THIS SHIT HOLE CONTINUES

Here is the map:






Green is complete suffrage.
Light blue is school, bond, or tax suffrage (New England, LA, NM, MI)
Dark blue is primary suffrage (TX, AK)
Yellow is muncipal suffrage.
Orange is presidential suffrage.
Dark red is municipal suffrage in some cities (FL, OH)
Pink is primary suffrage in some cities (GA).
Medium red is NO suffrage (PA, MD, VA, NC, SC)

[B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]
Is this your normal “working” demeanor? To denigrate a person for expressing their opinion (you know, one of those rights that the “right” seems to think only they deserve) which you have incorrectly interpreted?


Is a hooker in a position to chastise someone for any aspect of their lifestyle, especially their moral code, their destiny or anything to do with their livelihood?


Pontificating “providers” must be a conservative thing.

Is a hooker in a position to chastise someone for any aspect of their lifestyle, especially their moral code, their destiny or anything to do with their livelihood?

Do you realize that the entire essence of your rebuttal boils down to "how dare this hooker have an opinion?" Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Yeah, I really want to hear Munchies answer to this one. Do you feel that a hooker should not have an opinion on topics such as we discuss here?
What say you Sir? I would appreciate a straight up answer, without any deflecting bullshit.

[B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]
Is this your normal “working” demeanor? To denigrate a person for expressing their opinion (you know, one of those rights that the “right” seems to think only they deserve) which you have incorrectly interpreted?

Pontificating “providers” must be a conservative thing.

The reason I say that is because if you think exactly the same thing about this post as your wonkette, then I can use exactly the same reply. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Hey, I don't know the wonkette, but have a great amount of respect for her and her opinion, as I do for most posters here. Clearly you do not.

Sins of The Flesh let me ask you one thing. One of the government's efforts to "move" us forward was to give women the right to vote after the women's movement for the right to vote forced the government to act. Are you saying that you think the government should NOT have given in to these "helpless and incompetent" and given women the right to vote. Are you saying you would rather not have the right to vote since that would mean the government "moved" us forward. Is that what you are saying? Originally Posted by BigLouie

ExNyr's answer is about as spot on as it gets.

There is a difference between the slow but steady evolution of our nation to more completely embrace the notion of freedom and equality for all, and the steady expansion OF the role of government, gobbling up more and more of our freedom over time.

It is unfortunate that in our early beginnings, freedom essentially applied only to white males. Fortunately, over time the principles of equality have expanded to include men, women, people of all races, children, and soon, all sexual orientations as well.

The problem with progressives though, is that they have become stuck on the idea that the can solve all of society's problems, whether society wants those problems solved or not.

Consider the case of a grieving CA mother. She inadvertently backed her SUV over her daughter, killing her. This is a terrible tragedy, and I feel truly horrible for her. She now wants Congress to pass legislation that would require SUV manufacturers to include back-up cams standard in all SUV's. The problem though, is that this issue can easily be solved by simple supply and demand. The risk of blindspots in SUV have been known for years. Every SUV would be equipped with a back up cam right this instant if consumers demanded it. Why then, do we need to get the government involved? Why don't people who are shopping for a new SUV just keep voting with their wallet and only buy SUV's that are equipped with a back up cam? The solution is that simple, yet it seems easier to get the gov't to do for us, those things that we are not willing to do ourselves.

This is just one small anecdotal example, but it speaks to the undeserved and blind trust many place in our government as a safety hammock (not safety net, we are evolved far beyond that), and a cure for every ill, a solution for every problem, and the guarantor that no matter how poor your choices are, the gov't will forever be there to save you from yourself.

Progressives were once the party of big ideas, there is no denying that. They have devolved into the party of big boondoggles to pie in the sky ideas.

The automotive industry is about the worst example you can give. They fought tooth and nail against all the safety requirements. Seat belts, air bags, you name it. At one time there was a law that a vehicle had to take a hit at 5 miles per hour and not sustain damages. Great for people and insurance companies but the auto industry got it changed. If it was up to the auto industry there would be no back up cams, no safety features, none of that. All those nice features that save lives are there because the government made the auto industry include them as standard equipment and this includes the passenger side rear view mirror.

Again, that is where consumers come in. The auto industry, like all industries is quite eager to meet the demands of consumers. The problem with SUV's being a danger when backing up has been known for years. As soon as consumers begin demanding safer vehicles to protect their children, manufacturers will respond.

I am fully in favor of providing as much public education as necessary to help consumers be better informed, but we don't need a law to do what consumers themselves can do. The reason we now have Coke "classic" is because when Coke launched "new" Coke, consumers revolted. Coke was smart, listened to the complaints, and gave consumers what they wanted. Not only was it good business, Coke re-invented themselves and coined the "Coke Classic" logo and turned it into a huge merchandising campaign.

I am all for activism, but I believe people can accomplish ten times more on their own than what can be accomplished by running to the government to solve all of their troubles. Want better, safer cars? Demand them. Want greater awareness and tolerance of disabilities, sexual orientation, or other social issues? Live by the standards you believe in, and encourage others to do so. With or without the guiding hand of an overweening government, any and all change is possible, and when it is done by accord rather than force of law, the changes will be deeper and longer lasting.

The automotive industry is about the worst example you can give. They fought tooth and nail against all the safety requirements. Seat belts, air bags, you name it. At one time there was a law that a vehicle had to take a hit at 5 miles per hour and not sustain damages. Great for people and insurance companies but the auto industry got it changed. If it was up to the auto industry there would be no back up cams, no safety features, none of that. All those nice features that save lives are there because the government made the auto industry include them as standard equipment and this includes the passenger side rear view mirror. Originally Posted by BigLouie

You obviously don't believe in capitalism. American cars got much better due to competition from Japan and Germany, not the guiding hand of a benevolent government. Car production and innovation was directed by the government in Russia - how did that work out?

BigLouie,

I also want to clarify some things. In my last post it sounds as if I don't think that gov't has any role to play in issues like product safety or industry oversight. This is not the case. Consumers can't possibly be experts on the safety features or risks of every product they buy, nor can they inspect every factory to ensure that safe guidelines are being followed (think recent contamination of everything from peanut butter to spinach with e. coli).

In many cases, we do need the gov't to look over the shoulder of businesses to ensure safe and fair practices, truth in advertising, etc.

What I"m referring to with the back up cam example is the tendency of people to become overly dependent on the gov't to solve problems. I believe that we've become so accustomed to looking to the gov't to fix things for us, that many of us have forgotten that we are capable of making changes ourselves.

We might need the gov't to tell car manufacturers how to conduct their safety tests because we the consumer will never set foot inside a testing facility. But the lady who is asking the gov't to require back up cams admitted in her interview (I think it was Dateline, I tried to find it last night and couldn't) admitted that she knew about the fact that SUV's have a huge blindspot when backing up. She also knew that some SUV models offered back up cams, but she chose to buy an SUV without a back up cam and paid the price for it.

It is one thing to ask the gov't to regulate practices that we the public may not be aware of. But when it comes to the consumer having the choice between two products, one of which is known to be safer than the other, it is ridiculous to expect the gov't to do for consumers what they are not willing to do for themselves.

Follow up, in my effort to track down the interview with the woman, I did find that new rules will require a back up cam on car models beginning in 2014. The same article states that back up cams are now standard on 45% of new models, and an additional 23% of new models offer it as an option. So, this is actually a good example of consumers demanding and getting the changes they seek, and illustrates what will amount to a mostly pointless law. So to tie this to the original post, who moved what forward here?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/bu...cars-rear.html

Yeah, I really want to hear Munchies answer to this one. Do you feel that a hooker should not have an opinion on topics such as we discuss here?
What say you Sir? I would appreciate a straight up answer, without any deflecting bullshit.





Hey, I don't know the wonkette, but have a great amount of respect for her and her opinion, as I do for most posters here. Clearly you do not. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

A quick answer for now. More when I get back.
Of course she does. She can comment on any subject she wants to. I didn't mean to imply she didn't. That was not my intention. I apologize if she took it that way.
Like I said. More later.

My question is why do you believe it is the government's job to "move" us forward? Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Why do you ask? Of course he does.

He waits for the Government to tell him to take a dump. That's why he's .....

The problem with "voting with your wallet" is that it just doesn't work in practice the vast majority of the time.

Do we approve of corporations using death squads to kill those that would organize for their worker's rights? Coca cola has been using these in Columbia for many years (just Google "coca cola death squad") but it doesn't stop them from raking in profits.

Now that you know of this, will it stop you from buying any Coca Cola products? Not likely.

The problem with the voting with your wallet idea is manyfold:

1) Your individual boycott is unlikely to make any difference in the company's profits and behavior
2) Most people are simply too lazy to carry forth. As soon as doing this is going to be any sort of inconvenience, people just go back to their previous buying habits.
3) Certain commodities, such as gasoline for example, are more than just an inconvenience to boycott. We are simply too dependant upon certain things to choose not to purchase them especially when the impact you're going to have on not doing it is extremely minimal.

The tobacco industry didn't shrink to what it is today from people boycotting the product. Even today, when it's pretty much common knowledge now that cigarettes will kill you, people still continue to buy the product. However, it was through government intervention that we no longer have tobacco companies marketing directly to our kids, etc.

Yeah, I really want to hear Munchies answer to this one. Do you feel that a hooker should not have an opinion on topics such as we discuss here?
What say you Sir? I would appreciate a straight up answer, without any deflecting bullshit.





Hey, I don't know the wonkette, but have a great amount of respect for her and her opinion, as I do for most posters here. Clearly you do not. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

How can I put that in my avatar!

A quick answer for now. More when I get back.
Of course she does. She can comment on any subject she wants to. I didn't mean to imply she didn't. That was not my intention. I apologize if she took it that way.
Like I said. More later. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Take your time and come up with something good. In here we got nothing but time.

Take your time and come up with something good. In here we got nothing but time. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Eternal Hell !

And anti-communism was a left-wing achievement, too, correct? Originally Posted by ExNYer

What makes you think that the McCarthyites and all the Redbaiters achieved anything? They caused us to waste untold billions of dollars on unnecessary military spending and increased the chances of nuclear war (which we fortuitously avoided). Ike, a moderate Republican, had it nailed. The anti-communists and their clients in the military industrial complex were a far bigger danger to our freedom and our way of life than the communists ever could have been.

What makes you think that the McCarthyites and all the Redbaiters achieved anything? They caused us to waste untold billions of dollars on unnecessary military spending and increased the chances of nuclear war (which we fortuitously avoided). Ike, a moderate Republican, had it nailed. The anti-communists and their clients in the military industrial complex were a far bigger danger to our freedom and our way of life than the communists ever could have been. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Nice selective targeting there.

The topic is the accomplishments of right-wing and left-wing. Anti-communism isn't limited to McCarthyites and "Redbaiters", whatever that is. It was a world wide movement that had many adherents who were far more rational than McCarthy. You ignore the William F. Buckleys of the world and point to the McCarthys to make it look like anti-communism was disreputable. Why am I not surprised?

Ike warned against the influence of the military-industrial complex, but he never said it was a bigger threat to our freedom than communism. And "wasted billions" on "unnecessary military spending" is a great example of 20/20 hindsight, now that communism is (mostly) gone from the world stage and we are all nice and (mostly) safe.

I happen to think it was money well spent. Had we NOT actively opposed communism, who knows how many countries would have fallen under totalitarian regimes?

The original pinkos are dead and gone and the primary instrument of communist aggression - the Soviet Union - is in the dustbin. Nonetheless, we are STILL faced with the consequences of their actions. The assholes.

Putting aside Chine and Cuba, "dictatorship of the proletariat" is responsible for a gangster dynasty of nut jobs controlling nuclear weapons in North Korea. That is what happens when you set up a totalitarian state. And totalitarians don't regard national boundaries as stopping points.

If we hadn't opposed communist aggression, how many more client states would Russia have developed? All of Europe? Most of Asia? Half for south and central America?

Ceausescu in Romania and whoever the fuck ran Albania were also cult-of-personality leaders, like Kim Il-Sung and his moronic son and grandson. They never got their hands on nukes, but what if they had? Would we be getting threats from Romania and Albania as well?

The US and SK must deal with the threat of nuclear attack from North Korea, which views anything and everything that we do as a potential attack even as it starves and abuses its 24M slave-citizens.

But, anti-communism is overrated in left-wing circles, isn't it? Because communism wouldn't have been that bad, if only the right people had been in charge, right?