The South will come again

[IcemanCometh]

Fuck the South (http://www.fuckthesouth.com/)

[SpursWoman]

Ummm....interesting perspective, Iceman. :fro

[whottt]

He should like Bush, Bush is from Connecticut.

[CrazyOne]

Wow.. that guy must have a magic computer... he plays on the keyboard and out comes caca. As my friend Bugs would say... "What a maroon!"

[exstatic]

:lol :lol

[Spurminator]

:lmao

I don't know how accurate his claims are... but his penmanship is amazing.

[Hook Dem]

Come on Ice.....take your medicine! :lol

[JoeChalupa]

Brahahahahahaha!! :) Whoooooooooooo!!!

[Marcus Bryant]

Oddly enough, the population of the "red states" increased since 2000 and most likely will continue to increase in the near term. The problem that the lib-left still has yet to grasp is that they are not losing to their caricature of a bunch of slack jawed hillbillies living in trailer parks but rather to married, religious, college educated couples with children living in the suburbs. It's a trend that has been prevalent in Texas over the past 20 years, with the GOP's fortunes increasing with the rapid growth in suburban DFW, Austin, SA, and Houston.

The more the left continues to refer to such individuals as 'idiots' then the more likely they will take offense and continue to vote Republican. So while you may find little screeds like the one linked to above amusing if you are a liberal Democrat, that is only going to perpetuate your side's demise.

Good work.

[Yonivore]

So true MB.

The population of the "Red" Counties is 150 Million people (and growing) while the "Blue" only account for 103 Million...and shrinking.

[dcole50]

those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your fucking Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a fucking swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it’s a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fucking orange juice.

I live in the Tennessee Valley (northern Alabama section). Come visit our "fancy highways." Most are technically illegal since they don't have medians.

Classy the way this website attacked Florida. Very classy.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't refer to them as "idiots" although I was called one by a God Loving conservative for voting for Kerry.

[dcole50]

I've been called an idiot many, many times for my support of Kerry. Especially when in rural areas. I would argue that I live in one of, if not the, most conservative counties in the nation.

When talking politics, everyone just assumes I supported Bush. I've learned just to nod my head in small talk and avoid the issue.

[Yonivore]

Remember Pat Buchanan's "culture war" speech at the 1992 Republican Convention? Buchanan's belligerence over cultural issues didn't get him very far; he won the 1996 New Hampshire primary, largely as a protest vote, and then faded back into the obscurity of talking-headdom.

But, I had an odd sense of déjà vu over the weekend, while watching "The McLaughlin Group," where Buchanan is a panelist, and saw his two liberal counterparts, Lawrence "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" O'Donnell and Eleanor Clift, reacting to President Bush's stunning re-election victory by out-Buchananing Buchanan -- this thread, and www.fuckthesouth.com, speak to the point:

O'Donnell: The big problem the country now has, which is going to produce a serious discussion of secession over the next 20 years, is that the segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government. . . .

Ninety percent of the red states are welfare client states of the federal government. They collect more from the federal government than they send in. New York and California, Connecticut, the states that are blue are all the states that are paying for the bulk of everything this government does, from the ward of Social Security to everything else, and the people in those states don't like what this government is doing. . . .

That cannot hold. . . .

McLaughlin: Can the GOP cement forever, do you think, Eleanor, the allegiance of the evangelical voters by appointing Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade and make other decisions?

Clift: Well, this is the one area where Bush can very cleanly deliver to these voters who supported him. . . . By having probably three appointments over the next three--four years, he will put in place a Bush court that we will be talking about a generation from now. And I think that it will move to the right. Whether it will go so far as to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has been settled law for over 30 years, if they did that, they would trigger a revolution in this country. . . .

O'Donnell: I think the Bush court will overturn Roe. It will do it within these next four years. Absolutely. Then your blue and red map is going to be the blue states where abortion is legal, because [reversing] Roe simply sends it back to the states. And again, you're going to have a country saying to itself, what is the relationship between California and Texas? And it's--it will start to become virtually none.
Obviously, this is crazy talk -- being echoed in this thread and on www.fuckthesouth.com. But it's interesting crazy talk, because it reveals something about how the liberal elite views America. O'Donnell talks about secession driven by economics: Blue states pay a disproportionately high share of federal taxes, while red states receive a disproportionately high share of subsidies.

Well, fine and that's all well and good but, isn't it the blue-state types who favor higher taxes, especially on "the wealthy"? If guys like O'Donnell feel overtaxed, why not make common cause with the Republicans and starve the beast?

Then we turn to abortion. Even O'Donnell recognizes that Clift is being hysterical when she says overturning Roe would foment a "revolution"; all it would do is return the question to the democratic process, leaving states free to regulate the practice as the people's elected representatives see fit.

But then listen to O'Donnell. The relationship between a California that allows abortion and a hypothetical Texas that does not is, he says, "virtually none." Does he really think Roe v. Wade is the glue that holds America together--that abortion is central to what this country is all about?

Put O'Donnell's economic views together with his social ones, and you have an interesting theory of the social contract as seen by wealthy blue-state liberals. They are willing to pay higher taxes to subsidize the rest of the country, provided the rest of the country allows them to dictate their social policies.

A week ago the red states rejected this view. The blue states are not going to secede, but maybe, just maybe, they will respond with a tax revolt. Now there's a liberal cause I could get behind.

[Hook Dem]

I don't refer to them as "idiots" although I was called one by a God Loving conservative for voting for Kerry.
Lets see now.....God loving liberal called an "idiot" by a God loving Conservative. Nope!!!!! No story there! :lol

[bigzak25]

in CA,
Kerry 5,427,055 55%
Bush 4,403,495 44%

in NY,
Kerry 3,986,172 58%
Bush 2,793,745 40%

in IL
Kerry 2,826,757 55%
Bush 2,313,415 45%

in PA
Kerry 2,883,833 51%
Bush 2,756,361 49%

these radical Libs saying "fuck the south" should look in their own backyard. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Approx 12.25 million people in these states voted for Bush. Don't tell dan though...i'm sure he thinks that at least 12 million of those were fraudulent..... :lol

[Guru of Nothing]

I've been called an idiot many, many times for my support of Kerry. Especially when in rural areas. I would argue that I live in one of, if not the, most conservative counties in the nation.

When talking politics, everyone just assumes I supported Bush. I've learned just to nod my head in small talk and avoid the issue.

I never supported Kerry, but, you and I could probably swap a "war story" or two, given that you reside in Alabama and I reside in Mississippi. I'm reminded of the Alabama state motto - At Least We Are Not Mississippi; not to mention, Alabama hosts 2 NASCAR events a year.

I sense a Monty Python-esque battle blog.

[FromWayDowntown]

Then we turn to abortion. Even O'Donnell recognizes that Clift is being hysterical when she says overturning Roe would foment a "revolution"; all it would do is return the question to the democratic process, leaving states free to regulate the practice as the people's elected representatives see fit.

O'Donnell is right -- for now at least -- but Clift may be seeing further down the road that O'Donnell is. Does anyone actually think that the overturning of Roe will be the last word? If conservatives are so hell-bent on teaching their religion to kids in public schools, surely they will use an overturn of Roe (by what is likely to be only a 5-4 majority, at best) as another "mandate" to wholly eradicate the right to choose. Why wouldn't they -- they've already tried it with same-sex marriage. We're moving closer and closer to a governmentally orthodox religious viewpoint; one that has little or no concern for the viewpoint of the minority. It's antithetical to our Constitution, but ignorance of the Constitution certainly seems to be right in the neo-con wheelhouse.


But then listen to O'Donnell. The relationship between a California that allows abortion and a hypothetical Texas that does not is, he says, "virtually none." Does he really think Roe v. Wade is the glue that holds America together--that abortion is central to what this country is all about?

Of all of the issues in all of the campaigns that I've observed, abortion seems -- for now at least -- to be the one issue that recurs with the same volume and rancor. Other issues (trade, social security, terror/defense, taxes, health care) are stalwarts, but they come and go as focal points in campaigns. Abortion is a constant, and while the act itself may not be what the country is all about, the issue concerning the right to choose -- the right to self-determination -- is really at the heart of the country. I've never really thought the abortion debate was grounded in the science of the act of abortion -- the debate is truly about how much control government can exercise over an individual. It's funny that abortion turns the "governmental involvment" rubric on its head. Its among the issues where conservatives desperately want the government involved in our day-to-day lives and its an issue that liberals believe government should stay completely away from. That debate -- the libertarian issue of abortion -- is at the heart of the American spirit, if you believe that spirit derives from embracing the rights protected by the Constitution (notice, I did not say bestowed).

[dcole50]

[QUOTE=Guru of Nothing]I never supported Kerry, but, you and I could probably swap a "war story" or two, given that you reside in Alabama and I reside in Mississippi. I'm reminded of the Alabama state motto - At Least We Are Not Mississippi; not to mention, Alabama hosts 2 NASCAR events a year.

Well, most of my family is from Mississippi so I always defend it. Now that South Carolina's school system is ranked lower than Alabama's, I gang up on them. ;)

The thing that infuriates me most is when I tell people I go to college in Alabama and they respond "I always thought Alabama was a football program disguised as a university." Yeah, that never gets old. And it doesn't even make sense anymore due to the fact that our football team hasn't been good in ages.

But, I'm rambling .. we'll have to swap some "war stories" sometime, though.

[Nbadan]

We're moving closer and closer to a governmentally orthodox religious viewpoint; one that has little or no concern for the viewpoint of the minority. It's antithetical to our Constitution, but ignorance of the Constitution certainly seems to be right in the neo-con wheelhouse.

Nice stuff. It amazes me how people can so easily overlook the effect that Dominionism has had on American politics in the 21st century. Don't think for a second that this hasn't been a long, coordinated strategy by the Religious right and evangelist leaders either. They have been planning to take control of all three branches of Government since Clinton defeated Bush41, and they have almost succeeded, and when and if they do take over the Judiciary, they will be able to circumvent all the checks and balances built into our constitutional form of Government - with the mass media all but nuetered.

Now that's a scary proposition.

[Hook Dem]

Nice stuff. It amazes me how people can so easily overlook the effect that Dominionism has had on American politics in the 21st century. Don't think for a second that this hasn't been a long, coordinated strategy by the Religious right and evangelist leaders either. They have been planning to take control of all three branches of Government since Clinton defeated Bush41, and they have almost succeeded, and when and if they do take over the Judiciary, they will be able to circumvent all the checks and balances built into our constitutional form of Government - with the mass media all but nuetered.

Now that's a scary proposition.
Nice conspiracy theory once again Dan. It's not as exagerated as you state it but I know that religion scares the "hell" out of you. It's nice to see you have no respect for our founding fathers and their beliefs. As far as neutering the mass media, thats not so hard to digest. :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

Nice conspiracy theory once again Dan. It's not as exagerated as you state it but I know that religion scares the "hell" out of you. It's nice to see you have no respect for our founding fathers and their beliefs. As far as neutering the mass media, thats not so hard to digest. :lol

At some personal risk, I have to say that Dan's not exactly advancing a black helicopter theory here.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that certain factions on the right are seeking to control all 3 branches of government and to use that power to create a quasi-theocratic state. Just listen to Pat Robertson and many other high-profile evangelicals some time. They'll readily admit that establishing a Christian, theocratic State, where the government is involved in dictating morality to the people is part of their agenda.

And the POINT is that such a State is fundamentally contrary to the intentions of the framers of the Constitution -- had they intended to create a theocratic (or even a Christian) State, they would have done so, and they certainly would not have prohibited the government from establishing a national or orthodox religion ("Congress shall make no Law respecting the Establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . "). I realize that the actual intentions of the Framers are of little concern to neo-cons, but I'd like to think that there would continue to be some respect for the Framers' wisdom.

The fundamental truth is that while this nation was founded by a great many people of faith, they came here to obtain refuge from a Chruch State -- a State that lacked tolerance for diverging religous beliefs and sought to persecute the non-orthodox, in essence, by limiting their rights. There may have been an initial move to create a number of small religous colonies, but when those colonies united to form "a more perfect union," each willingly acknowledged that government should be immune from any obligation to promote or further its religious viewpoint -- that government should be neutral on matters of religion. For whatever reason, the right -- and particularly the religious right -- seems more inclined to govern like King George III than like Washington, Jefferson, or Madison.

It is a conspiracy -- a conspiracy to run roughshod over the social and political minority -- and it unfolds more and more every day.

[Spurminator]

I agree. For many Christians, what is perceived to be a defense of our religion becomes an offense... Some take issues like the Pledge and the Ten Commandments monument as attacks on their faith, and these instances evolve into what they perceive as microcosms of a nation that is rejecting God.

This amplifies larger issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which many Christians see as antithetical to a proper lifestyle of sexual morality.

As our culture has grown into one where less parents are staying home with their kids, and most parents are working longer hours, many Christian parents worry about outside influences affecting their children as they grow. So they feel the best way to ensure that their children are not corrupted in their impressionable years is for the government to get involved and protect their children from un-Christianlike influences.

Though I'm not a parent yet, I can fully sympathize with the desire to have your children grow into moral (as you define it) adults, but I think it's dangerous to rely so much on the government to protect them from immorality. Jesus Christ and His Apostles never rallied for Theocracy. Paul never spoke to Parliaments or kings... he spoke to churches. The values and instructions of the New Testament were meant for Christians to govern themselves and their congregations by, not for nations to enforce through Law.

Theocracy is bad for religion and government at the same time. As Christians, our primary concern is to teach Christ to those who don't know Him... to "plant the seed" as it is often said in Church. Religion by force only turns people away. It's counterproductive, and it will never last. Roe vs. Wade may someday be overturned, but not forever. Gay Marriage, under the current federal treatment of marriage, is inevitable. And the more Christians fight to put their beliefs on these issues into Law, the more people will be turned off by Christianity in the near future.

I want my children to grow up in a world that values morals, but I also want them to grow up in a world where being a Christian is not looked upon like being a fascist.