Spotted on a car parked at the UW. It also had an Obama 2008 sticker.
This is literally eliminationist, with the subtext that Republicans don't deserve to reproduce. The hatred and prejudice of its implication equating Republicans with opposition to introducing same-sex marriage -- is based on ignorance or willful blindness. A majority of Americans across the spectrum oppose gay marriage, including a large majority of African-Americans. Deep blue California voted for anti-gay-marriage Prop. 8 in the same election that it elected Barack Obama. Indeed, Barack Obama himself has long opposed gay marriage and his administration continues to defend DOMA. On the other side, many Republicans (myself included) either accept without objection or actively support the introduction of same-sex marriage. Indeed, the lead attorney for overturning Prop. 8 is Republican Ted Olsen.
It's disappointing, but sadly unsurprising, to see at a university such expressions of intolerance, hatred and ignorance.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 03, 2011 03:47 PM | Email ThisOr for those with a real strong stomach, just visit Seattle...just don't bring your children.
Singling out Republicans as a group for opposing the introduction of a new social custom that has never had majority support in U.S. history, is ignorant bigotry pure and simple. The Democrats in DC had 2 years to repeal DOMA. (which, by the way, passed with supermajorities in both Houses and was signed by Clinton). But the Pelosi-Reid Congress chose not to repeal DOMA. Why not? Doesn't that make them disgusting haters too?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 3, 2011 06:04 PMI can't tell if he developed a sense of humor and is engaging in self-satire, or if this is more Conservative victimhood, and the construction of false equivalences.
Eliminationist rhetoric is real, and a problem, however. Dave Niewert has done an excellent job documenting and analyzing it, in books and on his blog www.orcinus.com.
Alas, contrary to the hallucinating and fear-ridden commenter @1, the rhetoric overwhelmingly comes from the same people who fetishize firearms, think "God" is on their side, and worry that the awful brown/gay/feminist/rational/tolerant/urban libruls are coming to destroy apple pie.
While the left his enslaved the next several generations with Obamadebt, and done their very best to make us into a 3rd world health care system, we haven't yet reached the point your ilk is striving so hard to achieve... but that you, personally, revel in... if you believe that pap you spewed.
Posted by: hinton on February 3, 2011 06:16 PMPosted by: pudge on February 3, 2011 06:16 PM
Like you, I'm very disappointed with them. I attribute it to political cowardice. The Democratic caucus, particularly in the Senate, is FAR too conservative. Fortunately this year we got rid of Bayh and Lincoln, but lost Feingold, too, alas.
I was/am disappointed that Democrats have taken so long to accept gay marriage, but the fact is that today, most do, and the Republican party is the main political force against it.
Anyway, it's ludicrous for you to say those who favor this admittedly new social custom are bigoted. You may call them misguided, but bigoted? What definition of bigotry are you imagining?
Posted by: Bruce on February 3, 2011 06:23 PMUm, which party got anti-gay marriage referenda on multiple state ballots in 2004 as a GOTV measure for its God-fearin' gay-hatin' base?
The Democrats in DC had 2 years to repeal DOMA.
And how long did the Republicans have while they did nothing at a federal level to ban the horrors of abortion? Murderers.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 3, 2011 06:28 PMso let me get this straight.if i am against ILLEGAL immigration then i am anti brown,if i am against gay marriage then i am homophobic,if i am pro life i am anti feminist,if i choose not to vote for the bammer then i am a racist,if i choose not to buy CFL's i am anti polar bear.please let me know where i am going wrong.
P.S.i bought a case of cascade soap with phosphate i know i am anti salmon.
Posted by: jtm371 on February 3, 2011 06:28 PMYes, all those hating conservatives, just like the ones in this video.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41585
Maybe Niewart can get a Pulitzer for his in-depth journalistic endeavors
Neither. I see you've bought the propaganda.
And how long did the Republicans have while they did nothing at a federal level to ban the horrors of abortion?
Um, they need to amend the Constitution to ban abortion, and they didn't have the votes for that. The Democrats did have the votes to repeal DOMA.
You really suck at this.
We could start with willful stupidity - you could try to do something about that.
i am against ILLEGAL immigration then i am anti brown
Probably.
if i am against gay marriage then i am homophobic
Most certainly.
if i am pro life i am anti feminist
Yup, or more generally abhor women as equals with autonomy over their bodies, including the uterus. (Are you guys allowed to name girl-parts around here, or do you just say "down there" with embarrassment?)
if i choose not to vote for the bammer then i am a racist
I assume 'bammer' is Obama. No, I can see multiple valid reasons not to vote for him. But you might still be a racist.
if i choose not to buy CFL's i am anti polar bear
I'd expand that beyond polar bear, but your headed in the right direction. In fact, maybe even nihilistic - actively using energy when you could conserve - from what sounds like either spite or mere stupidity - both worsens global warming and is a national security issue - why do you want to make us more dependent on imported energy? Are you a traitor? Why to you hate America?
i bought a case of cascade soap with phosphate i know i am anti salmon
Again, willful stupidity. Is it macho to be an ass? Why would you shit where you bathe? Why would you piss in the drinking water?
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 3, 2011 06:42 PMcome now your intolerance is starting to show we don't need that kind of language.you know you on the left have a lot in common with the taliban,if you agree with them it is all good,if you don't then you are the problem.you know the best part of the soap no TAX money for the QUEEN to waste.ENJOY Posted by: jtm371 on February 3, 2011 06:53 PM
Oh lookie here - pudge responds to my post!
I though I was banned? Didn't you say "You will go away now" or some such self-congradulatory twaddle?
You did make my posts disappear like a good little fascist. Are you going to do the same here?
Um, they need to amend the Constitution to ban abortion, and they didn't have the votes for that.
Um, grandstanding and taking votes that had no possiblity of becoming law have never stopped Republican caucuses before.
And about those anit-gay ballot measures, pudge, Ken Mehlman says otherwise:
Mehlman tells The Atlantic he knew Rove "had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans."
And from the Dallas Morning News:
...noting that despite Rove's public pronouncements, his active strategy was to divide and conquer by microtargeting religious conservatives and turn out in big numbers against gay marriage - and for George W. Bush.
That would be, the, um, former head of the Republican Party.
I seem to be better at this than you, pudgester.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 3, 2011 06:57 PMIt would be ludicrous if I said that, but I didn't. It's ludicrous that you characterize my actual words as saying that. The bigotry I refer to is when some supporters of gay marriage single out Republicans as a whole as if they were the exclusive opponents, or as if opposition to gay marriage is the defining issue of being a Republican, or even a priority for most Republican, let alone the party as such.
Black voters, for example, also oppose gay marriage by a large majority. But it's no more or less silly to blame Black people for the length of time it's taking for gay marriage to emerge as a new social institution, or to trash Black people as haters because a large majority of them oppose gay marriage.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 3, 2011 07:09 PMI admire that you disagree with the Repblican mainstream on this issue, and I don't understand why you're making excuses for them.
Posted by: Bruce on February 3, 2011 08:45 PMApproval of gay marriage is sitting at 50/50 and climbing right now. When you break down the numbers by age, those under the age of 30 approve of gay marriage by a wide margin and that's not going to magically change when those kids hit 30 or 31. Give it another 10 years and gay marriage will be an established and accepted fact.
Gay marriage isn't a left-right issue, it's an early, mid, and late adopter issue. The early and most of the mid adopters have bought in, the remaining late adopters will either buy in, get old and die out, or simply get outnumbered.
Posted by: spocitykid on February 3, 2011 08:46 PMYes, bigoted, Bruce. Leftists preach tolerance, but practice hatred so often, they don't even recognize they're doing it. Take for example this political blog run by Sharkansky; now take David Goldstain's political blog. Just take the general tone of the contributors and commenters and you have two distinct set of people that frequent those sites. Take your pick, Huffpo, Media Matters, Daily Kos- the bottom line is the left is more intolerant in many aspects than those on the right. The only difference between the far right hate sites and the far left hate sites is that the latter have become mainstreamed in todays media as being "moderate" or acceptable in our political discourse.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 3, 2011 09:07 PMYour condescending arrogance belies your supposed smug superiority. I would have little doubt that you consider yourself an enlightened, open, and affirming person who respects other cultures, other lifestyles and other values - like most liberals. And then you proceed to violate those same supposed principles with every posting on this blog.
In essence you prove our point and demonstrate the amazing intolerance of the liberal left who is tolerant of anything but the majority culture and values of this country.
If we don't see things your way, it's not because we have valid differences and values, but that we are racist, homophobic, misogynists. It's rather prejudicial and bigoted of you, don't you think?
You would call me anti-brown people because I am anti- "illegal" immigration. What you don't know is that I have 4 members of my family that I am personally responsible for LEGALLY bringing into this country, and their skin is decidedly darker in hue than my own.
You would say that I am homophobic because I believe in a rather long and and historical tradition that you seem to think is should be abolished. You exhibit no respect for my cultural heritage, my social norms or my values. But if I were identified as some sort of cultural minority, you would picket the capitol to defend my right to protect my cultural values. A bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
You would say that I am anti-woman because I think murder is wrong. Sure the woman has a right over her own uterus. She might not have the right to take the life growing inside of it. Her protection of her body should have started a bit sooner. Killing an innocent child in the name of tolerance is rather oxymoronic in my view. You say I abhor women I say you willingly condone murder. I'm sure that helps you see the light (in the same way your "accusations" help others see the light.)
Posted by: Eyago on February 3, 2011 09:07 PMYour condescending arrogance belies your supposed smug superiority. I would have little doubt that you consider yourself an enlightened, open, and affirming person who respects other cultures, other lifestyles and other values - like most liberals. And then you proceed to violate those same supposed principles with every posting on this blog.
In essence you prove our point and demonstrate the amazing intolerance of the liberal left who is tolerant of anything but the majority culture and values of this country.
If we don't see things your way, it's not because we have valid differences and values, but that we are racist, homophobic, misogynists. It's rather prejudicial and bigoted of you, don't you think?
You would call me anti-brown people because I am anti- "illegal" immigration. What you don't know is that I have 4 members of my family that I am personally responsible for LEGALLY bringing into this country, and their skin is decidedly darker in hue than my own.
You would say that I am homophobic because I believe in a rather long and and historical tradition that you seem to think is should be abolished. You exhibit no respect for my cultural heritage, my social norms or my values. But if I were identified as some sort of cultural minority, you would picket the capitol to defend my right to protect my cultural values. A bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
You would say that I am anti-woman because I think murder is wrong. Sure the woman has a right over her own uterus. She might not have the right to take the life growing inside of it. Her protection of her body should have started a bit sooner. Killing an innocent child in the name of tolerance is rather oxymoronic in my view. You say I abhor women I say you willingly condone murder. I'm sure that helps you see the light (in the same way your "accusations" help others see the light.)
Posted by: eyago on February 3, 2011 09:10 PMYour "cultural heritage, social norms, and values" deserve respect, but when they directly hurt a specific minority for no societal purpose, they don't deserve to be written into law.
Posted by: Bruce on February 3, 2011 09:26 PMThere is no "right" to marry in this country, Bruce. Government really has no business in recognizing any union whether hetero or same sex.
Meanwhile,the Washington state Constitution clearly declares that same sex marriages are banned. So my advice is to get your ass off the couch and get a petition on the ballot for your fellow blue state washingtonians to vote yea or nay on the issue to get the state constitution changed. Are you willing to do the heavy lifting? I doubt it.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 3, 2011 09:50 PMHowever, it's plain for anyone who has open eyes to see that the hate and intolerance is on the left. There are a lot of Republicans that oppose gay marriage, but I don't know any who do so with hate. By contrast, I can show any number of blogs, cable news shows and left leaning talk radio shows seething with profanity and hatred for the right. Rick D. is correct. It's only because the hate is tolerated and mainstream that the left gets a pass.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 3, 2011 09:51 PMAnd while you are correct about what the WA constitution says, that will be void if it is found in violation of the US constitution, as is happening in CA? Who will prevail in CA and what will happen in WA, I'm not sure, but the WA constitution is not necessarily the final word.
Posted by: Bruce on February 3, 2011 10:22 PMSo you admit that by arguing on a political blog - from what sounds like either spite or mere stupidity - you are personally both worsening global warming and creating a national security issue by actively using energy when you could conserve?
From my posts, yes. This is not my post, and I have no power over who comments here (nor would I want such responsibility ... it's hard enough to keep idiots like you off my own posts).
Didn't you say ... some such self-congradulatory [sic]
No, I did not congratulate myself in any way. I simply noted the fact that, due to your dishonest and intellectually offensive behavior derailing intelligent conversation, you were banned and would no longer be allowed to have comments on my posts.
You did make my posts disappear like a good little fascist.
Yawn. You were being a tool, so I made room for more interesting people than you. It could be worse: I could be trying to ban you from speaking using the law, which is what the Democrats -- including almost all the top ones in DC, including Obama, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, and so on -- have explicitly stated they wish to do.
Calling me a "fascist" is hilarious in this context: all I am doing is saying that I get to define the rules for my sandbox, and to take action to remove comments that violate those rules. This is not fascism, but, rather, the essence of liberty. If I told someone ELSE what had to be said, or couldn't be said, in THEIR sandbox, or in a PUBLIC sandbox, THAT would be fascism.
Um, grandstanding and taking votes that had no possiblity of becoming law have never stopped Republican caucuses before.
Thank you for conceding that your analogy was inherently flawed, because of the fact that the Democrats actually could have repealed DOMA ... if they wanted to. The point being, of course, that they didn't want to.
And about those anit-gay ballot measures, pudge, Ken Mehlman says otherwise
No, in fact, he doesn't. He says, in the quotes you provided, that some Republicans did work to get those on the ballots, not that they were on the ballot only because of those Republicans, let alone the party as a whole, which was your actual claim. (Resorting to shifting the goalposts is unseemly.) I never stated, nor implied, that some Republicans didn't work to get those on the ballots: indeed, some of my good Republican friends have worked to get such initiatives on ballots. But they, in every case, are part of broad nonpartisan coalitions.
That would be, the, um, former head of the Republican Party.
Yes, who is a conservative gay man, despite your idiotic claim that it was hard to find such a person ("As if one could even find a gay conservative") ... and you're the one who brings up an example!
Not really a valid statement. If she doesn't have, at least some control, over the fetus that's inside of her she doesn't have control over her own body.
We know from experience that banning abortion doesn't end it. Banning abortion ends safe access to abortion for a large part of the population. The abortions will go on, safely for those who can afford it, unsafely for those who can not. We also know by the number of abortions performed every year that many people are saying they're against it while they or the women they've impregnated are having abortions.
Not all conservatives and Republicans are anti-choice.
http://www.gopchoice.org/about_us.asp
"We support the protection of reproductive rights, including the full range of reproductive options. We believe that personal and medical decisions are best made between a woman, her doctor and her family and out of the hands of government. We are deeply concerned with direction of our Party if it continues to endorse a social agenda that is both intrusive and alienating. Our Party is naively discounting its mainstream members for those who represent the extreme right and believe it is their way or no way. These obstinate tactics will ensure one thing - the inevitable erosion of the Republican Party to minority status."
Of course it is.
If she doesn't have, at least some control, over the fetus that's inside of her she doesn't have control over her own body.
She does have SOME control. But not FULL control, because if she had FULL control, then she would therefore have full control over someone ELSE'S body.
By saying abortion should be legal because a woman should have control over her own body, you are committing the question-begging fallacy, assuming either that there is no other separate body inside her (even though science is absolutely clear that there is), or that the living body inside her has no rights, or that its rights are entirely subordinate to the mother's (which may be your opinion, but it's a completely unsubstantiated one, and it's one we disagree with).
We know from experience that banning abortion doesn't end it.
That's a tragically unintellectual statement. We know from experience that banning theft and terrorism and assault and rape don't end those things, either; so therefore we shouldn't ban them? That is the form your argument takes, but it's a logically untenable position.
Banning abortion ends safe access to abortion for a large part of the population.
Um, yes ... that's the point. And banning theft ends safe access to thieving. This is unsurprising, and it's not a bug, it's a feature.
We also know by the number of abortions performed every year that many people are saying they're against it while they or the women they've impregnated are having abortions.
That's utterly false: you do not, cannot, know that. In order for that to be true, you'd need to see around half the rearing-age female population having abortions, which isn't remotely true. You're just making that up.
I do not think 'belies' means what you think it means, paraphrasing Inigo Montoya.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 4, 2011 05:23 AMHowever, if marriage is going to have legal implications, impacting taxes and insurance and inheritance and potentially many other issues, then there has to be a role for government in the guarantee/enforcement of these contracts.
I've often thought that the intertwining of this legal interaction with a church ceremony was absurd. It might solve the problem if everyone had to have a civil union - and that would be open to all and equal in every way, and would be the mechanism for establishing the legal joining of two people - and then you could go, if you chose to, to the religious/cultural/whatever celebration of your choice, which itself would have no legal consequences whatsoever.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 4, 2011 05:30 AMI appreciate your willingness to debate with integrity and to amend your points for accuracy, but you missed the point.
At issue isn't the greater debate of whether one group deserves recognition within the marriage institution, its the fact that those who disagree based on their values and traditions are demonized as haters by the "ever tolerant" left.
Posted by: Eyago on February 4, 2011 05:47 AMYeah. I modified the predicate through editing, making it pretty much redundant and didn't look at the verb.
Originally it was "Your condescending arrogance belies your supposed tolerance."
Such are the dangers of informal blogging.
Posted by: eyago on February 4, 2011 05:55 AMAnd once again, Bruce, you are wrong. There is no right to marry. You may think it should be, but it's a fact that it is not. If you can present some evidence that it IS a right, by all means, do so.
And while you are correct about what the WA constitution says, that will be void if it is found in violation of the US constitution
It's hard to be found in violation of the US Constitution when the word marriage never appears within the document. The state constitution is very clear about which marriages are prohibited and the high court of Washington state has upheld those banned marriages. (albeit a 5-4 decison, which means 4 jurists are illiterate or do not care to uphold the clear language within our state constitution- See activist court)
26.04.020
Prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:
....(c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.
Like I said above, Bruce. The people can change all of that, but most of those in favor of gay marriage can't bother to get off their couch and collect signatures to put it on the ballot and let the people decide. Why is that?
That would have been good.
BTW, sorry if I come off as condescending or arrogant - not intended, particularly, I just like to use words well, and like a good political argument.
You ignorant right-wing cur.
;)
maybe you should check back to #14 because you denigrated the conversation by swearing.so if you are going to throw stones don't live in a glass house.you keep this up and you are going to become my favorite demoCRAT,but then again the only good demoCRAT is a dead demoCRAT.come on now just a little satire.ENJOY Posted by: jtm371 on February 4, 2011 06:44 AM
I wouldn't worry about these idiots they, and people like them, are the reason that even in a big Republican year like 2010 the WSRP couldn't win races and isn't really relevant. I thought they would burn out by now, but they haven't. It looks like we're going to have to have two groups of folks on the right, the bat shit crazy's like Stephan, Pudge, and JTM and people like me who can form a coalition with moderate Democrats and actually get work done.
Posted by: Spocitykid on February 4, 2011 06:56 AMShit and Piss? Are you for real?
My goodness, I hadn't realized the sensibilities around here were so delicate.
I'm really god-damned sorry.
demoCRAT
What does that even mean? Reminds me of a raving loon over at Horsesass.org named Puddy who would make up silly neologisms like "dummocrapt" Really rather juvenile, though at least his were fairly transparent.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 4, 2011 06:58 AMIdiocy. Sure, they could enter into a contract with each other. Explain to me how their contract then compels government/employers/insurers to recognize them in the same way a marriage between a man and a woman does
Don't get started on "born that way", there are some who are but many more who choose
Really? Do tell. Could you give me more precise explanation - what proportion, say, are 'born that way' versus those who 'choose'? Was Larry Craig "born that way" or did he choose? George Alan Rekers?
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 4, 2011 07:13 AMYawn. You can't even back up your claims when challenged.
they, and people like them, are the reason that even in a big Republican year like 2010 the WSRP couldn't win races
Other than the races the WSRP won, you mean? But yes, some races were lost, but that is mostly due to the fact that the left lies, and the left-leaning electorate believes them. Obvious examples are the massive lies told about Rossi in his last two races: that he is against stem cells, that he has any "shady" business dealings, that he cut critical programs, and so on ... not to mention the lies Gregoire told about her own record, that she didn't drastically increase spending (in contravention of her own admonition to not do that) and give us a huge deficit.
The basic recipe here is to make people afraid of Republicans by any means necessary, and then lie about the unsavory parts of your own record. And well, it often works. But it can't make them feel good, especially when what happens to our economy and budget are exactly what the Republicans warned would happen. Not that it comforts me to point out the fact that our state's Republicans were right all along, but I do have hopes that maybe the electorate will wake up and realize it someday.
It looks like we're going to have to have two groups of folks on the right, the bat shit crazy's like Stephan, Pudge, and JTM
Shrug. Give me ONE example, just one, where anything I've said is "crazy." You can't.
and people like me who can form a coalition with moderate Democrats and actually get work done.
I already pointed out the fact that your statements about abortion are grossly ignorant. So perhaps what you mean is there are two kinds of Republicans: the ones who can make cogent arguments, and the ones who sacrifice logic for the sake of "getting work done" ... work that almost all Republicans don't want done in the first place.
The civil union conundrum depends on whether or not gay lifestyle can be a choice or not. My opinion is based on my belief it can be. It is far from decided scientifically however. An interesting article about this can be found at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1329/is_5_32/ai_n19492960/ Posted by: shaydo on February 4, 2011 08:14 AM
could you please show one example of your words is so batshit crazy that i have said.just like i said before you on the left are more and more like the taliban.you either believe what we say or you are the problem.by the way i am not a republican i am a proud CONSERVATIVE so please make the correction.ENJOY Posted by: jtm371 on February 4, 2011 08:20 AM
Why?
Why can't you let two people, any two people who want to marry, do so, and leave them alone. If you don't want to marry another man/woman, don't. It's none of your business what they want to do.
still waiting for an example of what i said that is so batshit crazy.i know because i don't use cfl's that must be why i am so crazy.or is it that i am against ILLEGAL immigration.let me know.i don't believe that conservatives are splitting but i could be wrong. Posted by: jtm371 on February 4, 2011 09:05 AM
Posted by Spocitykid at February 4, 2011 08:29 AM
Who did you vote for in the last 3 presidential elections ? I suspect that you are a progressive who may have voted Republican a few times. Do you like Obamacare ? Kindly man up and answer these questions.
Progressives typically hate the Tea party. You'd really like to see GOP relegated to a minority party - right ? You are misinformed and wishful about the demise of the TEA party - they aren't going anywhere and may take out the GOP, which would be for the better - if they stay feckless.
Posted by: KDS on February 4, 2011 12:28 PMWe haven't had a classical conservative run for president since George H. W. Bush, who I voted for twice (and is a friend of one of my uncles. I've heard more than enough about his kids...). I voted for Dole as well, but wasn't all that thrilled about it. As a senator Dole played the role of a moderate, classical conservative, but when he ran for president he took a hard right turn and turned me and a lot of other people off. Had he not made that hard right, Dole probably would have won. Had McCain chosen someone other than Sarah Palin I might have voted for him, since he chose her I chose to abstain from voting for that particular office.
Obamacare doesn't exist, take a deep breath and let it go. What we do have is a rather complicated, expensive, and crappy healthcare system, (yeah I know, I'm supposed to wave the flag and spout lies about how we have the best system in the whole world. Bad me.) that will be made more complicated, crappy, and expensive over time without fairly significant reforms. Unfortunately, most of the reforms that the Democrats have put into place will make things worse, not better. Some of the reforms, like making it impossible for insurers to drop people for using their insurance are a good thing. I'd like to see someone try to campaign on repealing that one ;->.
Most of what the Republicans and the idiots at Fox News have been spouting about the Democratic healthcare reforms has been complete crap. Lying dosen't help the cause. Death panels my ass. Try getting your news here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/
Richard Nixon supported universal healthcare, the Republicans supported universal healthcare in the early 90's. We do need universal healthcare of some form or another. I like HSA accounts (I have one) and the idea of getting rid of insurance for minor things. I had a sinus infection recently and the total cost for the office visit and meds to treat it came to about $120. Probably half of that went went to insurance and my out of pocket cost was $35, 30 for the office visit and $5 worth of meds. There's no reason we couldn't just get rid of insurance and pay straight out of an HSA account for something like that. But, I doubt my doctor would let me barter chickens for treatment! However, I couldn't pay for a broken leg or a ruptured spleen that way. We need insurance for big stuff. I have a short term disability plan that's pretty cheap. Why not let my short term plan kick in at 5K instead of 20K? Something like that would work just fine for 95% of the population and medicare/medicaid can pickup the rest (and yes we should have medicare and medicaid for that 5%. Even Sarah Palin will be getting special services for her disabled kid.)
Nationally the Republican Party is already a minority party, it just doesn't know it yet. In Washington State the WSRP has been a minority party for most of my adult life and will continue to be one. Most of the gains made in 2010 will be lost and quickly. I'd like to get back to policies like those of Washington State's only three-term governor Dan Evans (R), and the country back on the tracks Teddy Roosevelt (R) and Eisenhower (R) put it on. Hell, even Nixon looks pretty damn good next to Sarah Palin and Rand Paul ('Oh no, I said hell and damn. Here come the potty mouth police!).
O' and we should take a look at what the Conservative Party over in England is doing and see how much of it we can apply it here. They look to be doing a good job. Maggie Thatcher ( Thatcher started the worlds first needle exchange programs. Giving junkies clean needles is cheaper than treating AIDS) did a good job as well.
Posted by: Spocitykid on February 4, 2011 07:56 PMOops, actually I'll be getting a bill for the remaining cost of the office visit. I keep forgetting it's 2011 and my deductible has reset. Getting rid of insurance for the little stuff would mean no more remembering your deductible!
Posted by: Spocitykid on February 4, 2011 08:03 PMNo. Not in any way whatsoever. If it is a matter of liberty, then whether it is a choice is irrelevant.
Lots of things are perhaps not "choices," that are nevertheless wrong. If homosexuality is not a choice, that doesn't make it right; and if homosexuality IS a choice, that doesn't make it wrong.
Spocitykid: JTM, I'm not a member of the left, I'm a classical conservative.
Then you would be FOR the liberty of every human, including the human in the womb. So, no, you're not. Please, stop playing make believe.
The conservative movement is splitting in two
No, it's not.
We haven't had a classical conservative run for president since George H. W. Bush
Was Reagan a "classical conservative" according to your definition? (I already know your answer is No.)
As a senator Dole played the role of a moderate, classical conservative ...
Oxymoron. A classical conservative isn't a moderate, else the words have no meaning.
but when he ran for president he took a hard right turn and turned me and a lot of other people off
No, he didn't. And taking a turn to the right is taking a turn toward conservatism. You are using the word "conservative" in a way that no one else does.
Had he not made that hard right, Dole probably would have won.
Utter nonsense.
Obamacare doesn't exist
In fact, it does. You may not like the label, but it DOES exist. It's a fact.
yeah I know, I'm supposed to wave the flag and spout lies about how we have the best system in the whole world.
It depends on the metrics. If you judge based on the outcomes of people who actually get care, yes, we're the best. Period, bar none.
Most of what the Republicans and the idiots at Fox News have been spouting about the Democratic healthcare reforms has been complete crap.
False.
Lying dosen't help the cause. Death panels my ass.
Except that no one has been talking about "death panels" for more than a year. Those on the left, like you, like to keep bringing that up as thought it makes some point, but it doesn't.
ALMOST ALL of what the Republicans and Fox News say about the health insurance bill is true: the mandate is unconstitutional (as other parts are); it doesn't contain costs at all (which is the real problem with health care, that the bill does nothing to address); it will likely INcrease costs; it will balloon the budget deficit; it puts much of the regulations in the hands of unelected bureaucrats; etc.
Richard Nixon supported universal healthcare
True. And he was a liberal Republican.
the Republicans supported universal healthcare in the early 90's.
False. It never happened. You're making it up. SOME Republicans did. Most did not.
We do need universal healthcare of some form or another.
Bullshit.
I doubt my doctor would let me barter chickens for treatment!
Yes, the problem is precisely that you have to go through your insurance, as Sue Lowden said. Despite the lies of the left, her point was not that you actually barter chickens, but that you shouldn't need to rely on insurance for everything, as this just increases costs.
However, I couldn't pay for a broken leg or a ruptured spleen that way.
Only because government intervention has ballooned the costs of health care. There is no economic reason why it should cost more than a couple hundred bucks to deal with a broken leg: x-rays, cast, and so on. But government intervention has distorted the market through massive subsidies for HMOs and so on. And now you want MORE of that. Dumb.
We need insurance for big stuff. I have a short term disability plan that's pretty cheap. Why not let my short term plan kick in at 5K instead of 20K?
A classical conservative question is "why not let people buy whatever insurance they want, including none at all?" The whole idea of "letting" people have plans that do this or that is insanity.
We haven't had a classical conservative run for president since George H. W. Bush
Was Reagan a "classical conservative" according to your definition? (I already know your answer is No.)
Um... Actually, my answer is that Reagan was in office before Bush...
Posted by: Spocitykid on February 4, 2011 08:47 PM
Wow, you really are out there in Lala land. As someone who works in health care and has had a broken leg that took surgery to fix, 5 days in the hospital, 3 weeks off work and two months of physical therapy to fix I can tell you you're wrong on that one. I know what healthcare really costs and some of it, like sinus infections are really cheap (you don't even need to see a doc a PA or RN can treat that), but some of it isn't and can't be made so.
"Yes, the problem is precisely that you have to go through your insurance, as Sue Lowden said. Despite the lies of the left, her point was not that you actually barter chickens, but that you shouldn't need to rely on insurance for everything, as this just increases costs."
And I said we should get rid of most of it! ;-> She said our grandparents bartered chickens. My grandfather was the president of a bank.
"A classical conservative question is "why not let people buy whatever insurance they want, including none at all?" The whole idea of "letting" people have plans that do this or that is insanity."
And that's pretty much what I posted. Universal coverage means it's available, it doesn't mean you have to use it.
To answer your previous question about why I never replied to you posts, it simple.
1. Nothing I've posted is controversial or unknown and I far from the only one saying it. There's no need to back it up.
2 You've been vomiting up your garbage all over the web for quite a while. I've seen enough of what you've written and sung that I could write your ridiculous crap for you.
Posted by: Spocitykid on February 4, 2011 09:01 PM
I appreciate your comments.
I think you've run headlong into the 'glib' of glibertarian with pudgey.
Do you ever drop by horsesass? I think a thoughtful and informed conservative, who can give as good as he/she gets would be welcome, and stimulated. The quality of troll over there (who I think would be a welcome member of the amen chorus here) is pretty lacking.
Come on over to the dark side. We have cookies.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 4, 2011 10:06 PMUm, actually, that doesn't answer the question. Not that I am surprised, mind you.
I know what healthcare really costs and some of it, like sinus infections are really cheap (you don't even need to see a doc a PA or RN can treat that), but some of it isn't and can't be made so.
I wonder if you're being intentionally dishonest, or if you really think you're making a reasonable point.
My claim is that health care costs much more than it otherwise would due to massive government intervention. NOTHING you said in your "rebuttal" addresses my claim in the least bit.
You also betray a startling lack of competence on basic economic matters: you literally claimed that working in the health care industry gives you the knowledge of what things actually cost. But any economist will tell you that nothing works that way. You have to actually investigate each step along the economic path to find out the true costs, not merely work on one end of it, and even then you don't know what things might have cost otherwise, because we can't say, just by looking at it, how much a drug would cost without perpetually extended patent protection; whether certain equipment would be purchased absent a government grant, and whether a better deal might've been struck; and so on.
You're talking out your ass.
And that's pretty much what I posted. Universal coverage ...
No, in fact. "Universal coverage" means we do away with all insurance, because everyone is covered for everything. That's completely opposite of people picking and choosing what to be covered for.
Nothing I've posted is controversial or unknown and I far from the only one saying it. There's no need to back it up.
Rubbish. I proved your claims were incorrect or illogical:
* Your claim about "control of her own body" is the question-begging fallacy, since it's not just her body, but someone else's. This claim is highly controversial, at best, but when asserted as fact is obviously illogical (and, in fact, contradicts science, since we know as scientific fact that it is IS someone else's body inside there).
* Your claim about "banning it won't end it" is a non sequitur, since we don't end *any* criminal acts by banning them. This claim is uncontroversial in that no serious person makes it as a serious argument, because it is so obviously irrational, as it implies that anyone expects any crime to go away once banned.
* Your claim that many people have abortions while saying they are against them, based on the numbers, is just wrong: you cannot possibly back that up, because the numbers of abortions are not nearly large enough: we report less than a million per year, and there's tens of millions of birthing-age women in this country. Admit it: you just made it up.
You've been vomiting up your garbage all over the web for quite a while.
If it is "garbage" and "ridiculous," then prove it: demonstrate that I am wrong about something. Go ahead.
I've seen enough of what you've written and sung that I could write your ridiculous crap for you.
No, you surely do not have even close to the requisite intelligence, thoughtfulness, and insight to reasonably mimic me. (Yes, I am defying you to attempt it.)
I would ask the anti-abortion folks around here, pudge included, that if this is murder, should we be prosecuting the doctors who perform this procedure? How about the women who undergo an abortion?
I'm assuming that the general consensus around here is that there IS NOT or SHOULD NOT BE an exception to banning abortion if the pregnancy was a result of rape, right?
No Abortions.
No exceptions.
Prosecute doctors and the women who have the procedure.
right?
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 5, 2011 06:49 AMIn particular, I remember a couple of years back when the young republicans held a bake sale in front of the HUB to illustrate affirmative action.
They sold cookies to folks where price was based on race. White customers paid more than non-white folks for the same cookies.
Needless to say, the campus democrats/ marxists/ socialists all had an epic chimp-out.
What did our brave UW administration do?
They closed down the bake sale.
Then there was the big "NO WAR" sign that sat in a second floor window of the bio-tech building for over a year, or the manager whose office had a nice Obama for president poster on the wall, or the refridgerator with one of those wacky George Bush is stupid cartoons taped to it (which I ripped down after enduring it for five years).
I really liked how some of the employees had the heart black and blue BDSM flag bumperstickers on their cars (might have been Fred and Karl).
I had an "Executive Administrator" (makes over 200K a year) who felt comfortable telling his staff who he was rooting for in a presidential election (Obumbles, of course) in a pretty transparent and pathetic attempt at trying to get his staff to like him. The guy (an "open" homo) was incapable of grasping that some folks don't care much for "the messiah".
A really classy professional he was. He is representative of the money well-spent at the UW by the Washington tax payer (as opposed to the tax consumers, usually democrats).
What a great place full of really, really great people.
I say cut their salaries and cut their funding.
Posted by: Attila on February 5, 2011 07:50 AMNice little rant you have going there.
...Washington tax payer (as opposed to the tax consumers, usually democrats).
You might want to look at where state revenues come from and where they're spent - and it's not the same, and certainly not what you're asserting.
As with the distribution of federal revenue/spending, it's typically majority Democratic areas (read evil urban librul homo zones like King County) subsidizing Republicans (read Eastern Washington). You people are the biggest pack of welfare queens, but you scream like you're the victims. Typical.
Jungle love baby! Posted by: ZTOZTO on February 5, 2011 10:19 AM
Jungle love baby! Posted by: Trend on February 5, 2011 10:25 AM
The numbers don't lie, homeslice.
Puget Sound counties, particularly demonically blue King, HEAVILY subsidize the rugged Galtian individualists of Eastern Washington.
Just like New York and Massachusetts and California subsidize Alabama and South Carolina and Idaho. Though as a believer in a progressive tax code that promotes a more even distribution in wealth, and a net donor, I see the benefits of such a system.
I just wish you Republican welfare queens would say thank you, and stop whining about being victimized.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 5, 2011 01:03 PMThe inner cities have been decimated by your ilk - the liberals have been in charge since the 1960's. What goes around comes around...
Posted by: South King County on February 5, 2011 02:59 PMThe inner cities have been decimated by your ilk - the liberals have been in charge since the 1960's. What goes around comes around...
Posted by: South King County on February 5, 2011 03:02 PMAnderson and Reuven Carlyle (D-Seattle) are working on this issue, looking at ways to shrink the costs of government (something I would think you guys would like around here) by merging inefficient county operations, mainly thinly populated, Republican-majority ones in Eastern Washington.
That 'crackpot' Goldy similarly dug through the raw data and looked further at the issue of tax receipts and state spending, further documenting a disconnect between the two, published on that rag from Gomorrah, The Stranger.
What is clear is that like at the federal level, where sin-ridden liberal-leaning hell holes like Massachusetts and New Jersey and Minnesota and California export money to good God-fearing Ann Coulter loving states like South Carolina and Alabama and Idaho, so too within Washington state King and other blue-ish Puget sin factories support prim and proper red welfare queen counties east of the Cascades.
The point, my obtuse friend, is not that we're against wealth redistribution, but that we want to know about it and discuss it openly so as to make rational choices. BTW, I'm certainly in favor of a progressive tax system, both at the federal and state levels, and a tax on wealth, and certainly an inheritance tax, and I did indeed vote for I-1028 and against I-1053.
What I, and I think others on the left, object to is the vociferous whining from the rugged, individualistic Galtian glibertarians about their horrific tax burdens being lavished on the shiftless and the lazy, when in fact, it's the creative, urban, potty-mouthed Democrats paying the bills.
A 'thank you' would be in order now.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 6, 2011 08:23 AMSmaller and limited government, with smaller entitlements is the only way out. That seems like the proverbial stake in the heart to the liberal progressives who contributed mightily to this problem in the first place - too bad !
Posted by: KDS on February 6, 2011 09:10 AMThat was a wonderful regurgitation of Republican talking points, unpolluted by analysis, or even any thought at all, it seems.
Is it a reflex? Do you have that sort of thing on tape-loop somewhere in your brain-stem (it's certainly not cortical) for when facts and ideology grow inconsistent? (Which I imagine happens pretty frequently)
The topic of the last few exchanges has been the inconsistencies between where taxes are raised and where they're spent. Namely, the pattern appears, both on a national as well as within Washington analysis, that left-leaning areas subsidize Republican ones.
This might be news to you - but a budget deficit or surplus is a function of both tax revenues and spending (Really? Why, yes.) If you're proposing that the spending be cut as the exclusive means for bringing the budget within balance, what do you think about said spending be kept geographically proportionate to the local tax burden?
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 6, 2011 09:30 AMThere is a funny thing about "aggregate data". It doesn't really shed much light on what is actually happening.
On the one hand, it is true that richer populations will contribute more because of their wealth, and coincidentally will have fewer requirements for subsidies and grants. So on that score, it should be obvious that a progressive tax system will disfavor wealthier population groups.
However, there are other considerations. Large population centers will tend to get better economies of scale. It is easier to service larger populations concentrated in one area than populations that are spread out. A dispersed population might require more more government employees to service due to travel time, there might be more buildings and facilities per person as well. So ultimately it might be a bit more costly to perform government services in dispersed locations for the same level of service. State highways may be more expensive per population because the distance. And road upkeep is not simply a factor number of cars so again scaling benefits cost.
I'm am sure that are other factors, but without a breakdown of expenditures, it's hard to say if the distribution is equitable for the state to meet its obligations.
On a national level I was able to find some breakdowns that help explain where the money goes. For example, some expenditures are retirement and disability. Florida should not be faulted if people choose to retire there and thus it has a higher per-capita retirement flow.
Places like Maryland and Virgina have really high procurement amounts due to their proximity to the center of power. Interesting enough, New Mexico does as well. Maybe there are a lot of nuclear sites in that state,; I don't know. Nevada, which is almost completely owned by the government has an extremely low procurement rate. Makes me want to know exactly what "procurement" covers. Federal government salaries are particularly high in Alaska and Hawaii, which makes some sense due to cost of living, but North Dakota is high too. Lots of feds living there or do they just get a bonus for having to live there? Who knows?
So, we might have reasons to eliminate retirement as a wealth distribution factor, government salaries could be a case of military bases and other government facilities making it a non-factor. Procurement might just be which states have the businesses from which government buys, etc. That sort of leaves only Grants as the method for wealth distribution. New York is third (I think) at $2,608 per capita, compared to Idaho which comes in a low $1,466. Now, my guess is that NY pays more than that, probably Idaho pays less, but the point is, when you look at the details, things aren't always so cut and dried.
This does not mean wealth distribution is happening or not, and it has nothing to do with my opinion on whether it should or should not. I'm just saying aggregate stats ore not very helpful.
Federal data source:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
A thoughtful reply - and likely mostly true, though I would take issue with this:
...it should be obvious that a progressive tax system will disfavor wealthier population groups.
I think 'disfavor' may be the wrong verb. Perhaps in a very short-sighted and self-centered analysis, yes. However, from an equity point of view, wealth reflects receiving a greater benefit from society as a whole, and so paying back at a proportionally great rate is fair. Also, concentrated wealth and income disparity are inherently self-perpetuating and destabilizing and unhealthy to society as a whole, and should be, as you say, disfavored, with goal of advancing a wider societal good.
A dispersed population might require more more government employees to service...
Are you suggesting that there are necessary government services that all citizens have a right to, and should expect, even if it is costly to provide? Is it right that the people in concentrated and wealthier places, like, gasp, Seattle (as saltherring above says: Or for those with a real strong stomach, just visit Seattle...just don't bring your children.) - should they be subsidizing the roads and schools and law-enforcement and other costly services required by more 'dispersed' populations like those that are found in Eastern Washington? Shouldn't the people who choose to live in places that are costlier to service (is it a lifestyle choice? Were they born that way?) pay the costs of their choices?
A commenter above argued that we have a spending problem that is bankrupting us - shouldn't the costliest, least-efficient parts of the budget be sliced first?
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 6, 2011 10:20 AMThat goes to the question of what is government's primary responsibilities. Few conservatives would argue against police and fire, They are a natural part of government. One could also argue for state highways. Everyone benefits from those highways as the mans of allowing commerce. Schools are a little more tricky. I say that there is a societal interest in promoting education for all. Where differences occur between left and right is how that education is managed more so than that there is money being spent on it by government. There is much more division regarding welfare. How much societal interest benefit is there in insuring a basic level of subsistence and do we actually "encourage" poor choices? It is a very philosophical question that may not have a right answer.
As for other services, there might be some government services that are actually "unwanted." :)
Shouldn't the people who choose to live in places that are costlier to service (is it a lifestyle choice? Were they born that way?) pay the costs of their choices?
In general, yes. And you would get few arguments from those people on that question. I live in the "sticks" myself, and am quite willing to pay my way for the peace and quiet I get. I've lived in downtown Seattle for many years as well, and have no desire to go back.
Posted by: Eyago on February 6, 2011 11:00 AMFor instance, when adding up how much urban liberal cess pools supposedly contribute to the rest of the state, do we get to figure in the huge amounts of public treasure that get dumped into money pits like the UW and Sound Transit? If I'm not mistaken, the overwhelming numbers of employees and physical plant for those two awesome institutions reside in - guess - King County. So, State Tax Payers foot the bill for thousands of UW and ST employees and physical plant/ construction that is not technically considered direct financial support to King County but represents funds that are largely spent in and largely benefit King County.
Posted by: Attila on February 6, 2011 12:48 PMNo kidding, Sherlock.
If you're proposing that the spending be cut as the exclusive means for bringing the budget within balance, what do you think about said spending be kept geographically proportionate to the local tax burden?
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 6, 2011 09:30 AM
I don't like your idea, simply because there is too much potential dispute that would arise. Just like I am against change in the electoral college, unlike what your side wants.
Your ilk needs to keep hearing what you call talking points (TEA party, not Republican BTW), because it fails to sink in your thick skulls that the your ilk, the ruling class is spending us into obliviion. Do you care if this country goes bankrupt and becomes a second world country and a banana republic ? Really, you do ? You keep reguritating your liberal dogma and whine about changes forthcoming to enable us to live within our means. The progressives have brought it on themselves and will have to pay the price one way or the other. It is more important for you and liberal progressives to win at all costs, rather do what is right for the good of America, The GOP has done this to, but less so.
Taxing is not a problem for politicians - congress has no problem increasing taxes, when the economy improves. Keep it simple. Spending takes a lot more political will to pull off. That is why the Democrats and Pelosi were swept out of power last November. You need to be educated in economics 101,
Posted by: KDS on February 6, 2011 07:56 PMPosted by: Matt M. on February 6, 2011 07:57 PM
So given what we know about increased cost per unit service in places of dispersed population, and consequent relative subsidy by the state government - you'd be willing to pay more taxes in order to enjoy the lifestyle you chose "in the sticks"? Do I understand you correctly?
If so - OK, commendable - let's raise state taxes in Eastern Washington, and cut them in King - Reps Anderson and Carlyle will love to hear that that's a politically viable move.
I don't like your idea, simply because there is too much potential dispute that would arise.KDS
Ahem. You're worried about dispute?! But, OK, you want to cut "entitlements" - what I'm proposing is cutting the entitlements going to Eastern Washington and other rural areas, paid for with tax revenues from King and other urban counties. End the welfare! Why should I pay for roads/schools/Medicaid/fire fighters etc in Pend Orelle or Adams or wherever else when I don't derive benefit? Those people should be expected to pay their own bills. They should get a job or start a business and compete in the marketplace - they shouldn't be expecting a handout from me, via the government, to subsidize the lifestyle that they chose. Those people will never realize that they're spending us into oblivion unless we cut them off from the teat of government money - my money!
Don't you agree?
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 7, 2011 05:47 AMI think the phrase is, "No shit, Sherlock"
Much more euphonious with the alliteration.
If your sensibilities are tortured by 'shit' then perhaps pick an entirely different quip to get your point across (was there a point?), rather than imposing clunky, sanitized censorship on something that works just fine the way it is.
*********
BTW, why is this site soooo slow to post? Horsesass.org goes much faster, and has handy tools to bolden, or italicize or box quote - kinda nifty, might want to try it out sometime.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 7, 2011 05:56 AMSo given what we know about increased cost per unit service in places of dispersed population, and consequent relative subsidy by the state government - you'd be willing to pay more taxes in order to enjoy the lifestyle you chose "in the sticks"? Do I understand you correctly?
If so - OK, commendable - let's raise state taxes in Eastern Washington, and cut them in King - Reps Anderson and Carlyle will love to hear that that's a politically viable move.
Now you are just baiting, a trite response. First of all, local police and fire ARE supported locally, so I doubt you pay for my fire department. WSP is a state agency, so is the Washington National Guard. State responsibility and should be paid for on a per-person basis since they are there to support the people.
Anyway, my main point is that until we know the details of how the money is spent, we can make no real progress on whether it is spent appropriately.
Oh, and you still are being snarky and arrogant (not necessarily referring to comments directed at me,) which "belies" your supposed desire to foster intellectual debate.
Posted by: Eyago on February 7, 2011 08:29 AMFallacy. Not that it's all your fault, but the problem is when we combine legal meanings with non-legal meanings and give them the same word, even though they are different things. "Marriage" is an obvious example of this problem.
In this case, few people believe that all unlawful killings of other humans is "murder." There's manslaughter and assassination so on, which many people colloquially call "murder" regardless. The point is that a crime, and its punishment, should be tailored to the act, and not compared to other somewhat similar acts. And almost no one would say abortion is similar enough to what we legally call "murder" to make it legally equivalent.
And even if people do believe that, like all crimes, we determine such things via consensus. There's not necessarily an objective truth behind our punishments, but it is what we collectively believe is right.
Therefore the prudent answer, and in my view the correct one, is to not try to decide on the criminal law at this time, when we don't even have a consensus that abortion should be illegal. Determining what the criminal law should be now is putting the cart before the horse: it's not how the system works. We first come to the consensus that it should be illegal, and THEN we decide what the crimes should be for that act: whether they should be for doctor, for nurses, for mothers, and whether they should be felonies, and so on. It's complicated and it is determined entirely by consensus, which we don't have.
I'm assuming that the general consensus around here is that there IS NOT or SHOULD NOT BE an exception to banning abortion if the pregnancy was a result of rape, right?
Yes, you are assuming that. That is right.
I just wish you Republican welfare queens would say thank you, and stop whining about being victimized.
First, you're a liar. I pay a hell of a lot more than I get.
Second, the numbers DO lie. That's another subject, but briefly, your data isn't broken down by demographics within the counties: the poor people in Seattle could get a lot more than the poor people in Spokane, for example. The bottom line is that it's not about areas, especially within WA, as much as it is about individuals, and there just happens to be a higher concentration of poor people outside of those areas. (I'd note, however, that the greatest cries about this that I hear are all from the green areas on the maps: Skagit, Whatcom, King, and Snohomish.) Eyago had some other excellent reasons why the map is mostly meaningless.
Third, when YOU are the ones forcing the centralized systems that end up subsidizing poorer areas, you deserve no thanks: you created it and you got exactly what you wanted out of it. Don't shoot your parents and ask for mercy because you're an orphan.
Most of us here are smart enough to recognize this for what it is: part of the decades-old plot to socialize the nation. Social Security, for example, was extended to everybody so that nobody would want to get rid of it. Similar thing here: the left makes sure the areas most likely to oppose them get plenty, so they can get everyone suckling that government teat. And then, as now, when people complain about it, they try to use it as a billy club to make it seem like they're hypocritical, which is nonsense.
I think 'disfavor' may be the wrong verb.
You're wrong. If it takes more from one person, it is disfavoring that person. Period. You might want to argue that in the long-term they will be better off, but to say they aren't disfavored is utter tripe.
However, from an equity point of view, wealth reflects receiving a greater benefit from society as a whole
Liberal lies. It's more about trying to make everyone beholden to government, and it's not true.
and so paying back at a proportionally great rate is fair
Not if you believe the principles America was explicitly founded on, no. You are taking the position that what we own is not ours, because we got it from society and owe it back to society. You directly negate the existence of private property.
Also, concentrated wealth and income disparity are inherently self-perpetuating and destabilizing and unhealthy to society as a whole
Even if that's true, so what? It's none of your damned business. What's mine is mine, and you have no right to it. Again, you deny the very existence of individual private property -- which this government exists for the purpose of protecting, as Jefferson wrote plainly -- and will take whatever you want from whomever you want for your selfish notions of "fairness." You're a damned communist.
Thank you for stating it so clearly, however.
So given what we know about increased cost per unit service in places of dispersed population, and consequent relative subsidy by the state government - you'd be willing to pay more taxes in order to enjoy the lifestyle you chose "in the sticks"? Do I understand you correctly?
I doubt it. Why would "taxes" enter into it? Pay more, perhaps, but why in "taxes"? Oh right ... because to you, everything is done through government.
If you're proposing that the spending be cut as the exclusive means for bringing the budget within balance, what do you think about said spending be kept geographically proportionate to the local tax burden?
That's nonsense. The correct answer is to reduce spending only to what it is necessary and legal for the federal government to do, and then we won't have any significant disputes about geographical spending anyway. We'll have the occasional Boeing/Airbus problems, but when the feds aren't building bridges, the states won't argue about which bridges the feds are building.
what I'm proposing is cutting the entitlements going to Eastern Washington and other rural areas
Propose a constitutional amendment. Until then, by my reading, the state is legally obligated to pay for schools where they are underfunded for the purposes of making ample provision for education.
Why should I pay for roads/schools/Medicaid/fire fighters etc in Pend Orelle or Adams or wherever else when I don't derive benefit?
Schools, I addressed: because we constitutionally obligated ourselves to do so.
Roads, for various reasons, but most particularly commerce. That's debatable, but it will be one of the last things to go unfunded, as long as we're moving so much of our goods from East to West.
But the more local roads, and firefighters? Sure, make local communities cover those. And Medicaid? End it entirely for everyone.
Sounds good to me.
Those people should be expected to pay their own bills.
Except for where there is a state obligation (education) or significant state interest (roads for commerce), I agree.
They should get a job or start a business and compete in the marketplace - they shouldn't be expecting a handout from me, via the government, to subsidize the lifestyle that they chose.
Sure. Cut it. I'd love that.
The problem is, of course, that you'd also be cutting massive state subsidies to public services in King County and so on. So, good luck with that.
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 3, 2011 06:21 PM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 3, 2011 06:28 PM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 3, 2011 06:42 PM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 3, 2011 06:57 PM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 4, 2011 05:23 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 4, 2011 05:30 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 4, 2011 06:29 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 4, 2011 06:58 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 4, 2011 07:13 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 4, 2011 08:46 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 4, 2011 10:06 PM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 5, 2011 06:49 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 5, 2011 08:44 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 5, 2011 01:03 PM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 6, 2011 08:23 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 6, 2011 09:30 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 6, 2011 10:20 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 6, 2011 09:30 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 7, 2011 05:47 AM
Posted by Dr. Liberal at February 7, 2011 05:56 AM
Oh, goody. The new David Mathews. Or a Marx-bot. If nothing else provides levity.
Posted by: yaddacubed on February 7, 2011 11:30 AMMuch more euphonious with the alliteration.
If your sensibilities are tortured by 'shit' then perhaps pick an entirely different quip to get your point across (was there a point?), rather than imposing clunky, sanitized censorship on something that works just fine the way it is."
You had no rebuttal, so you resorted to ridiculing faux censorship, where I was merely being diplomatic. OK, Dave Matthews/Dr. lib; if you don't like the sanitization, then stick it up your a$$.
Posted by: KDS on February 7, 2011 11:52 AMThis is literally eliminationist, with the subtext that Republicans don't deserve to reproduce.
No, Bristol Palin can have as many children outside of marriage as she wants, and, as we all well know, no Republican will dare to object. All the bumper sticker says is that the party of the boy-chasing Rep. Foley, the bathroom-queen Sen. Craig, the whore-mongering Sen. Vitter, and the rapist Sen. Thurmond should stop "hiking the Appalachian Trail" before lecturing the rest of us on marriage. (Maybe the aforementioned can meet with Rep. Haggard for a forum on how gay marriage will destroy America?)
And, since you seem not to know nor care about the definition of "eliminationist," I'll help you. The bumper sticker says nothing about how the targets are undeserving of continued existence, must be killed to eliminate their "threat to the volk", nor about a "final solution" to the "Republican Marriage Question." It's just mocking how easily you give your vote to the above-mentioned despoilers of traditional marriage.
And you have no defense against mockery, do you? :-)
Posted by: tensor on February 7, 2011 03:44 PMOnly a liberal would repeatedly go after the child of a political figure. Guess that means its OK to go after sasha and malika?
I say turn the bumper sticker around and see how liberals like it.
Oops. They'll be whining about the climate of hate. Poor dears. Posted by: Attila on February 8, 2011 06:18 AM
So, no one should write books, magazine or newspaper articles, etc.
Thanks for the input!
Rep. Studds ...
"bathroom-queen"
Rep. Franks ...
"whore-mongering"
Gov. Spitzer ...
"the rapist [sic.] Sen. Thurmond"
Sen. Byrd ...
(Perhaps you really meant "rapist" and not "racist." If so, you're guilty of slander: he did not rape anyone. When Ms. Butler was 15 and he was 22, the evidence says she had consensual sex with Thurmond. As 14 was the age of consent, the only law he broke was that whites and blacks were not allowed to have sexual relations, and surely you cannot fault him for breaking THAT unjust law.)
Pretending it's about parties and not people just makes you look dumb. Newsflash: both parties have people who misbehave. No rational argument leads anyone to believe that this reflects on anyone else in either party, but the people who misbehave.
If you're referring to Senator Thurmond, his parents' domestic servant was sixteen years old when he had sex with her. Are you really certain she had sex with him because she loved him, or because he could have had her fired? The immense power imbalance there alone made it an abuse of his position and connections, even if -- and you've provided no source -- that the rape was not statutory.
... the only law he broke was that whites and blacks were not allowed to have sexual relations, and surely you cannot fault him for breaking THAT unjust law.
And he himself was so proud of this that he went to his grave without admitting it. Add abject moral cowardice to his life-long list of sleazy attributes; thanks for mentioning that one.
(Also, why is racism an unforgivable sin only when a Democrat does it? Senator Byrd was raised in a time and place when membership in the Klan was acceptable; he later recognized his error, and apologized for it. Senator Thurmond went to his grave without public recognition of his own first-born child. Family values at their finest!)
Pretending it's about parties and not people just makes you look dumb.
Do you agree with an implied equation of "a bumper sticker on a car in a UW parking lot" and "the UW"? Because that would be the ecological fallacy again, and you people simply must have learned what that is, after, what, almost six years to learn? Or do you enjoy looking that hopelessly wrong?
Alternately, do you believe that a university is not the proper forum for the open discussion of all ideas, no matter how offensive or repugnant those ideas might be to passers-by? If not, what then is a university for?
Yes, and there is no evidence of rape.
Are you really certain she had sex with him because she loved him
No. I am certain that there is no evidence of rape.
The immense power imbalance there alone made it an abuse of his position and connections
If that's the case, then Clinton raped Lewinsky. We can argue about the appropriateness of it, but that doesn't make it rape.
... even if -- and you've provided no source -- that the rape was not statutory.
Everything I've read about it says so, from Wikipedia to news articles. Shrug. You provide a citation that it WAS statutory rape.
And he himself was so proud of this that he went to his grave without admitting it.
False. He admitted it, just not publicly.
Also, why is racism an unforgivable sin only when a Democrat does it?
You're kidding, right? You have it completely backward: it is only forgivable when a Democrat does it. That's why Clinton can lionize Byrd, but Lott can't lionize Thurmond.
Do you agree with an implied equation of "a bumper sticker on a car in a UW parking lot" and "the UW"?
I saw no such equation. Perhaps a comment made that equation, but I didn't, and Stefan didn't. So I have no idea what you think you're referring to.
Alternately, do you believe that a university is not the proper forum for the open discussion of all ideas, no matter how offensive or repugnant those ideas might be to passers-by?
Correct, the university is not the proper form for the open discussion of all ideas. No such (public) forum exists.
I am -- much moreso than most liberals -- interested in open discussion of ideas. But I can think of plenty of examples of ideas that would be inappropriate in pretty much any public place. If you really demand an example, I can come up with one, but it would be inappropriate ...
MOST ideas, sure. ALL, no.
That said, again, Stefan didn't criticize the UW, and neither did I, so I don't know what you're babbling about. The criticism was about the idiocy of the idea expressed, not trying to say it shouldn't be expressed at the UW.
If not, what then is a university for?
Preparing for jobs, mostly. Let's not kid ourselves. If not for the jump in relative salary, there's no way the cost of higher education would be justified for the overwhelming majority of students.
Don't even get me started on what a complete waste of resources our current higher education system is. We give massive federal subsidies to schools so they can jack up tuition and pretend to teach kids how to be more well-rounded and thoughtful when it's really just about doing what you're told so you can get more money upon graduation. It's a giant scam, a camp for older kids that isn't nearly worth the price of admission.
I say this as a college graduate, though, having only a single Bachelor's degree, I have the least formal higher education in my family, between a few M.A.'s, a double-Bachelor's, a teaching credential, and a couple of Ph.D.'s among my family members. I do not dismiss the value of education at all: I dismiss the value of our current higher ed system in providing good educations in reasonable time periods and at reasonable cost.