrat
> Party will ever allow you Republicans to be seen as pro-Latino and pro-
> immigration? (Hint: no.)
> All it takes is one person be it an elected official or a talk radio
> host disagreeing with the direction the party is taking, and the
> Democrats and the media will focus on that person and say, See? The
> Republicans really are anti-immigrant!
> The Democrats will always come up with a position that tests the
> Republicans limit, Limbaugh said. Theyll always find some extreme
> position that the Republicans just cant agree with in order to be
> able to claim the Republicans are anti-female, anti-woman, anti-
> abortion, anti-immigrant.
> they just cannot shut the demagogues up can they: the hate, lying and
> demagoguing is still going on: Bill OReilly Decries Secular
> Progressives Who Are Bent On Destroying Traditional America(white)
> Bill OReilly Decries Secular Progressives Who Are Bent On
> Destroying Traditional America
> by Meenal Vamburkar | 9:13 pm, November 12th, 2012
> Is traditional America gone for good? Thats the question Bill
> OReilly tackled during his Talking Points Memo on Monday night.
> Criticizing secular progressives, OReilly called for the right kind
> of politician who will help us confront the reality of our
> situation.
> Traditional America can come back, OReilly said, with the right
> person to make it happen. Specifically, he pointed to Mitt Romneys
> electoral loss among blacks, women and Latinos. It was an entitlement
> election, he said.
> The media would have you believing the election confirmed election
> ideology. While thats not true, he said, secularism is eroding
> traditional power.
> On paper, the stats look hopeless for traditional Americans,
> OReilly said. But they can be reversed. However, it will take a very
> special politician to do that. By the way, Mitt Romney didnt even try
> to marginalize secularism. He basically ignored it.
> Secular progressives dont have the right approach, he argued, because
> they dont want judgment on personal behavior. For examples, OReilly
> pointed to the issues of out-of-wedlock births, abortion and
> entitlements. Secular progressives dont want limitations on so-
> called private behavior, he said.
> The majority of Americans can be persuaded, OReilly said, that the
> far-left is dangerous outfit, bent of destroying traditional America
> and replacing it with a social free-fire zone that drives dependency
> and poverty. We need to confront that, he added. But too many of our
> politicians are too cowardly to do so.
.
.
Limbo is not responsible for anything.
It's always someone else.
> My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
> glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
> very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
> they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
> around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
> doomed if they dont pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).
> The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
> the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
> year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59%39%. Of
> course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
> classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
> identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
> Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
> didnt immediately bomb Iran at Israels behest. As a critical
> component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
> by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
> Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
> partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
> electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
> Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.
> Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama80% on average. Asians have
> become like Jews in their votingfocused not on their economic
> position so much as their identification with non-White America.
> Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
> Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).
> Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
> voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
> youngest age category (1829 years)those most influenced by Sumner
> Redstones MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
> pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
> audiencesvoted Republican (51% to 41%).
> So the Republican Party is the White peoples party. The media is
> screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
> competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
> is very unlikely to work.
> Its not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
> majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
> party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
> base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
> article (Californias Greek Tragedy), two Stanford professors,
> Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that
> from the mid-1980s to 2005, Californias population grew by 10
> million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
> paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population
> swelled by 115,000. With 12% of Americas population, California has
> one third of the nations welfare recipients. (see here)
> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> will look like soon.
> So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
> agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
> taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
> even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
> would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
> research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public
> goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. Its going to make for a
> very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.
> And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
> and Asiansthey will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
> party of non-White America independent of social class.
> White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
> continue to decline. Its no accident that stocks of gun companies
> soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
> took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
> traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
> White category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
> disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding
> population. Thats a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of
> these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
> campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
> elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
> because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
> continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.
> This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
> this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
> But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
> deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham
> OReilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about
> secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
> futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
> other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
> history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.
I am sure Mexico would love to take them all over. Imagine that. Your
garden guy becomes your boss....
-- ~~
HW
__________________
The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
Are Capitalist Extremists.
Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
Are Racists.
Are Pro-War.
Are Pro-Torture.
Are Pro-Execution.
Are Pro-Money-lender.
Despise Human Rights.
Despise The Poor.
Despise Women.
They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
Who are these people really??
>>> In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
>>> look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
>>> Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>>> umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>>> share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>>> The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>>> coherent and connected.
>> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
>> complaining about their taxes.
> yep.
Just say that they did secede. Where would all the money for their
indigent citizens come from and who would defend them against, um, er,
lets say Mexico?? Us?? No chance...
-- ~~
HW
__________________
The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
Are Capitalist Extremists.
Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
Are Racists.
Are Pro-War.
Are Pro-Torture.
Are Pro-Execution.
Are Pro-Money-lender.
Despise Human Rights.
Despise The Poor.
Despise Women.
They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
Who are these people really??
> On 11/13/2012 12:29 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 3:11 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:31:32 -0800 (PST), plainolamerican
>>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> MEMO
>>>>>> Attn: =A0Blue States
>>>>>> Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
>>>>> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
>>>>> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r= >>>> edblue-paradox
>>>> In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
>>>> look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
>>>> Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>>>> umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>>>> share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>>>> The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>>>> coherent and connected.
>>> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
>>> complaining about their taxes.
>> yep.
> Just say that they did secede. Where would all the money for their
> indigent citizens come from and who would defend them against, um, er,
> lets say Mexico?? Us?? No chance...
I considered signing the secession petition on the internet just so I
could get deported as the new petition Liberals want to start says.
This is my best chance of escaping the tyranny of the *Socialist States
of America*
I won't have to pay all the Obama tax/fees for having not been aborted.
> On 11/13/2012 12:29 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 3:11 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:31:32 -0800 (PST), plainolamerican
>>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> MEMO
>>>>>> Attn: =A0Blue States
>>>>>> Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
>>>>> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
>>>>> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r= >>>> edblue-paradox
>>>> In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
>>>> look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The
>>>> Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>>>> umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>>>> share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>>>> The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>>>> coherent and connected.
>>> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
>>> complaining about their taxes.
>> yep.
> Just say that they did secede. Where would all the money for their
> indigent citizens come from and who would defend them against, um, er,
> lets say Mexico?? Us?? No chance...
I considered signing the secession petition on the internet just so I
could get deported as the new petition Liberals want to start says.
This is my best chance of escaping the tyranny of the
*Socialist States of America*
I won't have to pay all the ObamaCare tax/fees for having not been aborted.
ObamaCare is a tax on un-aborted fetuses..... it's an abortion tax, or
more precisely it should be called a tax for not becoming an abortion.
> On 11/13/2012 12:29 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 3:11 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:31:32 -0800 (PST), plainolamerican
>>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> MEMO
>>>>>> Attn: =A0Blue States
>>>>>> Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
>>>>> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
>>>>> red states. So why do you >>>>> lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r= >>>> edblue-paradox
>>>> In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
>>>> look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. >>>> The
>>>> Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>>>> umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>>>> share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>>>> The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>>>> coherent and connected.
>>> What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
>>> complaining about their taxes.
>> yep.
> Just say that they did secede. Where would all the money for their
> indigent citizens come from and who would defend them against, um, er,
> lets say Mexico?? Us?? No chance...
> -- > ~~
> HW
> __________________
> The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
> Are Capitalist Extremists.
> Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
> Are Racists.
> Are Pro-War.
> Are Pro-Torture.
> Are Pro-Execution.
> Are Pro-Money-lender.
> Despise Human Rights.
> Despise The Poor.
> Despise Women.
> They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
> Who are these people really??
,.
.
.
.
Rick Perry just disavowed this nonsense,
The civil war settled secession.
This proposing it are traitors to the United States
> > Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?
> > Kevin MacDonald
> > My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
> > glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
> > very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
> > they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
> > around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
> > doomed if they don t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).
> > The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
> > the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
> > year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59% 39%. Of
> > course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
> > classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
> > identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
> > Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
> > didn t immediately bomb Iran at Israel s behest. As a critical
> > component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
> > by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
> > Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
> > partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
> > electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
> > Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.
> > Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama 80% on average. Asians have
> > become like Jews in their voting focused not on their economic
> > position so much as their identification with non-White America.
> > Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
> > Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).
> > Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
> > voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
> > youngest age category (18 29 years) those most influenced by Sumner
> > Redstone s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
> > pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
> > audiences voted Republican (51% to 41%).
> > So the Republican Party is the White people s party. The media is
> > screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
> > competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
> > is very unlikely to work.
> > It s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
> > majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
> > party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
> > base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
> > article ( California s Greek Tragedy ), two Stanford professors,
> > Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that
> > from the mid-1980s to 2005, California s population grew by 10
> > million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
> > paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population
> > swelled by 115,000. With 12% of America s population, California has
> > one third of the nation s welfare recipients. (see here)
> > And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> > majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> > as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> > Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> > light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> > will look like soon.
> > So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
> > agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
> > taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
> > even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
> > would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
> > research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public
> > goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It s going to make for a
> > very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.
> > And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
> > and Asians they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
> > party of non-White America independent of social class.
> > White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
> > continue to decline. It s no accident that stocks of gun companies
> > soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
> > took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
> > traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
> > White category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
> > disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding
> > population. That s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of
> > these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
> > campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
> > elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
> > because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
> > continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.
> > This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
> > this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
> > But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
> > deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham
> > O Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about
> > secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
> > futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
> > other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
> > history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.
> I am sure Mexico would love to take them all over. Imagine that. Your
> garden guy becomes your boss....
> --
> ~~
> HW
> __________________
> The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
> Are Capitalist Extremists.
> Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
> Are Racists.
> Are Pro-War.
> Are Pro-Torture.
> Are Pro-Execution.
> Are Pro-Money-lender.
> Despise Human Rights.
> Despise The Poor.
> Despise Women.
> They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
> Who are these people really??
The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
Are Capitalist Extremists.
--
better than socialists
Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
---
of course
Are Racists.
--
those who call people racist are usually jews, niggers, spics or some
other minority.
Which one are you?
Are Pro-War.
---
just like the dems
Are Pro-Torture.
---
terrorists should be tortured for info and then executed.
Are Pro-Execution.
---
killers should be executed or used as a labor source. No work .. no
food ... their choice.
Are Pro-Money-lender.
---
like the jews?
Despise Human Rights.
---
you only have rights you can protect.
Despise The Poor.
---
fund your own charities
Despise Women.
---
no ... they have the pussy and will suck a dick.
They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
---
religious myth to ignore. Gods are created in the imaginations of men.
Who are these people really??
---
Americans who despise socialist beggars who want government support,
food, housing and healthcare.
> > Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?
> > Kevin MacDonald
> > My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
> > glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
> > very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
> > they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
> > around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
> > doomed if they don t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).
> > The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
> > the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
> > year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59% 39%. Of
> > course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
> > classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
> > identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
> > Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
> > didn t immediately bomb Iran at Israel s behest. As a critical
> > component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
> > by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
> > Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
> > partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
> > electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
> > Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.
> > Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama 80% on average. Asians have
> > become like Jews in their voting focused not on their economic
> > position so much as their identification with non-White America.
> > Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
> > Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).
> > Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
> > voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
> > youngest age category (18 29 years) those most influenced by Sumner
> > Redstone s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
> > pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
> > audiences voted Republican (51% to 41%).
> > So the Republican Party is the White people s party. The media is
> > screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
> > competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
> > is very unlikely to work.
> > It s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
> > majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
> > party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
> > base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
> > article ( California s Greek Tragedy ), two Stanford professors,
> > Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that
> > from the mid-1980s to 2005, California s population grew by 10
> > million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
> > paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population
> > swelled by 115,000. With 12% of America s population, California has
> > one third of the nation s welfare recipients. (see here)
> > And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> > majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> > as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> > Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> > light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> > will look like soon.
> > So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
> > agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
> > taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
> > even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
> > would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
> > research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public
> > goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It s going to make for a
> > very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.
> > And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
> > and Asians they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
> > party of non-White America independent of social class.
> > White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
> > continue to decline. It s no accident that stocks of gun companies
> > soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
> > took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
> > traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
> > White category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
> > disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding
> > population. That s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of
> > these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
> > campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
> > elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
> > because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
> > continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.
> > This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
> > this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
> > But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
> > deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham
> > O Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about
> > secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
> > futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
> > other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
> > history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.
> I am sure Mexico would love to take them all over. Imagine that. Your
> garden guy becomes your boss....
> --
> ~~
> HW
> __________________
> The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
> Are Capitalist Extremists.
> Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
> Are Racists.
> Are Pro-War.
> Are Pro-Torture.
> Are Pro-Execution.
> Are Pro-Money-lender.
> Despise Human Rights.
> Despise The Poor.
> Despise Women.
> They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
> Who are these people really??
I am sure Mexico would love to take them all over. Imagine that. Your
garden guy becomes your boss....
---
mexico is lucky the US hasn't already annexed their shit hole.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:10:14 -0800, plainolamerican wrote:
> Payments to foreign governments must be reduced ---
> no ... eliminated. We owe them nothing.
Amen!
Handing out money to foreign governments when our own government is past bankrupt is just FUCKING STUPID.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:37:42 -0800, plainolamerican wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:49 pm, Steve from Colorado <steve.from.color...@cocks.net>
> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2012 9:44 AM, Warren Penn wrote:
>> > Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?
>> > Kevin MacDonald
>> > My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
>> > glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
>> > very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
>> > they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
>> > around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
>> > doomed if they don t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has
>> > it).
>> > The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
>> > the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
>> > year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59% 39%. Of
>> > course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
>> > classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
>> > identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
>> > Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
>> > didn t immediately bomb Iran at Israel s behest. As a critical
>> > component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly
>> > motivated by their identification with the non-White coalition of the
>> > Democratic Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is
>> > sufficiently bi-
>> > partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
>> > electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
>> > Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.
>> > Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama 80% on average. Asians have
>> > become like Jews in their voting focused not on their economic
>> > position so much as their identification with non-White America.
>> > Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
>> > Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).
>> > Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
>> > voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
>> > youngest age category (18 29 years) those most influenced by Sumner
>> > Redstone s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
>> > pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
>> > audiences voted Republican (51% to 41%).
>> > So the Republican Party is the White people s party. The media is
>> > screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
>> > competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
>> > is very unlikely to work.
>> > It s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
>> > majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
>> > party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
>> > base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
>> > article ( California s Greek Tragedy ), two Stanford professors,
>> > Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that
>> > from the mid-1980s to 2005, California s population grew by 10
>> > million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax
>> > filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison
>> > population swelled by 115,000. With 12% of America s population,
>> > California has one third of the nation s welfare recipients. (see
>> > here)
>> > And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>> > majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>> > as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>> > Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>> > light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>> > will look like soon.
>> > So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
>> > agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
>> > taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision
>> > that even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete
>> > surrender, and would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency.
>> > As all the research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay
>> > for public goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It s going to
>> > make for a very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of
>> > multiculturalism.
>> > And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
>> > and Asians they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
>> > party of non-White America independent of social class.
>> > White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
>> > continue to decline. It s no accident that stocks of gun companies
>> > soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
>> > took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
>> > traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
>> > White category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
>> > disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the
>> > founding population. That s a lot of angry White men. The vast
>> > majority of these men are not going to be willing participants in a
>> > Republican campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the
>> > enlightened party elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites
>> > voting in 2016 because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and
>> > because of continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.
>> > This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
>> > this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically
>> > impotent. But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states
>> > that are deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by
>> > Farnham O Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked
>> > about secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart
>> > from futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have
>> > any other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage
>> > of history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.
>> So Mr. McDonald is proposing that the USA copy the breakup of the
>> former Soviet Union. Sending illegal aliens and ayslum seekers from
>> Somalia packing would be a better solution, IMO.
> Sending illegal aliens and ayslum seekers ---
> come legally or don't come at all
AT work they have a world map. Put a little "pin" in the place you were born.
One of the things that bothered me was that there were more pins in NORTH Vietnam than in SOUTH Vietnam. Huh? I thought we took in the South Vietnamese who "helped us" (meaning, they lifted a finger to save their idiot asses from the communist... if we payed them). But there were MORE from the North? WTF!!
